It seems like you are more interested in pushing a narrative then being correct

There is nothing wrong with not being able to create a unified theory of everything in your early twenties

This isn't a unified theory of everything

Science isn’t about proving yourself right, it’s about trying proving your hypothesis wrong.

If you assume everyone that disagrees are idiots you become one of the very very many physics crackpots

This is accepted that GR is wrong and adopting an alterior model discarding it is superior

That send out emails to the "dumb" physicists..etc..

Again, you're all misunderstanding what I'm actually doing here

Your ideas are on the same level of grandness as that

Sure, but globe earth is a globe also because when you go higher in altitude, you see further.
It's also a globe because a localized sun would never work.
It's also a globe because flat distances don't add up.
It's also a globe because things end up hidden behind the horizon.
There are many reasons why the earth is a globe. Sure, one of them is gravity. And since gravity pretty much makes everything work, it's the most important one. But seasons are not related to gravity.

This entire conservation has strayed far enough from debating so I suggest it should be ceased before we completely deviate from the topic of this channel.

Sure

I have one other argument btw if you want to hear it

@Akhanyatin FE has explanations for most if not all, some of them can be even viable. Others not so much. Eitherway I can address these points later on.

Yeah maybe a break is in order

@97 Eleven sure, one last thing though, the answers FE has, are usually ok individually but contradict each other if you put them all together.

And yeah, I know GE is supported by more than gravity but for a FE to completely clear the most fundamental issue in physics is definetly a point in it's direction, which I'm focusing on as of now.

@Akhanyatin yes, of course there is no universal model

FES is usually considered control opposite, some people believe in an aether, so obviously a consensus is not available

Have you looked into how well a spinning sphere predicts all the data we have?

Latitude dependent weight predicted by a simple equation

Velocity dependant weight predicted by a simple equation

(Eotvos effect)

well that's the thing, GE can explain all these things with one model. The thing is, we live on one earth, not many earths, so you can't have 2 models that, when combined, explain less or the same amount phenomena than a single and expect the combination to be better than the single one

Horizon curve depending on elevation, horizon drop depending on elevation, moon position and rotation depending on latitude..etc..etc.

The list goes on

FE models always seem to explain phenomena as if it were in a vacuum. They don’t see the need to be consistent with the physics they come up with.

you sound like you have scientific potential, the problem is you're assuming a base that's absolutely wrong and building on top of it.
you can debunk gravity all you want, you'll never be published if you're saying that the replacement is the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s/s

And all the different combinations of advanced physics concepts, I have very little doubt that putting it all together will make something vital explode.

@Akhanyatin except it uses a concept that contradicts basically every other field of physics

"Scientific potential" lmao

so light travelling random distances is fine with every other field of physics?
distances being completely is fine with every other field of physics?
the sun and moon being local is completely fine with every other field of physics?
if classical physics were based on things that don't work, no buildings bigger than a few meters cubbed would be standing, airplanes would not be flying, meteorological predictions would have 0% accuracy.
if classical physics were actually obsolete, we'd either have a unifying theory or we'd completely remove them.

well yeah, you don't even have your bachelor's yet. you are not published, and you assume things that are completely wrong. but, even though you seem to *know* a lot of things, you are far from a genius, since you have yet to prove that you understand them and you also your model is based on one of the most heavily debunked models yet.

and none of this is meant to attack you, i'm just pointing out facts. you can either be insulted by them or you can take a moment and think about them.

The earth is round

@rivenator12113 Why don’t you explain to me how a rocket needs air for thrust?

Rocket engines need oxygen to burn fuel. And because an engine needs so much oxygen that the surrounding air can't deliver that, they inject oxygen (stored as liquid) next to the engines.

How would it thrust without air? You just proved that the rocket engines need oxygen to burn fuel not how it would thrust in a vacuum.

newtons third law

@rivenator12113 It essentially works by pushing tons and tons of gas in one direction and flying in the other

The molecules basically bounce of the craft before they leave imparting momentum to it