Wikipedia is the least credible source for anything.

Thank you for stating this. I second that. Why do they need so many donations if they are the top search result for everything? Also there is a considerable bias against certain kinds of information being allowed. Ministry of truth.

It is the special Ministry for Misinformation and Propaganda, along with answers.com, yahoo answered and other shitty sites packed full of lies and history rewriting.

Good catch. Wikipedia = The ministry of truth indeed. George Orwell knew.

Just learn how to read between the lies

Have an alternative website that sources most everything?

Being listed as a source on a wikipedia post isn't an indication any information from that source was used in the article, but then you have to check a few before it becomes obvious, they are just for show.

Alternative?

Phantom time seems to be a imaginary idea, there are probably not any fact based sources.

The Wikipedia article doesn't claim that phantom time is a good theory.

Only idiots don't know how to cite wikipedia.

The numbers are citations from articles, if citation is missing, or no number, ignore that shit, if you find information you like, go to the source, read the source, and submit the source as your source.

An example:

"however several nonsteroidal androgens show a ratio of anabolic to androgenic effects of greater than 3:1 and up to as much as 90:1 (RAD-140), compared to testosterone, which has a ratio of 1:1"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_androgen_receptor_modulator

Third reference (the little three): https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/26/11/26_11_1563/_article

And pressing ctrl + F and search for RAD (match case), go to that link:

Here

look up the new chronology. it is russian.

r/newchronology

Here's the new chronology, same as the old chronology.

Problem?

Both the establishment/official history, and 'new chronology', are based on completely unfounded claims about ancient history.

There are no primary sources for characters like Plato and Herodotus. NONE.

Want to know more? PM me.

Why a Pm? Just curious

I was banned by a mod for posting links to a certain YouTuber so now I am more careful how I share information on particular topics.

Oh ok I was just wondering. This sub has been very combative lately and I am not sure if it is just an organic fast progression or the soldiers from "two parties" fogging up the glass.

FYI, this dude constantly promotes his own YouTube channel, which only exists to promote his paid content. That's why he was banned. Mods have been ban-happy lately (I got caught up in it too, thankfully it was reversed in appeal) but this was a totally valid call. You'll note how often he begs people to pm him, just so he can keep directing traffic to his paid content.

r/culturallayer

It bothers me so much that hypothesis and theory have become interchangeable. Like Dawkins once said "we may need a new word."

It bothers me so much

Why?

If we are not using words with the same definitions it creates communication issues.

Idiots like Steve Harvey go "It's only a theory" without even knowing what the word means in science.

If we are talking science let's use the term properly. Deal?

Are we talking science the belief system or 'science' the scientific method?

Ugh. The scientific process. Everyone I hear some cry sceintism it is a flat earth proponent. They want to evade learning math is what I put it down to.

The scientific process

Cool, so how many empirical observations have you made to confirm that the earth is spinning?

Not one of these again.

Circular logic does not become you.

Learn math and you will be able to "see" how this all works.

But I guess math is a lie in your version of reality too.

Just be honest and say 'none'; you have made zero empirical observations for yourself.

So by 'science' you mean the belief system. You have faith in your authorities.

Such a sad response. Atypical of even some minor college education. Seriously.

All cutting edge stuff comes down to math. From a chair design to quantum physics everything can be explained with math... well the vast bulk at least.

Orbital dynamics is a branch of science. The math checks out.

Do you know what a chain is to a surveyor? When humans started taxation around 500 years ago they needed precise measurements of the world. Triangulation. 66' at a time. They mapped and measured every inch. Extrapolated (again with the math... sorry) areas impossible to reach.

When this data got to a massive scale errors appeared. The heights of mountains were off to the readings, when they crunched the numbers.

Well, looks and behold. The issue was with Euclidian geometry. Once spherical algebra was incorporated the error dissappeared.

And the size of that sphere?

Only a few percent off of what Eratosthenes calculated 2200 years ago with two angles and one length.

This was a little history lesson a physics prof told.

We then replicated the math with the same data. Data available to us all.

Can you replicate Eratosthenes equation?

To deny basic human understanding of our known universe is to be wilful ignorant. Math, science and history.

