31

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 22, 2024, 02:14:57 AM »

Those colleges dont have any direct experiments showing that the speed of light is always c. They would interpret Arago's experiment as proof that the velocity of light never changes regardless of whether you are moving towards or away from the light source because they "know" that the earth is revolving around the sun and leave it at that. In the first page of this thread, however, we saw that exists direct laboratory experimental evidence that the speed of light is c +/- v, the type of evidence that relativists don't have for their theory.

We already know the truth here, directly, by experiment.

You really need to explain your wacky belief that the speed of the broadcasting body which throws off the light doesnt matter.

Even if you imagine that there is something magical limiting the speed of light to a certain maximal speed, how does that explain why in SR's second postulate the speed of light would still consistently measured to be c by the observer when the v is negative and the broadcasting body is moving away from them?

It is known that in water the speed of light is slowed. Light doesn't travel at c in water. So why not also when the broadcasting body is moving away? The Wang experiment showed that this reduction of speed is exacly what happens in that situation. You are going to need direct experimental evidence if you are going to believe something as wacky as what you believe.

32

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 21, 2024, 08:11:04 PM »

The speed of light is c +/- v, where v is the speed of the broadcasting device, as tested and confirmed directly in laboratory experiment.

Logically, it makes sense that if you throw a rock at a bystander from a moving car, the rock will hit the bystander at the speed of the rock + the moving car. You will need to do a lot of convincing with a lot of evidence to make me believe that it is possible for the rock to hit the bystander at a specific speed regardless of the additional movement of the car.

Relativity basically just exists as science's denial that heliocentrism is wrong. In the debates on Copernicanism from the Enlightenment through the Victorian era, science dedicated itself to justifying heliocentrism. Relativity is what we ended up with.

Knowing that the true speed of light is c +/- v, I am reminded of the work of François Arago. In 1810 physicist François Arago performed an experiment designed to collect the light of stars near the ecliptic at different times of the year, as the Earth would be moving at different velocities either towards or away from the stars in its orbit around the Sun.

We can read about his experiment here from the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science -

https://d-nb.info/1150815612/34

 “The problem of refraction in moving bodies became an issue in the wave theory of light because of an experiment performed in 1810 by François Arago (1786–1853) in the context of the particle theory. He wanted to determine whether light particles entering a prism would be refracted differently depending on their velocity with respect to the prism. To this end, he considered the refraction of light from the same star over the course of a year. Changes in the velocity of the earth with respect to the star would presumably produce changes in the relative velocity of the earth and the light particles emitted by the star. Arago observed no such effect on the refraction of the star’s light.”

Of course, science was in an uproar over this and just had to explain it. In "The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments" by George Johnson we read about the explanation given by French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel:

https://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/ten-beautiful-experiments.pdf

 “A French scientist, Francis Arago, ..had tried to measure the velocity of starlight colliding with the Earth. Arago assumed, naturally enough, that the speed would vary depending on whether the orbiting planet was approaching or retreating from the light source. He mounted a prism on the end of a telescope, predicting that faster light beams would be bent more abruptly than slower ones. He was surprised to find that whatever the season the angles were the same.

Arago concluded that our eyes must be sensitive to only a small range of velocities, that the faster and slower rays were invisible. But his colleague Augustin-Jean Fresnel came up with a different explanation: while aether flows effortlessly through matter's molecular cracks, a tiny bit had become stuck in Arago's prism, carried along for the ride. That, he explained, would negate the effect Arago was seeking. When the Earth was approaching a star, its light would indeed strike the prism at a higher speed. But then it would be slowed a compensating amount by the aether trapped inside the glass. The effect would be true for any transparent medium, Fresnel proposed, and would depend on its index of refraction—a measurement of how much it slows and bends light.”

Like Michelson and Morley, Arago proved that the earth is not revolving around the Sun. Science's response to these sort of experiments was to invent illusions to explain it.

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Do You Support Kamala Harris?

« on: July 21, 2024, 06:45:16 PM »

"My name is Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit."

34

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 21, 2024, 07:59:50 AM »

Is there any evidence that there is anything limiting speeds in the universe yet? If not, get out of this thread.

