Flat Earth Discussion Boards > Flat Earth Q&A
Einstein and Flat Earth theory
MROC:
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---In other words, we are still awaiting your comment on the topic at hand:
--- Quote from: "MROC" ---Has anyone discussed Einstein's theories as they may pertain to a Flat Earth theory?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "TheEngineer" ---Is there something in particular you would like to know about those references?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "LordByron" ---ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Actually...you would like to talk about conspiracy behind Einstein and how he came to be known. That isn't what I was talking about. Maybe you should read the first post. I was asking if anyone has discussed or thought about the theory that a mass can have it's own gravitational force which bends the fabric of space. If that was true it could reinforce a belief that the earth isn't necessarily spherical just because it looks that way.
but no need to keep this discussion going. You've already bored me.
Dionysius:
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---Actually, nobody respectable thought for a second that heliocentric astronomy had become threatened as a result of the null result. They were more concerned at the time with explaining how light worked.
--- End quote ---
Wrong.
Where did you read that "nobody respectable thought for a second that heliocentric astronomy had become threatened as a result of the null result"? I have read papers by scientists of that time that indicate the opposite. I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true, and Einstein himself admits that Michelson's 1887 experiment was the basis of his relativity theory.
There were geocentric and flat Earth movements then with a lot more followers than nowadays. And respectable people both then and now know that heliocentrism was threatened. The truth is that nobody respectable denies that heliocentric astronomy was threatened.
Obsession with the way light works is precisely the intended distraction from the heliocentrist's weak spot - Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero. Relativity was an unnecessarily complicated answer conducive to heliocentric theory advanced as an explanation of Michelson's experiment. Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid and even William of Occam by disregarding the simplest and most obvious explanation of Michelson's experiment.
The simple fact is that Michelson disproved heliocentrism, and Einstein's theory of relativity is based on Michelson's experiment. Without Michelson's experiment, relativity theory would not have been necessary.
Erasmus:
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true,
--- End quote ---
Can you provide this document electronically? I haven't seen it. I'm assuming, of course, that you're not referring to the one in which Michelson says, "Therefore the speed of the Earth relative to the æther is less than such-and-such," since that obviously does not demonstrate the truth of geocentrism.
Also, I would be very happy to see any papers you have from reputable scientists showing concern for the validity of heliocentrism as a result of the null result.
--- Quote ---Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero.
--- End quote ---
...relative to a substance that has not been proven to exist.
--- Quote ---Relativity was an unnecessarily complicated answer conducive to heliocentric theory advanced as an explanation of Michelson's experiment.
--- End quote ---
False. Firstly, (special) relativity is shockingly simple -- if you want to see unnecessary complication, look no further than the system of epicycles devised to save geocentrism.
Secondly, heliocentrism was by that time well-established. Newtonian gravity and Keplerian orbits explained the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars better and more parsimoniously than any geocentric theory.
--- Quote ---Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid
--- End quote ---
... whose non-self-evident fifth postulate mathematicians, for two thousand years, failed to prove. Relativity was not the first theory to depart from euclidean geometry; theoreticians in the 19th century had already been discussing such things.
--- Quote ---The simple fact is that Michelson disproved heliocentrism, and Einstein's theory of relativity is based on Michelson's experiment. Without Michelson's experiment, relativity theory would not have been necessary.
--- End quote ---
It is true that relativity is an answer to Michelson-Morley; however, it cannot be logically shown that Michelson-Morley and heliocentrism are inconsistent. I invite you to try -- but if you are to rely on the æther, you must demonstrate that it exists.
Dionysius:
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true
--- End quote ---
Can you provide this document electronically? I haven't seen it.
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero.
--- End quote ---
...relative to a substance that has not been proven to exist.
--- End quote ---
Aether was generally accepted as reality before the Michelson-Morley-Einstein era and has become something widely viewed as archaic during the twentieth century because of spurious interpretations of Michelson's experiment such as Einstein's relativity. I also posess an essay arguing the reality of aether. I would like to post both of these on-line when I get the chance, but most people are probably more interested in a Flat Earth map of the World which I obtained from Charles Johnson back in 1996 which I intend to get a copy of to Daniel as soon as I get the chance as I hear he is interested in providing copies to new members of the Flat Earth Society.
At any rate, if anyone is interested in obtaining either Michelson's 1925 essay with his repeat experiment or the essay on aether they are both available from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique which has offices in France, Belgium, and Italy:
www.chez.com/ceshe/
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---False. Firstly, (special) relativity is shockingly simple -- if you want to see unnecessary complication, look no further than the system of epicycles devised to save geocentrism.
--- End quote ---
False. Epicycles were not invented to save geocentrism. Heliocentrism versus geocentrism never became much of a controversy in Europe until the sixteenth century Anno Domini. Throughout the era when epicycles were being advanced, the principle cosmographical debate was between globularists and traditional flat Earth cosmographers. Both of these schools of thought believed that the Sun orbits the Earth - they were both geocentric. In other words, geocentrism was not under attack as you say.
And whether you view relativity as simple or not, it has often been presented as something sophisticated and very difficult to understand owing in no small part to complicated mathematics.
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---heliocentrism was by that time well-established.
--- End quote ---
False. If heliocentrism was well established then popular geocentric movements would not have existed at the time like those documented in Martin Gardners book such as the geocentrism of the Anglican and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synods during the nineteenth centruy, not to mention the efforts of people like Einstein trying to kill it.
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---Newtonian gravity and Keplerian orbits explained the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars better and more parsimoniously than any geocentric theory.