Oh and ask your buddies at the nest meeting to lay off the silly bit about water not flying off the spinning world.

The Earth would need to spin at least 17 times faster in order to overcome gravity.

But it would bust apart before that in this scenario.

Another issue the "fake universe" camp has is the failure to grasp how really really big it all is. This webpage gives some perspective.

Such a sad response. Atypical of even some minor college education. Seriously.

Responding to tone, followed by ad hominem, followed by one-word expression of frustration.

Science yes!

u/step2thejep is not acting in good faith and would probably benefit from any education.

He makes these youtube videos that are convoluted but utterly lack substance. He then goes on reddit and concern trolls, then directs you to his website where almost all of the content is behind the wall and he encourages you to spend $20+/ mo for his wisdom.

He only shills his own videos. Its not clear what he actually believes and in his videos he makes fun of "normies", and "conspiritards" (people on this sub per his definition) alike. He even has a video about why conspiracy theorists hate him. He is condescending and trollish when he argues. He uses arguments to inject non sequitor videos he made. He does this because he tried to post directly and failed.

So far as I can tell, and all his positions might be to make money so its not clear what he does believe, but anyways, his positions:

• Flat earth (he says isnt a flat earther but does not believe the earth to be round or rotating on its axis or orbiting the sun)
• Atoms don't exist
• Dinosaurs never existed
• Tesla and the ancient greeks, or any history is fake
• No one died on 9/11
• Missiles are incapable of level flight (he bases this in some really badly misapplied Newtonian physics and if vectored thrust, control surfaces, or vanes are brought up he ignores the argument, call it all fake theories. If you send him videos he call them fake. But his own proof is some bad sketches in mspaint and misunderstanding a nasa diagram).
• The planets don't exist, we don't know what they are made of
• We don't know what earth mass is
• Nuclear bombs don't exist etc...

He is kind of a dick, so he doesn't even effectively shill for his site because he gets carried away.

Pretty sure he is the usual loser, with just enough education to know about some scientific concepts but he cannot understand them and lacks the imagination to recognize that their are things that exist that are beyond his comprehension. As you would imagine he is a rasta hat wearing white dude in australia, requisite red piller, and general troll, who is condescending and infuriating to argue with because he demands impossible proof, while himself basing arguments on nothing or the misapplication of basic principles.

Don't waste your time arguing, he is not acting in good faith and will move goal posts or hand wave away any science based explanation.

The Earth spins approximately 1,000 mph at the Equator, while orbiting the Sun at 66,000 mph. The Sun is also orbiting the centre of the galaxy at a whopping 560,000 mph. We have no idea how fast the galaxy itself is travelling but we do know that it is in relation to all the other galaxies.

So with each and every passing second we are hundreds of miles away from where we were only a second ago in "the real space" of the Universe. Stretched-out, and constantly being stretched-out if you will across the real space of the Universe.

Clearly what we think of as being "normal" or "local" space is anything but normal or local. That's if you believe those so-called scientific facts and then consider not what they are, but what they mean.

You were doing so well there for a bit.

Care to elaborate on that comment?

Velocity is what the earth has. Speed is velocity in relation to another object. So to speak

Space is really really big. There is very little stuff in it.

If there was an object actually still, zero movement, and we came across it, it would appear to be going very fast to us.

We are on a chunk of debris hurtling through the void, spinning along with our related rubble.

Good thing one chunk had enough mass and hydrogen to light up and give us somewhere to live.

Just like riding on a bus going 60 mph down the highway you don't feel a thing. And a fly can move about with very little duress.

How fast would that bus need to go to pin the fly to the rear wall?

Trick question!

It is a change in velocity which would do that, not total velocity.

There is formulas that express all this. There is not, however, any math that fits the "we ain't moving" notion.

There are in fact no less than three repeatable scientific experiments that demonstrably prove that the Earth isn't moving and absolutely none that can prove that it is.

The Michaelson-Morley experiment, Airy's Experiment, somethimes called Airy's "failure" and Sagnac's experiment that proved the existence of "the ether" or invisible and ever present energetic body of the Universe. You can look those up on You-Tube right along with all the evidence, and mathematical evidence at that which supports the Geocentric model with a stationary and unmoving Earth at the centre of the Universe.