35

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 09, 2024, 06:07:32 PM »

I'm actually expecting you guys to answer with something like:

"Here is a logical explanation for why a light beam is traveling at the same speed to all observers regardless of their motion..."

and/or

"Here is a laboratory experiment which directly proves that the speed of light is always c to all observers regardless of their motion without an assumption about the motion of the earth..."

We are seeing none of that.

The reason for why post-classical physics is so odd is because Heliocentrism and Round Earth Theory are wrong. The laboratory experiments with light prove that the earth is flat and that UA is correct.

36

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 07, 2024, 09:39:19 PM »

At issue is mainly the second postulate of Special Relativity, which states that the speed of light is constant to all observers regardless of their motions.

From Lumen Learning:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/28-1-einsteins-postulates/

"Modern relativity is based on Einstein’s two postulates. The first postulate of special relativity is the idea that the laws of physics are the same and can be stated in their simplest form in all inertial frames of reference. The second postulate of special relativity is the idea that the speed of light c is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source. The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that the speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the motion of the Earth about the Sun."

In The Relativity of Light by Justin Jacobs, the author describes it as so:

“The mathematical fix of Einstein’s Special Theory is predicated on the false premise that a propagating ray of light must always have the same absolute velocity of c with respect to every linearly moving material body, regardless of such body’s location, its different linear velocity, or its different direction of motion. This is an impossible and invalid absolute concept (Chapter 21E). For example, this result would be analogous to your automobile moving down a street at the constant speed of 30 m/s relative to the street and at the same time magically be moving at a rate of exactly 30 m/s relative to every other moving vehicle in the entire city, regardless of its location, its speed, or its direction of motion. This absolute result would, of course, be impossible (Figure 21.6).”

It sounds like nonsense when put in that way. Everything really would need its own space and time for this to be possible.

It would be nice if you guys who believe this could defend your beliefs. Unfortunately, it is apparent that this is too much to ask.

37

Flat Earth General / Re: The Bible Supports a Flat Level Earth

« on: July 07, 2024, 09:33:19 PM »

If the Ancient Hebrews believed in a round earth we would know about it. Instead, it is widely known that they believed in a flat one. Just look up the cosmology of the Ancient Hebrew universe.

38

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 07, 2024, 08:11:17 PM »

A number of scientists appear to have their doubts about the light postulates in Special Relativity. See this paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector by Daniel Y. Gezari:

ABSTRACT

A search of the literature reveals that none of the five new optical effects predicted by the special theory of relativity have ever been observed to occur in nature. In particular, the speed of light (0) has never been measured directly with a moving detector to validate the invariance of c to motion of the observer, a necessary condition for the Lorentz invariance of c. The invariance of c can now only be inferred from indirect experimental evidence. It is also not widely recognized that essentially all of the experimental support for special relativity in the photon sector consists of null results. The experimental basis for special relativity in the photon sector is summarized, and concerns about the completeness, integrity and interpretation of the present body of experimental evidence are discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most reassuring things we know about modern physics is that the special theory of relativity has faced a century of experimental challenges, and passed every test. This is generally understood to mean that every aspect of special relativity has been tested and validated, beyond any doubt. But all it really means is that every aspect of special relativity that has been tested has passed the test. This prompts the question, what has been tested and what has not?

Contrary to the popular view, a search of the literature reveals that the experimental basis for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector is not robust.

~

2.1. Invariance of c.

There are two necessary conditions for the local Lorentz invariance of c: invariance to motion of the source and invariance to motion of the observer. Satisfaction of these two conditions is both necessary and sufficient to validate the invariance of c. Invariance to motion of the emitting source — Einstein’s second postulate has been convincingly validated experimentally (Section 3.1). But conspicuously absent from the experimental record is any published attempt to directly measure the speed of light with a moving detector to test the invariance of c to motion of the observer.