--- End quote ---
False. It is unnecessarily complicated. The heliocentrism adds no advantage whatsoever as geocentrists have for millenia been able to predict things like eclipses centuries in advance with no trouble, but heliocentrism places such things farther from the grasp of people not specially trained than the more natural and realistic geocentrism does. Heliocentrism only adds obstacles and difficulty in explaining the universe such as how the Earth allegedly moves between the Sun and Moon during those documented Lunar Eclipses when the Sun and Moon were both visible in the Sky at the same time.
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid
--- End quote ---
... whose non-self-evident fifth postulate mathematicians, for two thousand years, failed to prove.
--- End quote ---
"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
This truth is self evident as so many (Ptolemy, Proclus, Arqab mathematicians, et cetera) have acknowledged for over 2300 years.
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---I didn't really think Einstein was so smart. Then I read some of his stuff -- turns out he was a pretty brilliant guy.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---Relativity was not the first theory to depart from euclidean geometry; theoreticians in the 19th century had already been discussing such things.
--- End quote ---
So EINSTEIN DID NOT ORIGINATE these (albeit false) ideas after all.
--- Quote from: "Erasmus" ---It is true that relativity is an answer to Michelson-Morley
--- End quote ---
If not the implication of geocentrism, then exactly what aspect of Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment do you believe relativity theory answers? What about Michelson's experiment necessitated some kind of answer which relativity supplied (in your view)?
Erasmus:
--- Quote from: "Dionysius" ---At any rate, if anyone is interested in obtaining either Michelson's 1925 essay with his repeat experiment or the essay on aether they are both available from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique which has offices in France, Belgium, and Italy:
www.chez.com/ceshe/
--- End quote ---
Thanks; I will have a look at these.
--- Quote ---False. Epicycles were not invented to save geocentrism.
--- End quote ---
But they are required in a geocentric cosmology, but not in a heliocentric one. What were they devised to explain?
--- Quote ---And whether you view relativity as simple or not, it has often been presented as something sophisticated and very difficult to understand owing in no small part to complicated mathematics.
--- End quote ---
It is true that special relativity is often presented in a complicated way -- I think this is very unfortunate. However, the mathematics underlying it are much simpler than most people realize; the primary hurdle in understanding it is an intuitive one.
--- Quote ---If heliocentrism was well established then popular geocentric movements would not have existed at the time like those documented in Martin Gardners book such as the geocentrism of the Anglican and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synods during the nineteenth centruy,
--- End quote ---
The support of some antiquated theories by some groups does not imply that those theories' replacements are not well-established. You must admit that evolution is well-established (I am not asking you to believe the theory; merely that "the establishment" supports it) despite its numerous detractors.
--- Quote ---[Newtonian/Keplerian mechanics] is unnecessarily complicated. The heliocentrism adds no advantage whatsoever as geocentrists have for millenia been able to predict things like eclipses centuries in advance with no trouble,
--- End quote ---
In what way is Newtonian theory unnecessarily complicated?
For the purpose of predicting eclipses, geocentrism naturally suffices. However, try predicting eclipses of the Sun from Mars by its moons while that planet is undergoing retrograde motion... it is quite clear that treating Mars or the Sun as the centre of the system is more appropriate in this case. Do you have any examples besides eclipses?
Heliocentrism does provide advantages. For example, according to Genesis, God only put two major lights in the heavens -- the Sun and the Moon. This implies, for example, that Venus is not a source of light. Venus does glow, so the light must be coming from either the Sun or the Moon. However, in the geocentric model, this means that the phases of Venus can be either crescent/full (if Venus is farther from the Earth than the Sun) or gibbous/new (if Venus is closer), but not both. In 1610, however, Galileo observed Venus to have all four phases. In general, the phases of the Moon and of the planets are far more easily explained in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric.
--- Quote ---but heliocentrism places such things farther from the grasp of people not specially trained than the more natural and realistic geocentrism does. Heliocentrism only adds obstacles and difficulty in explaining the universe such as how the Earth allegedly moves between the Sun and Moon during those documented Lunar Eclipses when the Sun and Moon were both visible in the Sky at the same time.
--- End quote ---
I have never heard of anybody finding heliocentrism difficult to grasp. As for the supposed difficulty that you mention -- if Bob shines a flashlight on Alice, I can certainly interpose my body between them so as to cast a shadow on Alice and yet still be able to see both of them. This is because Alice and I have spatial extent (we are not mere points).
So far I feel that these two examples that you have brought up illustrate more your unwillingness to consider heliocentrism; I know you are intelligent enough to understand this lunar-eclipse example without any scientific training.
--- Quote ---"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
This truth is self evident as so many (Ptolemy, Proclus, Arqab mathematicians, et cetera) have acknowledged for over 2300 years.
--- End quote ---
Not at all. You are ignoring the level on which the other posulates are self-evident: the notion that any two points can be joined by a straight line (the first postulate) is far more obvious that than the fifth postulate.
But it is a moot point, since the fifth postulate is not in fact true; there are geometries in which it is false.
--- Quote ---So EINSTEIN DID NOT ORIGINATE these (albeit false) ideas after all.
--- End quote ---
Not in every detail; have you read his work? He credits others who have contributed (Lorenz, for example).
--- Quote ---If not the implication of geocentrism, then exactly what aspect of Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment do you believe relativity theory answers? What about Michelson's experiment necessitated some kind of answer which relativity supplied (in your view)?
--- End quote ---
Well, it hinges on whether you accept that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed there to be no either, which hinges on your belief in geocentrism. Relativity asserts that light is not a disturbance in any medium and that its speed is the same in all reference frames.
p.s. By the way, suppose you are right and that the MM experiment proves that the Earth is stationary relative to the æther. What do you conclude would happen if the experiment were performed in a moving vehicle?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version