"The issue I have with the content of many CTs at the moment is that they purport to Earthly happenings while having no supporting evidence."
Are you unaware of the long list of conspiracy theories that became fact as time went on?
"But really, without agreeing on the base semantics there is no hope of understanding."
That's the difference between what I do and what you are doing. You are writing and talking, and using wikipedia articles about subjects that other people tell you about and you believe them, sight unseen.
I test systems, hypothesis, by gathering data and comparing them to other data and methods, both scientific and otherwise.
There is a huge gap between your way of doing things and my way of doing things, and it is not "semantics".
A very simple example is Ohms' Law. V=IR
It is a very simple 3 variable equation or statement that V will always equal I times R. The experiment to test this produces reproducible results, although there is also other circuits that do not give those results because it is not direct current circuits. So this data did not falsify nor did it disprove Ohms' Law.
What popular science does is to take this equation, and accept only the data that confirms it and throws out data that does not confirm it as an outlier or mistake. Because of the repetition method.
This repetition method is not based on what people at wikipedia wrote in an article.
It's based on collecting the raw data.
Your view of science is the popular, modern, degenerated version. My utilization of science conforms to the classical breakthroughs people made via collecting raw data, not confirming their pet theories or biases.
As such, your chances of accomplishing a timeline in which scientists accept/reform that they are wrong by adopting your mainstream degenerated views of evidence based logic and hypothesis testing, is very low. Change happens from within, it is an internal process. Those who have not or cannot undergo this process, can in no way radiate a signal to change the shard universes of others.
In other words, if you can't do what scientists do, their chances of listening to you begins to approach zero.
"Ohm's law was probably the most important of the early quantitative descriptions of the physics of electricity. We consider it almost obvious today. When Ohm first published his work, this was not the case; critics reacted to his treatment of the subject with hostility. They called his work a "web of naked fancies"[10] and the German Minister of Education proclaimed that "a professor who preached such heresies was unworthy to teach science."[11] The prevailing scientific philosophy in Germany at the time asserted that experiments need not be performed to develop an understanding of nature because nature is so well ordered, and that scientific truths may be deduced through reasoning alone.[12] Also, Ohm's brother Martin, a mathematician, was battling the German educational system. These factors hindered the acceptance of Ohm's work, and his work did not become widely accepted until the 1840s. However, Ohm received recognition for his contributions to science well before he died."
In other words, almost all the scientific breakthroughs and foundational theories, were met with intense resistance and even hostility. Which is not put in Rockefeller's textbooks that we all read in school. It was not accomplished, as a historical fact, by making the majority adopt the mainstream views of scientific religious consensus. It required the Old Guard to either die off or get replaced/thrown off the stage, by new upstarts like Ohms.
Hence the Lightning/Tower falling in 2020 and 2021. That is what is required to make the mainstream consensus rethink things. It is not conformity to the mainstream that will change the majority view. It is a shock. This is not a hard logic to consider. What you cannot prove to be true, you also cannot disprove to be true.
I don't need to read a wikipedia link on falsification. I was using this concept before wikipedia existed. Also, just so you know, WIKIPEDIA is not a consensus or even minority viewpoint, of what the majority of scientists do or believe. Nor does it even matter what the majority of scientists do or believe, because historically they have always been wrong. Approaches 100% as time goes on. WIKIPEDI is the POPular viewpoint usually.
Are you unaware of the long list of conspiracy theories that became fact as time went on?
"But really, without agreeing on the base semantics there is no hope of understanding."
That's the difference between what I do and what you are doing. You are writing and talking, and using wikipedia articles about subjects that other people tell you about and you believe them, sight unseen.
I test systems, hypothesis, by gathering data and comparing them to other data and methods, both scientific and otherwise.
There is a huge gap between your way of doing things and my way of doing things, and it is not "semantics".
A very simple example is Ohms' Law. V=IR
It is a very simple 3 variable equation or statement that V will always equal I times R. The experiment to test this produces reproducible results, although there is also other circuits that do not give those results because it is not direct current circuits. So this data did not falsify nor did it disprove Ohms' Law.
What popular science does is to take this equation, and accept only the data that confirms it and throws out data that does not confirm it as an outlier or mistake. Because of the repetition method.
This repetition method is not based on what people at wikipedia wrote in an article.
It's based on collecting the raw data.
Your view of science is the popular, modern, degenerated version. My utilization of science conforms to the classical breakthroughs people made via collecting raw data, not confirming their pet theories or biases.
As such, your chances of accomplishing a timeline in which scientists accept/reform that they are wrong by adopting your mainstream degenerated views of evidence based logic and hypothesis testing, is very low. Change happens from within, it is an internal process. Those who have not or cannot undergo this process, can in no way radiate a signal to change the shard universes of others.
In other words, if you can't do what scientists do, their chances of listening to you begins to approach zero.
"Ohm's law was probably the most important of the early quantitative descriptions of the physics of electricity. We consider it almost obvious today. When Ohm first published his work, this was not the case; critics reacted to his treatment of the subject with hostility. They called his work a "web of naked fancies"[10] and the German Minister of Education proclaimed that "a professor who preached such heresies was unworthy to teach science."[11] The prevailing scientific philosophy in Germany at the time asserted that experiments need not be performed to develop an understanding of nature because nature is so well ordered, and that scientific truths may be deduced through reasoning alone.[12] Also, Ohm's brother Martin, a mathematician, was battling the German educational system. These factors hindered the acceptance of Ohm's work, and his work did not become widely accepted until the 1840s. However, Ohm received recognition for his contributions to science well before he died."
In other words, almost all the scientific breakthroughs and foundational theories, were met with intense resistance and even hostility. Which is not put in Rockefeller's textbooks that we all read in school. It was not accomplished, as a historical fact, by making the majority adopt the mainstream views of scientific religious consensus. It required the Old Guard to either die off or get replaced/thrown off the stage, by new upstarts like Ohms.
Hence the Lightning/Tower falling in 2020 and 2021. That is what is required to make the mainstream consensus rethink things. It is not conformity to the mainstream that will change the majority view. It is a shock. This is not a hard logic to consider. What you cannot prove to be true, you also cannot disprove to be true.
I don't need to read a wikipedia link on falsification. I was using this concept before wikipedia existed. Also, just so you know, WIKIPEDIA is not a consensus or even minority viewpoint, of what the majority of scientists do or believe. Nor does it even matter what the majority of scientists do or believe, because historically they have always been wrong. Approaches 100% as time goes on. WIKIPEDI is the POPular viewpoint usually.