The experimental validation of the invariance of c is plagued by misconceptions and errors of interpretation. There is a common misconception that Einstein’s second postulate says that c is invariant to "motion of the source and motion of the observer" and it is incorrectly presented this way in most textbooks. But the second postulate says nothing about the observer: “Light is propagated in empty space with a definite velocity 0 which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (Einstein 1905). The second postulate was not a new idea in 1905 and it is not unique to special relativity (recall that the classical wave theory of light also holds that c is invariant to motion of the emitting source). So observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, and do not favor one over the other. Of course, it could be argued that experiments with moving sources and moving observers should be equivalent and indistinguishable, so the second postulate would apply to the observer as well as to the source. But in other phenomena involving propagating light (e.g., the Doppler effect in an optical medium, stellar aberration) motion of the source and motion of the observer have entirely independent consequences. To claim that source and observer motions are equivalent without experimental confirmation would be invoking the theory to validate itself. Observations of moving sources certainly cannot validate the universal Lorentz invariance of 0 without observations with moving detectors, or at least experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions for propagating light, and these things have not yet been accomplished.

~

It would seem that elements of the classical Sagnac effect conflict directly with special relativity, however, the prevailing view is that the rotating instrument is a non-inertial system to which special relativity does not apply (as first argued by Langevin 1921). The argument goes further to say that an observer viewing the rotating experiment from any inertial frame would be permitted under the rules of special relativity to measure relative speeds that differed from c, so the apparent speeds c + v and c - v of the counter— propagating beams in the instrument frame would still be consistent with special relativity. However, recently Wang et al. (2003, 2004) demonstrated the Sagnac effect in a non- rotating, inertial reference frame using a fiber optic linear motion sensor (FOLMS) interferometer. They showed that the light travel time in a straight optical fiber in inertial motion has a first—order dependence on the fiber speed in the local stationary frame, just as the light travel time in a rotating Sagnac effect fiber optic gyro has a first-order dependence on the tangential rotation speed of the fiber. The effect was obtained using both solid and hollow (air core) fibers. If the Sagnac effect can be produced by inertial motion then the rules of special relativity would have to be applied after all, and the linear Sagnac experiment would violate special relativity.

~

5. CONCLUSION

Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors, the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions, doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by observation or experiment.

39

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 07, 2024, 04:37:05 PM »

The Wang Experiment shows that the idea that the speed of light is consistent to all observers is wrong. In the experiment there can be velocities greater than c, light speed.

Recall Dr. Croca's quote: "Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process."

The speed of light is c +/- v, where v is the velocity of the body broadcasting the light. If you are in a car and shine a flashlight out your front window, if the outside observers on the side of the road could measure the speed of the light, they would see the light travel at the c + the speed of your vehicle. Wang saw the same linear additive rule that Sagnac saw with his rotational experiment. Sagnac also saw that the speed of light was c +/- v. Wang's linear experiment disproved the errant claims that Sagnac's results were flawed because Sagnac's experiment was performed on a rotating platform.

See the following quotes:

Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories by Al Kelly

  “ A recent ingenious test by Wang et al. (2003) shows that the Sagnac result is also achieved by sending out and back again light in a straight-line portion of the light path. This is what this author claimed above, but it is so much more convincing when an actual experiment has shown the same thing. I wonder what excuse will be trotted out now! Wang et al. achieved the seemingly impossible by reversing a light beam sent out on a straight line on a moving platform and measuring the difference in time for it to return. This author had the pleasure of meeting Wang in 1997 and corresponded with him during the tests he performed and since then.

In another paper (2005), Wang gives further details of the experiment; appended to this paper are comments on the experiment by Hatch and Van Flandern, confirming that Wang had succeeded in proving that the Sagnac effect applies to straight-line motion.

...Any claims that the Sagnac experiment upsets [Special Relativity] were heretofore brushed aside by a statement that Sagnac is a rotational experiment and that SR does not apply to rotational experiments. That defense is now shown to be groundless.  ”

Here is another quote by Robert Bennet, who holds a physics doctorate from Stevens Tech and is a physicist turned geocentrist.

A Landmark Experiment: The Linear Sagnac Test of Ruyong Wang, by Robert Bennett, Ph.D.

 “ Belief that the Sagnac test of 1913 only applied to rotational motion was discounted when Ruyong Wang found the same results for linear motion in 2004. The Sagnac result has never been credibly explained, despite its wide application in modern technology. ”

Dr. Bennett remarks that the experiment is also evidence for a motionless Earth (although for FE, this horizontal experiment is evidence for a Flat Earth which does not move horizontally).