I know all about the non repeated experiments of two non scientists in the 1800

Goofy thing to base your life in the 21st century on.

Buy a telescope. You can look at planets with your own eyes.

Learn math. You can calculate where they will be in a week. A month. A year.

This is what proves it to the sane educated crowd.

Not a guy on a boat with a flag in the 1800.

Oh sorry that was the go to experiment for a flat earth. Get them mixed up sometimes.

Seriously. You can watch Jupiter rotate. See moons go around it.

Go to an observatory

We have measured everything we can see. They move... spinning and zooming. Woah dude it a ball.

Now. Give me the equation for how we all are stuck here on this immovable flat plane.

One shred of math to support your inane fantasy. One.

Sir George Biddell Airy KCB PRS (/ˈɛəri/; 27 July 1801 – 2 January 1892) was an English mathematician and astronomer, Astronomer Royal from 1835 to 1881. His many achievements include work on planetary orbits, measuring the mean density of the Earth, a method of solution of two-dimensional problems in solid mechanics and, in his role as Astronomer Royal, establishing Greenwich as the location of the prime meridian. His reputation has been tarnished by allegations that, through his inaction, Britain lost the opportunity of priority in the discovery of Neptune.

Georges Sagnac (14 October 1869 – 26 February 1928) was a French physicist who lent his name to the Sagnac effect, a phenomenon which is at the basis of interferometers and ring laser gyroscopes developed since the 1970s.

Albert Abraham Michelson FFRS HFRSE (December 19, 1852 – May 9, 1931) was an American physicist known for his work on measuring the speed of light and especially for the Michelson–Morley experiment. In 1907 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics, becoming the first American to win the Nobel Prize in science.

Edward W. Morley. ... Edward Williams Morley (January 29, 1838 – February 24, 1923) was an American scientist famous for his extremely precise and accurate measurement of the atomic weight of oxygen, and for the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Apparently you not only know nothing about the work of any those eminent scientists, physicists, astronomers and mathematicians, and what they actually and demonstrably proved while not intending to, it seems you're determined to stay ignorant and keep your head in the sand about that.

No. Just because you can do x doesn't mean that your stance on y is correct.

The speed of light. That would have to be wrong in many proponents views.

And if there was ether it is off as well.

Doing experiments with open vats of mercury may explain their issue.

Yes well you just go right on telling yourself that and talking through your hat.

And by the by, Einstein's notorious "E= MC squared", merely took the standard "e=mv squared" from Newtonian mechanics that he put in absolute terms by imagining and insisting that nothing can exceed the velocity of light or "C" in order to make it an absolute and general proposition.

It's a well established precept in quantum mechanics that once particles have been "entangled" they are instantaneously aware of each other's state, even if they are separated on opposite sides of the Universe. In short "the information" concerning the state of a twin travels faster than the speed of light and that can be demonstrated.

Ugh. I bet you think Tesla was the greatest mind ever as well.

In our modern times and in terms of his work directly benefitting mankind he's certainly one. The greatest mind ever? I think I'd save that particular distinction for the Great Archimedes, who despite his remarkable ability in math always insisted on geometrical proofs as well to give a visual representation to the realm of pure numbers that he placed an even greater value and importance on.

There is lots we don't know. This doesn't make the things we do know up for debate.

There is nothing that we know that doesn't rely on making some primary assumptions and arriving at certain facts within a context that they appeared to be true in, or for.

When those assumptions or that context is wrong or poorly thought out, so are any of the facts we conclude from them.

For over two-hundred years no one in science was allowed to question Newton's primary assumption of an abject and completely material world and universe or that all energy is simply a property of matter until quantum physics came along to accidentally and unequivocally disprove both of those as well as any so called "truths" derived in light of those errors.

All matter is simply an "expression" of perpetually and freely moving little energies at a quantum level and outside of time as we understand and experience it.

It's their ongoing movements through recognisable patterns and multiple layers of them that gives rise to and substantiates the entire three dimensional experience we are having. They are "the cause" and all physicality is "the effect".

As an analogy,your experience of seeing the not so real "real" letters and words of mine on your screen is due to the energies that instantaneously created them for you when you desired to access and experience it from the "information" stored about it.

