1. I am writing a book. It may have to be multiple books because I have so much to cover. That said, yes, I do have to write a book BECAUSE there is so much to cover. When you are the ignorant one, you do not get to say how much there is to be covered. Also, stop moving the goalposts. You said there was no evidence. I offered you evidence so your response wasn't "Wow, Red, you're right. I hadn't considered those pieces of evidence." It was "to again criticize me but this time for countering your ignorant contention that there was apparently no archaeological evidence. When I do write the book, I don't expect you to read it. You clearly don't understand how Occam's razor applies. 2. "If what I'm saying is right..." What I'm getting out of your commentary on that is that you don't know how to do the Scientific Method. Scientists are interested in furthering their understanding of truth, right? Scientists, like any wise person, admit when they do not know something. When I use scientists, that's what I mean. There are plenty of people who LARP as scientists and might even have science degrees and background but because of their mindset, they are not truly engaging in the Scientific Method which makes them not truly scientists. A true scientist will thoroughly explore the theories of fellow scientists simply because the probability that they are correct is non-zero. Once the theory has been thoroughly explored, only then can the peer review be legitimate. You may have checked out my presentation, but I sincerely doubt you have done any deeper due diligence, chasing any of the sources I offered, which was the point of my presentation. There's too much information that is relevant to pile it all into one presentation. That's how one ought to explore theories but most people only look until they find something they disagree with, at which point cognitive dissonance sets in and invincible ignorance rules the day. So, yes, the correct way to look at Hinduism or Buddhism or Hapgood's theory or anything is to hear them out thoroughly first, due some deeper due diligence, and try to steel man their case. Steel manning, in some instances, means speculating upon the invalidity of counter-evidence. If the theory offers plausible explanations for dozens of mysteries but the theory is contradicted by 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge", well, at that point, Occam's Razor dictates that we more closely inspect those 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge" and see whether they are in fact "knowledge" or not. Clearly, that's not how you operate though. You don't try to steel man people's theories. That's why I told you to try looking at it from the "what it it's true" perspective. I had to tell you that because you don't do that. You only look from your own perspective and that's not how scientists learn anything. Furthermore, mathematicians will use assumptions to begin proofs seeking a logical contradiction along the way. It is common to begin something with "assume X is true..." then consider the logical dominos that would tip over as a result of that assumption. Your uncharitable interpretation of my adherence to the Scientific Method in the discussion of a scientific theory does not amount to a logical fallacy. 3. "You do realize that a magnetic polar shift doesn't mean the Earth physically turns on its side, right?" You do realize this sentence of yours is in no way a compelling argument, right? You do realize that this sentence of yours in no way refutes the evidence I presented in favor of this theory, right? 4. I spoke somewhat inaccurately there, you're right. The speed of the earth's core has slowed, suggesting an eventual deceleration to zero followed by the spinning of the core in the opposite direction.

Earth.com

Earth's inner core is rapidly changing and now "rotating backwards"

While Earth's inner core is often portrayed as static and solid, new details paint a very different picture.

That's just one article. Look it up. You'll find plenty of results to verify. 5. The fact that they say that's what the Svalbard seed bunker is for doesn't mean that's what it is for. You're presumably a Bitcoiner using NOSTR. If you believe that's why they built it, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Occam's razor says unnecessary assumptions should be avoided in theory construction. If you take the narrative I propose and you put a tally mark in the "pro" column for every weird thing that I point out in my presentation that the theory presented explains and then you put a tally mark in the "con" column for every new question that arises as a result of reassessment of prior beliefs, you will find that the pros drastically outweigh the cons. Do the math. Count em up. I've stacked receipts. You just want to dismiss them, which is weird. As a Bitcoiner, you should know better than anyone how incredibly bad the global population is at doing their due diligence. Even most Bitcoiners only did their due diligence because it was potentially profitable. It shouldn't be a shock to your system to learn that most people have had a distorted perspective of history and cosmology. Either way, thank you for your conversation. I will be using you as an example when I teach people about what is wrong with the world: a lack of honesty and receptivity dominated by ego and ignorance.

1. I feel bad for the poor saps who end up wasting their money on a book written by a conspiracy theorist, charlatan, and nutter. 2. I'll grant you this, you got balls. You presume to lecture others over the scientific method, yet? If anyone doesn't know how to use it, it's you. I see nothing in your rambling is about peer-reviewed research, no links to scientific papers, you're not published in any journal as far as I know or you would have cited it already. Real science is about making testable predictions, and having peers replicate your test and see if the conclusions match, forming a hypothesis, asking more questions, and then repeating the process until there can be only one possible explanation. This is a goal that can never actually be reached, but if you do it enough, you attain the status of theories like E=mc², F=ma, Evolution, etc. none of these use or rely on the Bible because it would be so faulty. Stories like the biblical flood are contradicted by mountains of evidence at every level from physics, to chemistry to biology. If you had actual evidence to the contrary, it would be so earth-shattering you would be the most famous person in history, but we both know that's not going to happen. Yes, a real scientist will explore the theories of his peers, but you are not a peer of any real scientist. A rocket scientist may think a child's cardboard space shuttle they made is adorable but they're not going to waste time perfecting the heat shield tiles for re-entry when it's never making it off the living room floor. Ever heard the phrase "you have to crawl before you can walk"? You haven't done any of the prerequisite work. Perhaps instead of worrying about me checking out YOUR presentation or running down YOUR sources, perhaps you should do a little more research about what other scientists say about this; or do you always disagree with the consensus just because it's the consensus? The "what if it's true perspective"? No one goes through life operating that way, not even you. I don't assume the laws of gravity stopped working just because "what if it's true". No one would have time to do anything else. If I wasted time entertaining alternative versions of F=ma I'd probably get hit by a bus. We operate mostly on probabilities. 3. You never presented any evidence for your ridiculous claim. 4. Yeah the headline there is a bit misleading. Perhaps in a few billion years it'll come to a stop. Although in roughly 5 billion years the sun will expand to a red giant and possibly engulf the earth so...🤷‍♂️ 5. Why would you assume the stated reason isn't true? Yes eventually there probably will be oceanfront property in Arizona, but that would be due to anthropomorphic climate change more than anything else. What does being a bitcoiner on nostr have to do with any of this? I got news for you dude, all these receipts you're stacking, they're all written in your own handwriting. You're in the same category as people who think the Earth is flat, aliens made the pyramids, or that there's a secret reptile base inside the Moon. It would be funny if it weren't so sad because someone's going to fall for your nonsense. Because of that I DON'T thank you for the conversation.