I’ve asked some questions in the Tychosium thread, where they may or may not be in their right place there.
Reading the book brings lots of questions, on different topics, so I’ll just make some space for questions about the things I read in the book, whether crucial to the Tychos model or simply due to some passing remarks made.
Since quite some years now, I’ve been on a quest for the truth of things, and have come to the conclusion that I cannot discard anything off-hand as outlandish or ridiculous. I have my theory for WHY it is like this, but anybody who is interested in the truth can only come to the conclusion that our global western society seems based on lies, lies and more lies. About everything we think is not true, but a lie that serves some people financially and politically.
I’ve been pointed to the Tychos model exactly because of that search for the truth of everything, as I obviously had stumbled upon the Flat Earth Theory, and - having learned not to simply dismiss ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous it may sound - took the approach of: ok, give me your arguments, and I’ll see if they resonate with me, and answer some long-felt nagging discomforts about the topic.
Unfortunately (well, that depends on where you stand), FET did not answer many questions or solve nagging feelings, but on the contrary, raised a lot more questions to which no answers were available. The rational unravelling of the lie that covers the truth seems completely absent, and it felt more like a religion than anything else. Until I am confronted with hard indisputable facts, I’ll pass on joining.
However, there are SOME things that are mentioned in the whole FET debate that raise questions, and the idea that we were racing through space at break-neck speed is one of these things that when pointed out, go sit somewhere in your gut and feel uncomfortable: intuitively there seems something strange that we wouldn’t ever feel ANY sign of that insane speed we’re supposed to be travelling at.
One little point that I encountered and stayed with me was that the inner part of the Earth was never proven to be lava or fire or liquid. It’s simply an assumption, like almost all the things we believe, that is adopted as truth by MSM and pumped into us as children, but is not a FACT. Just like the Big Bang: it’s no more than someone’s idea, that many ran with.
So where does Simon stand on such things? Are there any assumptions that are mainstream that should not be questioned? And why so? What experience do we have that makes us trust anything that’s accepted as the Truth in our society, unless we are able to verify the data and draw our own conclusions?