That "information" has no substance of it's own, It is nothing but a set of instructions to generate the sequence of patterns that you recognise and have been responding to, yet they are neither "real" in any true sense nor possible without those pulses of energy to substantiate them in this two dimensional medium.

Your three dimensional experience is constantly being created in virtually the same way by energies that exist outside of it as this two dimensional representation is being created by energies from outside of it. Once you understand and begin to fathom that the true nature of everything, and I do mean everything, including what is or isn't possible, is all up for review and subject to re-interpretation due to that new paradigm.

I guess you missed my point.

One is allowed to say whatever their little hearts desire. The point being it is worthless without some proof. And for many things people pooh pooh they simple spew some shit and figure it's done.

For example; if you doubted the Krebs cycle you would need to bring a fair amount if science to back your claim. It is a well known process.

Discovered in the 1930s and well difined, by Krebs in the 50s. (Got him the Nobel prize!)

Some flaky YouTube heros like Dubay make weak claims backed by spurious science and get fools to follow them down a path of ignorance. Without a shred of actual proof.

There is a guy in here with a similar pattern claiming the worlds population is not what we are led to believe. Now this claim needs some reasoning or evidence to support such a fantasy. But all I get is "have you counted them"

Obvious troll is obvious

As for your extra dimensionality... that could keep going. For ever. Every new dimension will have another unseen one. Kind of moot at this point in our existence as it is just a hypothesis.

Anyway back to my original point. The motion of the world is well known.

Bring something to the table that actually says otherwise... or its a waste of your time.

Yes, well Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and Bob Dylan got one for Literature just to put that into a more, shall we say, "realistic"perspective.

Those "prizes", incidentally, are actually monetary in nature and come from a fund that Alfred Nobel created from the fabulous profits he made from discovering dynamite and selling countless tons of it to revolutionize the destructiveness and viciousness of waging war.

Now that extra-dimensionality you choose to disregard is what quantum and modern physics is all about and it certainly isn't "hypothetical" but actually real enough to validate and use in much of todays advanced technology that was and still would be impossible without that new and dramatically different understanding that you would have considered and apparently still consider to be "a waste of time".

Valid enough to consign 17th century Newtonian physics to the history books. Not that any useful or practical methods for practical purposes derived from it won't still be taught for those, merely that the "hypothesis" that they were based on and that was "believed to be true", simply isn't the case.

What is actually a waste of time is defending any status-quo and taking the position that it is somehow a waste of anyone's time to revisit or ever question it or it's historical origins.

It is always useful and important to re-check and re-think any scientific information that we can't personally validate that's being presented to us as being "the truth" about anything through our own most direct experience and observations.

Probably. In scienceman's terms theory is something that has been rigorously tested. Of course you can't be sure, but until someone comes along to disprove you, the most practical thing to do is treat it like fact.

In layman's terms, "hypothesis" and "theory" are preface words used to prevent getting laughed at when presenting an idea about something. Something that the person you're talking to is unlikely to accept is a theory, something that the other person is very unlikely to accept is a hypothesis, and something that you expect the other person to think sounds plausible you don't need those words for, you can just preface with "I think that...". "I wonder if..." would be between "theory" and "I think that".

For example, as a layman I might say to another layman, "I have a hypothesis about time-travel telecommunications", "I have a theory that there were actually three shooters on the grassy knoll when JFK was shot", "I wonder if there actually was a missile heading for Hawaii, but it got shot down?" and "I think that Comcast wants to get rid of Net Neutrality so they can rip people off."

Those preface words are important so that you can present an idea to someone and they can consider it without feeling the need to immediately tell you how wrong you are. It lets the other person know, "Yes, I realize that this is not a currently accepted truth and why it wouldn't be. Regardless, this is an idea I'd like to investigate and see what the evidence might be for it. You don't have to prove to me that there's not any by laughing at me and ignoring what I have to say."

It's a very efficient shorthand!

This is why I like the conspiracy subreddit. I do want to explore ideas that aren't necessarily accepted facts and see what evidence there might be for them, I just don't want them lumped in the same bin as my news items where I expect the research to have already been completed and the evidence to be sufficient to say, "This is worth treating as fact until proven otherwise."