 “ Going unnoticed by Wang and many others is the outstanding evidence in this experiment of the dynamically motionless Earth. To see this, recall that a dynamical law, Galilean velocity addition, is presumed to be valid in all reference frames, if the principle of General Covariance is true.

Galilean velocity addition has been tested in the lab frame for covariance and found to be so. The conveyor frame is in constant linear motion compared to the lab frame. As Sagnac did for rotation, Wang has tested motion of translation for covariance.

...The inference is really stronger than just a preference; the conveyor frame dynamical law absolutely must use lab values over the conveyor values, to agree with the experimental results. In other words the lab frame is the absolute ref frame in which to apply the laws of dynamics.”

40

Flat Earth General / Re: The Bible Supports a Flat Level Earth

« on: July 07, 2024, 12:58:39 AM »

The Bible makes mention to edges of the earth, things that are under the earth, and the earth being over a void. It's clearly a Flat Earth book. It was also written before the Ancient Greeks came up with the Round Earth theory, so it's a Flat Earth book de facto.

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 06, 2024, 07:34:43 PM »

And if he says Earth is round, are you going to accept it?
If not, STOP APPEALING TO PATHETIC QUOTES!

I would gather sources and evidence to contradict his specific claim of whatever we are talking about, which is what I am doing here. You are refusing to gather sources or provide evidence at all for your statements. You're basically just saying "not true" repeatedly. Learn how to debate FFS. Seriously, stop posting.

42

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 06, 2024, 05:33:14 PM »

Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. says the Wang Experiment contradicts relativity.

https://eurhythmicphysics.eu/home-2/members/jose-r-croca/

José Nunes Ramalho Croca was born in Cabeção, Évora in 1944. Graduated in Physics in 1973 by the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, he received a PhD in Physics in 1985, from this same faculty, defending a thesis entitled “Tunnel Effect on the Causal Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”. In 1986 he became Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at the Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon, and in 1998 he aggregate in the area of ​​Physics at the University of Lisbon. He was recently awarded the 2008 Santilli-Galileu Prize – Gold Medal, for The Crusading Work Towards the Demise of the Prevailing Scientifc Obscurantism (see interview) and with the International Rationalist Federation Award, FIR 2008, for his work in promoting Reason. He is a founding member of CFCUL, was Head of the Philosophy of Nature Sciences Research Line and scientific coordinator of the FCT Project on Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics , already concluded.

Anonymous internet poster, Jack Black, says that he is wrong.

Jack Black says that he doesn't need to bother to go looking for other physicists to quote on this, find any academic papers on the controversy, or do anything to further his position. He is is own source.

WhO ShOuLd We BeLiEvE???

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 06, 2024, 04:30:27 PM »

JackBlack, you have provided zero sources to support your numerous disagreements to the quotes provided.  Whenever you give an opinion of something without a source to back it up I am just assuming that they come from the head of a high school drop out until demonstrated otherwise.

I am still waiting to see any evidence that all bodies have their own space and time. I am also still waiting see any evidence that there is a speed limit in the universe. You guys have been unable to defend your weak propositions.

In my last post it literally says the experiments were conducted on an axis "parallel the the earth's surface" and "perpindicular to the earth's surface" in the quotes I provided. There are also videos, pictures, and diagrams in the links if you are still confused. Please refrain from playing dumb as part of a stalling debate tactic.

It's impossible for the earth's surface to move upwards if the earth is round, but possible if the earth is flat.

Ok, so you are assuming that the vertical direction is the same everywhere on earth, is that correct?

It's vertical in relation to the earth's surface in the local experiment. Please, please stop "playing dumb" as your debate tactic.

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 09:02:54 PM »

In my last post it literally says the experiments were conducted on an axis "parallel to the earth's surface" and "perpendicular to the earth's surface" in the quotes I provided. There are also videos, pictures, and diagrams in the links if you are still confused. Please refrain from playing dumb as part of a stalling debate tactic.

It's impossible for the earth's surface to move upwards if the earth is round, but possible if the earth is flat.

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 05:50:06 PM »

  “ But no one wanted to go back to before Copernicus, to a geocentric view, or conclude from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the Earth was resting motionless in the ether. Instead, brilliant theories were designed to prove that it was impossible to observe a movement relative to the ether. In these endeavors the theory of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz offered the most valuable insights ” —Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, p.160

Oh, so the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the earth is not accelerating upwards at 9/8 m/s^2?  Good to know.

