Have you actually looked to see if there's evidence, or are you just regurgitating your programming from our childhood indoctrination camps?
If you go to that channel and watch the playlist at the top of the playlist tab, you will see there is plenty of evidence, studies from all over the world. Ben has been doing daily videos for years, all of them reference the constant release of new scientific studies/papers which validate what he has been saying for years.
If you aren't willing to look into information contrary to what establishment tells us, why are you here?
You seem to think our understanding of any aspect of cosmology is settled. It's not, the very idea that it could be is anti-scientific. Our ability to observe the cosmos is unfathomably limited in the dimensions of space and time. There have been many observations in the last few decades that force us to reorient our understanding of the cosmos, we have observed micro and recurrent novae on stars that we previously believed couldn't novae, because we hadn't observed it yet.
This is the whole problem with many fields of science, it falls into dogma through its attachment to foundational theories even in the face of observations that dispute them. Instead of stepping back and reexamining according to the scientific method, we fabricate imaginary things to force new information to fit into old theories. "Dark matter" is a perfect example. Our ability to observe expanded and gravity could no longer account for superstructures in the universe, instead of reexamination of gravity's role in the organization of matter, they simply said there's a bunch of matter we can't observe because it's blasphemy to question gravity. It's a essentially a religion, Scientism.
You just championed two paragraphs that said absolutely nothing. No refutation, no actual facts, just some opinionated wisps about why people have bias.
However, without that same worship of gravity (and other unvalidated assumption required for inference of size of the star) there is no way to determine the size of these “micronova-ing” stars in the first place - which sort of undoes the premise.
Furthermore the worship of gravity and fusion powering stars are both required for the speculation on the cause of supernova in any case.
There isn’t even any solid evidence that the sun is a star. That’s merely another dogma of that same mythological/religious belief structure of scientism you mentioned.
You may be interested to join us on flatearthresearch to further explore and exchange our views!
Have you actually looked to see if there's evidence, or are you just regurgitating your programming from our childhood indoctrination camps?
If you go to that channel and watch the playlist at the top of the playlist tab, you will see there is plenty of evidence, studies from all over the world. Ben has been doing daily videos for years, all of them reference the constant release of new scientific studies/papers which validate what he has been saying for years.
Your second point is reasonable.
Not my claim. Not my responsibility. Also yes.
None of which said a damn thing about the viability of novae in stars…
Micronovae can happen on white dwarfs. They’re outside the main sequence for a reason.
If you aren't willing to look into information contrary to what establishment tells us, why are you here?
You seem to think our understanding of any aspect of cosmology is settled. It's not, the very idea that it could be is anti-scientific. Our ability to observe the cosmos is unfathomably limited in the dimensions of space and time. There have been many observations in the last few decades that force us to reorient our understanding of the cosmos, we have observed micro and recurrent novae on stars that we previously believed couldn't novae, because we hadn't observed it yet.
This is the whole problem with many fields of science, it falls into dogma through its attachment to foundational theories even in the face of observations that dispute them. Instead of stepping back and reexamining according to the scientific method, we fabricate imaginary things to force new information to fit into old theories. "Dark matter" is a perfect example. Our ability to observe expanded and gravity could no longer account for superstructures in the universe, instead of reexamination of gravity's role in the organization of matter, they simply said there's a bunch of matter we can't observe because it's blasphemy to question gravity. It's a essentially a religion, Scientism.
Whatever though, you do you.
You just championed two paragraphs that said absolutely nothing. No refutation, no actual facts, just some opinionated wisps about why people have bias.
But please, continue to talk about low IQs lol
Agreed.
However, without that same worship of gravity (and other unvalidated assumption required for inference of size of the star) there is no way to determine the size of these “micronova-ing” stars in the first place - which sort of undoes the premise.
Furthermore the worship of gravity and fusion powering stars are both required for the speculation on the cause of supernova in any case.
There isn’t even any solid evidence that the sun is a star. That’s merely another dogma of that same mythological/religious belief structure of scientism you mentioned.
You may be interested to join us on flatearthresearch to further explore and exchange our views!