But yeah, scientific theory might need a new name. But how do you encapsulate everything that's implied by that phrase into something just as short but more intuitively obvious? I'm not sure if you can, we might just have to keep teaching the meaning of it in school. But if you're worried that someone might not hear about it in school, then stick the explanation of what it is and how it compares to a layman's theory in as an entertaining line of dialog that appeals both to science newbs and science nerds in a movie somewhere. Then whenever someone on the internet gets frustrated with someone saying, "It's just a theory!" they can link the other person to that 30 second clip from the movie, feel smugly superior at "having told" the other person (without actually having written anything inflammatory), and educate someone at the same time.

A theories are tested and verified hypotheses.

Even in philosophy a theory is a premise that has been fleshed out.

Most of the time people say theory they mean "whacky notion"

In science a theory can be stronger than a law!

I was hoping the sun thing would keep going until they'd performed enough experiments to make it into a theory, being as that would be something anyone could try for themselves. If they include the peer-review part, they could play scientific method with their friends.

Then again, the average viewer would probably get bored if they stuck just to the sun bit. Maybe they could make it a separate video, advertise it as a way for parents to actively teach science to their kids by going outside with them?

I think "rigorously tested hypothesis" and "whacky notion" are both good meanings for theory. Just like "a system that responds to requests across a computer network to provide, or help to provide, a network or data service" and "waiter or waitress in a restaurant" are both good meanings for server.

Scientists have every reason to preserve their meaning of the word theory. It's their way of saying, "This is stuff engineers and so forth can trust and use to make things that don't fall apart and kill us all." If a scientist attempts to publish a paper in a scientific journal that talks about "The theory of why sloths are faster than cheetahs" and has done no research or provided no evidence, they could easily lose their career. If a scientist tries to call something a "scientific theory" without the support of their peers, they're out of the game. The fact that scientists misusing the word "theory" in a scientific context could destroy their livelihood is what gives me faith that the phrase "scientific theory" has any meaning or basis in fact.

As a layman, I have every reason to preserve my meaning of the word theory. I'm just trying to have a conversation with someone about an idea I have. I will use whatever word creates the correct emotional response in the person I'm talking to before presenting my idea so that it will be considered in the correct light.

The thing about theories is, I don't think there's any issue with laymen using the word one way, and scientists using it another. People have their own agendas and will lie about anything if it serves their interests (politicians, anyone?). So the question someone has to ask when hearing the word "theory" as to whether the word has any meaning is, "Who's saying it? A scientist with their career on the line, or someone who has nothing to lose if they get caught lying their ass off?" If the average reader can't make that distinction, then "scientific theory" will lose it's meaning no matter how many times people try to hammer home that "You can't use that word unless something has been rigorously tested and peer reviewed."

It's just the word got misused and accepted. It was not always required to say scientific theory.

When people say theoretically they mean hypothetically.

It also bugs me when someone doesn't know the difference between than and then, for what that's worth.

.

I'm not sure what the etymology of theory is and whether scientists or laymen used it first. I tried doing a quick search, but the information I found didn't seem to specifically answer that question. I did find out that the word is hundreds of years old, though.

If something's very controversial and I don't want to imply in any way that I'm seriously suggesting it, I would always use hypothetically. "Hypothetically, if I were to stuff your cat's severed head in the mailbox..." Teachers using "hypothetically" in classrooms to describe scenarios no one has any attachment to is likely why I feel it produces the correct emotional tone/implied detachment to a scenario I want to describe.

Not sure about the rest of the time and whether I use hypothetically and theoretically interchangeably, or if I have a specific preference for which word to use depending on the topic.

Misuse of then/than bugs me quite a bit, too.

Well, if we are talking science, we should not use theory erroneously.

You can keep it for the book club and fan fiction.

I swear I will lose my shit one day over someone saying gravity is just a theory.

Like flat earth for a fun example. It is not a theory. We are talking geology, astrophysics and regular physics, as well.

There is no math showing their silly close sun hovering under a massive dome. There is plenty for the "normie" version.

There is more on this by the Russian scholar Formenko who has produced an extensive work called the New Chronology.

