How does FET explain Romer's observations?

  • 64 Replies
  • 14374 Views
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2012, 06:41:48 AM »
Levee, as I have said, if you don't have anything to add other than accusations that Romer and his observations aren't real, then please put a sock in it. There's a whole forum section for you and your ilk to chatter about mad irrelevant rubbish, please kindly go and make use of it and stop defecating into this thread.
And anyway, even if Romer's observations are forged, anyone with a small telescope can go out and repeat them and get exactly the same results. You can't explain this, nobody wants to read your stupidly long rambly posts, take a hint and leave the thread.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2012, 08:05:08 AM »
Don't you understand that Ole Romer's observations (or whoever forged them, in the new chronological approach) do not bring anything new to the debate here? The claims made in the official FAQ/FE wikipedia about Jupiter's orbit are not correct; your thread here is pointless, as you try to prove wrong the incorrect data posted (FAQ/FE wiki).

I have already mentioned here, several times already, that, due to the fact that the existence of ether (telluric currents) has never been taken into consideration, even Fizeau's classical experiment (of measuring the speed of light) is flawed, as is every other experiment that has been performed ever since. The speed of light must be measured taking into consideration the influence of the telluric currents; then, and only then, an accurate estimation will be correct.

From "Romer's" data, the speed of light could be estimated to be in the range of 193,120 Km/s up to 327,000 Km/s.

My initial message brought into question the assumption you and everybody else makes here: the fallacy that the speed of light is constant (in fact, it is variable).

I evidenced the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment was a failure, and the theory of relativity (as per Einstein's own words, quoted in my message) rests wholly on the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It does not matter who can or would repeat "Romer's" observations, the proofs of the existence of telluric currents are all that matters.

Here are these proofs for you:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899


Existence of ether waves proven by the Dayton-Miller ether drift experiments:


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


knowledge...it is painfully obvious that neither you nor CT, can debate with me directly on any subject posted here...in fact, you have no chance whatsoever, at the present time.


Please read the facts about Airy's experiment again. Hopefully, you have heard of the Airy differential equation, or the Airy function; G.B. Airy was one of the most eminent physicists of the 19th century. G.B. Airy's simple experiment (much simpler than "Romer's") proves the existence of a layer of energy between the Earth and the planets/stars:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 08:13:35 AM by levee »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2012, 09:34:38 AM »
 ;D@ether drift
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2012, 11:43:42 AM »
Sorry Levee, but your pathetic mass of chaotic copypasta contains no proof of anything.
What does count as proof that everything you say about the movement of light is nonsesne, is the Michelson Morley Experiment. I'm sure, given your boundless support for aether theory, that you are very familiar with it, and I'm also quite sure that you never refer to it as it would be very embarrassing for you, due to its completely conclusive proof that everything you say is garbage. And remember, Michelson and Morley actually believed in the aether and were actively trying to demonstrate its existence. Yet still they failed. As have successive experimenters.

Oh, one other thing: if there is aether, why would a flat earth be moving through it? Your experiments all use a round earth as a starting point. Switch your brain on, dude.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 11:45:36 AM by The Knowledge »
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2012, 11:52:53 AM »
If there is someone out there without a life, please come and read the endless walls of blabber from levee and give us a short version. I fail to see how levee's incorrect use of the formulas for centripetal force have anything to do with Romer, but if someone can make the link I will gladly explain to levee how to use those formulas, in the context of something related to Romer.

Otherwise, anyone can check out levee's ignorance about centripetal force in the thread he mentions. I see no reason to revive the mauling he got then, when he could not calculate the real forces affecting the atmosphere.