The Michelson Morley Experiment was conducted on a horizontal plane and found no fringe shift. There is actually another variant of the Michelson Morley Experiment conducted on a vertical plane which does see a fringe shift.

Grusenick Experiment Proves the Existence of the Ether and of a Vertical G-on flux - "He constructed an interferometer, shown above, which is similar to that used by Michaelson-Morley.  He found that when he rotated the interferometer beam platform around an axis parallel to the Earth’s surface, as Michaelson and Morley had done, that he saw no fringe shifts, the same result that Michaelson and Morley reported.  However, he found that when he rotated the same interferometer apparatus so that it rotated in a plane perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, he saw a fringe shift ...This results in a fringe shift of the interference pattern relative to its fringe position when the apparatus is oriented with its beams perpendicular to the ether flow.  He reported to me that he detected an ether wind velocity of 30% c."

Here is another experiment conducted underwater to reduce stresses on the components, in response to some of the criticisms of possible fault with the experiment. This one also detected a difference in fringe shift when the interferometer device was inverted vertically:

Redefining Gravity: Field Vs. Flow

The author states:

  “ From the results summarized above, it is inevitable to deduce that light travels in a different manner vertically, than it does horizontally. ...this exclusively implies that space flows into earth or in other words, earth sucks the space around it. ”

In several instances the author describes it as an "accelerated flow" and the earth sucking space around it:



--

The above authors have their own theory the ether is moving into the earth, but Prof. A. Zielinski, who is listed at the bottom of this page to be a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the International Scientist's Club, and is a Quantum Electrodynamics researcher, says on the page that it can be interpreted as the earth's surface moving upwards:

  “ The assumption of Michelson and Morley that aether was uniform and at rest in space, was a fundamental error [1,2]. Had Michelson and Morley pointed their interferometer in a vertical plane, they would have concluded that the earth is moving in a perpendicular direction to the surface of the earth into space. A worldwide verification of their experiment would have indicated that the earth is moving everywhere simultaneously in a vertical direction into space, which is, of course, not possible. ”

Prof A. Zielinski is listed on one of the International Scientist's Club committees (p.2)

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 03:35:50 PM »

Since the early 1900's the Special Relativity rules have been contradicted, such as with the Sagnac Experiment and Wang Experiment.

Both of those experiments are entirely consistent with relativity.

Actually the physicist said it is contrary to relativity.

Recall this quote from the section: "Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process."

So you're wrong. Look up the definition of "not" and stop posting your hot takes.

No it wasn't.
Stop lying.
It was to test the effect of aehter on light propagation, to measure Earth's motion RELATIVE TO THE AETHER!
This was just one experiment which did that with other experiments showing motion.

Again, the only honest conclusion for this is that the aether is BS.

Incorrect. It's testing the motion of light beams against the absolute space version of ether. It has more to do with absolute space than ether. Einstein corrected himself and stated that the ether does exist and that he was incorrect when he stated that it did not exist:

“ It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities. ” —Einstein in a 1919 letter to Lorentz

“ According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense  —Albert Einstein in a 1920 address 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity'

A background medium of space still exists in science. It exists in GR as stated by Einstein above, and in other fields it is known as the "vacuum" now. See this quote from Fermilab which states that the ether is equivalent to the vacuum -

 “ The concept of ether surfaced decades before scientists knew of quantum mechanics and some very fundamental symmetry principles of the microscopic world. Because of the huge change in knowledge, the historic word ether is not used anymore since it is a historical concept based on classical, not quantum physics.

Today's equivalent of the ether is the vacuum!

Physicists have come to realize that vacuum is not just empty space and the absence of things. The laws of quantum physics and experimental observations clearly show that many physical phenomena are explained by the fact that the vacuum has certain physical properties, including vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations: particles and antiparticles can appear and then disappear after a short period of time. ” —Fermilab Q&A, Concept of ether in explaining forces, 2014

47

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 03:23:46 PM »

I haven't seen any evidence that there is a speed limit in the universe. Logically, there is nothing and no one policing speed limits in the universe. Where is your proof that something is limiting it?