Formenko found all kinds of unusual overlapping and identical situations such as the fact that while there is no other historical documentation for any of the Kings of Israel besides the Bible, Formenko found that the history and timing of the Egyptian Pharoahs perfectly aligned with the timeframes ascribed to those kings. He also believes that applies to other dynasties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN3S8ncDehY

There's also the work of British historian Alan Wilson who claims that the ancient history of Britain has been completely ignored and covered-up if you're looking for other historical anomalies and quaetionable aspects to the history that is "officially" taught. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GOcttn4VwE

Formenko found that the history and timing of the Egyptian Pharoahs

Did he provide any primary sources for his claims about 'ancient Egypt'?

I am willing to bet that he did not.

This explains Formenko's methodology and gives some examples. He claims to have found at least a dozen phantom dynasties and false histories.

It's either that or history really does repeat itself in an identical fashion in other places at other times with certain dynastic families but the odds against that are 100 million to 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPLWZTeAYkk

I am telling you that primary sources for 'ancient history' do not go back more than 300 years.

The first know form of writing was the Sumerian cuneiform that consisted of wedge-shaped indentations in wet clay that originated about 3200 BC and was in use until approximately 100 AD. Thousands of such tablets have survived, been recovered, and translated.

What was inscribed on those tablets over a period of more than 3,000 years describes some the kings of Sumer/Babylon, the laws that existed, tracts on medicine, religion, wars won and lost, private letters and even cooking recipes.

How could you not consider those to be "primary sources" of the ancient history of those times?

When were these ancient texts 'discovered'?

Look into it and you will find it was in the last 200 years.

Funny that.

History is a hoax, plain and simple. I can prove it.

Want to know more? PM me.

Forget the re-discovered ones. That was simply a lucky find, but others, however, have always existed, been known, preserved and passed along from that time to this, even if the knowledge of how to read them didn't persist after it was supplanted by other and more evolved languages and materials to record them on.

Some of those clay tablets spread that language and method of writing to other places like Egypt and lead to many of those other written languages that followed most of which have suffered the same fate but still leaving fragments and remnants to attest to their prior existence. You cannot simply dismiss those any more than you can dismiss the ancient Roman frescoes and notations on them that were preserved under the ashes of Vesuvius at Pompeii and Herculaneum or the Rosetta Stone and other stele that recorded some of Ptolemy the 5th's major decrees for one and all for all time.

History, (and virtually all of it contains stories of battles, conquests, heroic leaders and mighty empires), is indeed mainly written by the victors, loaded with cultural bias and self aggrandising claims that are loaded with all kinds of fabrications and distortions.

So I will gladly grant you that much of it isn't true, or didn't take place in the way it was recorded nor even in the times it was recorded.

The same thing, of course, can be said about many of the stories in our daily newspapers, books, and magazines, none of which are considered to be "fiction" or "fictitious" that all happen to suffer from the very same problem, and somewhere in the future they will be regarded as a fairly accurate history and re-telling of our times with no way to tell what the real truth may ever have been about those, either.

So there is always plenty of room for doubt and plenty of reasons to doubt. We wouldn't be on this forum if there weren't stories out there purporting to be an accurate record of our own current events that we here have serious doubts about and even conflicting evidence and information about them isn't recognised and may never be recognised allowing for exactly the same kind of untruths and distortions being passed along to future generations about our own history.

On the flip-side the works of fiction that we most revere and that continue to stand the test of time all contain significant and important truths that have remained relevant throughout.

others, however, have always existed

On what do you base this claim?

Ancient, unidentified, and curious remnants of the same kind of clay tablets that were found elsewhere. Pieces of the linguistic and literary puzzle that started to fall into place when Sumer was recognised as being the source of an entire collection of enough to decipher them.

Just as all modern languages despite all their differences and incompatibility with one another all share roots with the ancient Latin and Greek languages, so too was the case in antiquity.

Ancient, unidentified, and curious remnants of the same kind of clay tablets that were found elsewhere.

Where?

This from Wikipedia...