Two words: General Relativity.  As an object's velocity increases, so does its mass.  This means that it requires increasingly more energy to continue accelerating it until it ultimately requires an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.

You're talking about the Lorentz Transformation, which is part of Special Relativity, and was also related to coming up with an explanation for the Michelson Morley experiment. It's part of the idea that with increased speed matter will contract and increase in mass.

See these quotes:

  “ The Irish physicist George Francis FitzGerald had already arrived at this notion independently (see Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, and in 1904 Lorentz extended his work and developed the Lorentz transformations. These mathematical formulas describe the increase of mass, shortening of length, and dilation of time that are characteristic of a moving body and form the basis of Einstein’s special theory of relativity." — Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Encyclopedia Brittanica

  “ But no one wanted to go back to before Copernicus, to a geocentric view, or conclude from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the Earth was resting motionless in the ether. Instead, brilliant theories were designed to prove that it was impossible to observe a movement relative to the ether. In these endeavors the theory of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz offered the most valuable insights ” —Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, p.160

  “ Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. ” — Albert Einstein, 1916

  “ The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose. It is the so-called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. In 1893 Fitzgerald suggested that all objects contracted in the direction of their motion through the ether. He reasoned that if ordinary objects flattened out upon impact with other objects – a rubber ball hitting a wall or a ripe tomato dropped on the floor, for example – then why would it not be possible for objects that move through the ether to have the force of the ether push them in, or contract them? This would adequately explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of the interferometer moving against the ether would be shortened so that, even though the light wave travelling in that particular arm might be slowed down by the ether wind, this would be compensated for by having its path shortened

...Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant, as was to be expected, not only because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place, but particularly because Fitzgerald could not explain why objects would contract due to motion through the ether. The contraction hypothesis was originally advanced only as a possible explanation for Michelson and Morley’s results, providing such an effect existed. Then, too, the theory said that all materials travelling with the same velocity with respect to the ether would contract the same fractional amount. Since iron is much heavier and stronger than wood, for example, one would expect a greater contraction for wood than for iron, but this, too, went unanswered. ” —James A. Coleman, Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Department of Physics at the American International College, Spring-field, Massachusetts, "Relativity for the Layman"

48

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 05:43:58 AM »

Since the purpose of the Michelson Morley experiment was to try to detect the motion of the earth on a horizontal plane, which it was not able to do, we have to reject the resultant "theoretical formulations" which created the weird space physics and light speed limits. Those assumptions were made to make RE Heliocentrism workable.

Again, outside of Michelson-Morley, what evidence is there for each moving observer having their own space and time, and what evidence is there for the consistency and speed limit of c? You have provided absolutely nothing.

Since the early 1900's the Special Relativity rules have been contradicted, such as with the Sagnac Experiment and Wang Experiment. When tested in the laboratory the maximum light speed limit of c postulate fails.

See this section on p.306 of the book Unified Field Mechanics II by by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D.

Since the realization of this [Sagnac] experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.



They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process.

The speed of light is actually c +/- v, where v is the speed of the moving broadcasting device.

When tested in a laboratory, the axioms failed. There were no speed limits.

I am expecting to see something similar from you, showing a laboratory experiment that there is a speed limit. Something which does not involve assumptions about the motion of the earth.

Amusingly, after the above quote, Dr. Croca goes on to say:

As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts [do not] in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind.

He sort of hints that maybe Relativity works differently on different scales, as if Special Relativity only applied in certain situations involving the motion of the Earth as a heliocentric explanation for why the Earth has been tested to be horizontally motionless. He goes on to discard Relativity as incomplete with an assurance that "it's not going to be our last theory, don't worry people!"

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 04, 2024, 05:16:36 AM »

The "ether" model you are talking about was the Newtonian absolute space model. The ether was the name given to the background space which light and bodies moved against. Ether is only brought up by your side to try to confuse the subject and make it seem like all scientists of the world had a wacky theory that Einstein corrected. It's the Newtonian absolute space model. And yes, it is logical that there is absolute space.

Read that quote again:

"To solve the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiment we have to abandon Newton's axioms of absolute space and absolute time. Einstein solved the problem by making the ingenious assumption that observers moving with different velocities with respect to each other have their own space and time. The second postulate of the theory of relativity is that light propagates in every direction with the same constant velocity, in every legitimate (uniformly moving) reference system. It is actually the theoretical formulation of the negative result of Michelson and Morley's experiment."

Prior to Relativity the model was the Newtonian absolute space model.

The experiment showed that we were not moving on a horizontal plane and Einstein solved it by saying that different moving observers had their own space and time.

Is there any evidence for this outside of the fact that they didn't like the results of the experiment?

Where is the evidence that each observer has their own space and time?

Where is the direct evidence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, outside of these "theoretical formulations" based on Earth-motion experiments?

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Literal Godspeed

« on: July 03, 2024, 08:21:24 PM »

I haven't seen any evidence that there is a speed limit in the universe. Logically, there is nothing and no one policing speed limits in the universe. Where is your proof that something is limiting it?

The speed of light limit and consistency of c postulates were actually a response to another experiment called the Michelson Morley Experiment which showed that the earth was not moving in an experiment conducted on a horizontal plane. The fact that these experiments come from anti-RE experiments nullifies the axioms for this subject. There is no speed of light limit.

In The Intrinsic Nature of Things: The Life and Science of Cornelius Lanczos, Barbara Gellai describes:

"To solve the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiment we have to abandon Newton's axioms of absolute space and absolute time. Einstein solved the problem by making the ingenious assumption that observers moving with different velocities with respect to each other have their own space and time. The second postulate of the theory of relativity is that light propagates in every direction with the same constant velocity, in every legitimate (uniformly moving) reference system. It is actually the theoretical formulation of the negative result of Michelson and Morley's experiment."

The Michelson and Morley experiment suggested to scientists that the earth was not rotating around the Sun, which resulted in a reformulation of space and time to create an illusion of and fix it.

See this video: How Einstein Made the Earth Move

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support Joe Biden?

« on: June 27, 2024, 10:54:38 PM »

It's like no one has realized that the Presidental debates dont happen in June. Biden's handlers proposed and accepted the earliest presidential debate in history, which took place before the Democratic nomination became official. They didn't even need to have Biden debate at all.

Some people in Biden's circle knew it would be a disaster and are trying to get him replaced as the nominee.

52

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 26, 2024, 03:51:11 AM »

It says that the earth a sphere that is expanding and accelerating outwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 in an unseen dimension.

It is apparent why none of you seem to want to directly defend this. The sheer absurdity of this overshadows any topic you may try to deflect with. Just look at how desperate Jack Black has become, saying nothing in his arguments for the sake of nothing. Just look at how desperate the rest of you are for also trying to weakly deflect away from this. And with that, it is a victory for FE. Your nonsense model of gravity turns into an overwhelming win for UA.

Even that theory that the earth is accelerating upwards with a little attraction which creates the gravitational variations is easier to swallow theory of gravity. That is what was being proposed about UA before it was shown that the gravitational variation claims themselves are questionable. At least that would be a physical model, and not a metaphysical model where you have to imagine that effects are being translated back to you from 'curved space'.

No matter what you do or say erases the fact that your model is an absurdity. Continuing to dance around it is just crying over spilt milk.

53

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 25, 2024, 04:29:24 AM »

If gravity and acceleration are equivalent and indistinguishable, then why wouldn't it make sense that gravitational and inertial mass should also be equivalent and indistinguishable?

Gravity and acceleration is indistinguishable in the sense that gravity emulates acceleration. The 'gravity' in the Equivalence Principle is referring to General Relativity. Notice that the sources which talk about the Equivalence Principle are all pro-Einsteinian papers and articles. The content around the topic is generally describing Einstein's theories. Einstein's Equivalence Principle is a tool to help us understand how General Relativity works.

For instance, the source I last quoted disparages Newton's inertial-gravitational mass equity and then goes on to promote Einstein and his Equivalence Principle and upwards acceleration:

"In 1907, Einstein realized that the puzzle of masses was a hint of a more fundamental principle, which he called equivalence principle. This equivalence principle asserts that gravitation is not a force; it is acceleration."