"In the Ancient Near East, clay tablets (in Akkadian called 'ṭuppu'), were used as a writing medium, especially for writing in cuneiform, throughout the Bronze Age and well into the Iron Age. Cuneiform characters were imprinted on a wet clay tablet with a stylus often made of reed (reed pen). Once written upon, many tablets were dried in the sun or air, remaining fragile. Later, these unfired clay tablets could be soaked in water and recycled into new clean tablets. Other tablets, once written, were fired in hot kilns (or inadvertently, when buildings were burnt down by accident or during conflict) making them hard and durable.

Collections of these clay documents made up the very first archives. They were at the root of the very first libraries. Tens of thousands of written tablets, including many fragments, have been found throughout the Middle East."

Those are claims, but are the claims backed by evidence?

Yes, and it may interest you to know that there were no differences, nor any advantages to be had between Tycho Brahe's altogether accurate calculations based on his own geocentric model and Kepler's adaptation of them to suit Copernicus' heliocentric one besides having to postulate that planetary orbits must on that account be elliptical with no other reason at all why they should be beyond that.

All of the astronomic and celestial calculations from either model remains exactly the same. The only difference is which of the two theories concerning them you prefer to subscribe to and which one has any experimental results that might count more in it's favour.

As I have said before and will say again, the geocentric model has numerous and repeatable ones that do while the heliocentric theory has none at all despite all the concerted efforts to try and arrive at one. And as I will re-iterate, one last time, "Special Relativity" and the "Lorenz Contractions" were specifically concocted and created to explain those results away and preserve Copernicus' model. An indisputable fact that Einstein and Lorenz both finally admitted.

step2thejep is not acting in good faith. He wants you to PM him because the mods told him to stop posting his own blog entries and videos. He tried to post them as posts, but got no upvotes, then he tried to inject them into arguments on the subreddit, now he wants you to PM him.

He makes these youtube videos that are convoluted but utterly lack substance. He then goes on reddit and concern trolls, then directs you to his website where almost all of the content is behind the wall and he encourages you to spend $20+/ mo for his wisdom.

He exclusively, or 99% shills his own videos, claims he has never been proven wrong, labels himself as the internet's leading skeptic, and insults and condescends to anyone who disagrees with him.

He states he only trusts primary sources but does not really understand what primary sources are. It seems primary for him is any source he agrees with or thinks he understands. Artifacts, fossils, modern dating techniques, science etc are things that he dismisses outright... largely because he lack the knowledge to interpret or understand their content. He thinks he is an expert in all things, largely because anything he doesn't understand he calls a hoax.

So far as I can tell, and all his positions might be to make money so its not clear what he does believe, but anyways, his positions:

• Flat earth (he says isnt a flat earther but does not believe the earth to be round or rotating on its axis or orbiting the sun)
• Atoms don't exist
• Dinosaurs never existed
• Tesla and the ancient greeks, or any history is fake
• No one died on 9/11
• Missiles are incapable of level flight (he bases this in some really badly misapplied Newtonian physics and if vectored thrust, control surfaces, or vanes are brought up he ignores the argument, call it all fake theories. If you send him videos he call them fake. But his own proof is some bad sketches in mspaint and misunderstanding a nasa diagram).
• The planets don't exist, we don't know what they are made of
• We don't know what earth mass is
• Nuclear bombs don't exist etc...

He is kind of a dick, so he doesn't even effectively shill for his site because he gets carried away.

Don't waste your time arguing, he is not acting in good faith and will move goal posts or hand wave away any science based explanation.

Thanks for the heads up, but even if the answers are too big for the question being asked, they still deserve to be stated and recognised for their own worth.

The phrase "Phantom Time" made me think it was a scientific hypothesis about non-real periods of time.

The Wikipedia link, however, presents a story of someone forging documents and such to convince people that things happened in a different year than they actually did. It's about people re-writing history books, not spooky stuff.

Eh. It sounds entirely plausible. There wasn't as much written material back then so there wouldn't be a lot that needed forging. Wouldn't be many people with calendars on their walls and dated diaries that would be able to definitively contradict the false information. Also, what year it is is a social construct. If you're not living in a time where it would be embarrassing to not "know" what year it is, you'd be more likely to accept someone telling you that it's actually a different year than you thought it was, as fact, without too much resistance.