Note those choice of words - "equivalence principle asserts that gravitation is not a force; it is acceleration". The author then tries to convince us that the city of Montreal is accelerating upwards:

"Are you saying that Montreal is accelerating downwards?
No, it’s the opposite! Montreal is constantly accelerating upwards, at the well-known rate of 9.81 m/s2. That’s why two balls of different weights hit the ground at the same time: In their weightless natural frame of reference, they’re both still, and it’s the surface of the Earth that accelerate and reach them. It’s not then surprising that the ground reaches them both at the same time. Now, this really makes sense."

He goes on to clarify that spacetime is curved:

"Wait a minute… If all points on the surface of the Earth are accelerating upwards, does that mean that Earth is expanding in volume?
This sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? The surface of the Earth is roughly a sphere, and, given that it accelerates outwards, you’d expect the sphere to expand. But Einstein had a brilliant explanation for why it doesn’t: Spacetime is curved, and gravity was the cause of it!"

54

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 24, 2024, 06:52:00 PM »

Wow, look at Jack Black. He still thinks it's not a problem, in contradiction to the physicists who say it's a problem. Who ever are we to believe. 

As I have said, it is part of the narrative that the equality of gravitational and inertial mass is ad-hocery. This is why you consistently find yourself without sources to substantiate your claims. You have lost on this one.

Another source, from a PhD in Applied Mathematics -

http://www.science4all.org/article/gravity/

"Einstein didn’t like that Newton’s theory required the equality of gravitational and inertial masses to match observation. He famously asked: “Did God have a choice in creating the universe?” What he meant by that is that a theory of physics would be more satisfying if it did not require apparently arbitrary ad hoc choices — like assuming that the gravitational and inertial masses were equal."

55

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 24, 2024, 06:10:10 AM »

There is no explanation for it in Newtonian mechanics. The quote I posted above continues with:

"Newton himself already noticed that the equality of these two types of masses is very puzzling, but could not find an explanation for it. For more than 200 years scientists kept banging their heads about this strange equality of gravitational and inertial mass. It would last until 1915 before Einstein finally, with his General Theory of Relativity, was able to find an explanation for it."

You were able to solve this Newtonian Gravity problem in a quick internet post, doing what scientists couldn't for over 200 years and which eventually required a radical reconceptualization of space? No.

We've seen several papers and articles now which describe the same. So just stop. Newtonian Gravity doesn't work for this and you have to use Einstein's theory that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards and outwards through curved space if you want to explain this in the RE model.

56

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 24, 2024, 05:08:35 AM »

Mass has nothing to do with the attraction of the bodies in the experiment. Galileo discovered in the 15th century that the motion of a freely falling object does not depend on the mass or composition. If attraction by mass did play a part, there would have been a difference. We saw recent quotes that a mass that is twice as large as another experiences twice the gravitational force. The explanation is that it coincidentally cancels with the body's doubled inertial resistance.

In regards to the equivalency of inertial and gravitational mass in Newtonian mechanics that is used to cancel out differences, it is indeed nonsense that is on the level of a magical coincidence.

See the following: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305472523_Gravity_According_to_Galilei_Newton_Einstein_and_Mach

Inertial Mass Versus Gravitational Mass

"Perhaps Newton’s most amazing finding about gravity was that the mass which determines the strength of the gravitational force exerted by a body—the so-called gravitational mass —is the same as its inertial mass , which determines the body’s resistance against being accelerated. This is very strange, because the gravitational mass which produces the gravitational attraction exerted by the body is something like an electric charge, which determines the electric attraction (or repulsion) exerted by an electrically charged body (positively and negatively electrically charged bodies attract each other; bodies with the same charge repel each other). The gravitational mass is therefore, in fact, the 'gravitational charge' of the body, which allows it to exert a gravitational force on objects surrounding it. There seems to be no reason why this 'gravitational charge' would have anything to do with the inertial mass of the object, which causes the object to resist to being accelerated."

The above explains that gravity (the "gravitational charge") depends on the environment whereas "inertial mass" does not.

In weightless space and on Earth the inertial resistance of an object is the same. A baseball hitting your chest at 95 mph would hurt the same in space as on Earth. Inertial resistance is an immutable property of a mass.

Yet on a smaller planet than the RE Earth there would be less gravity, or "gravitational charge".

So why would gravity and inertial resistance only cancel out on Earth to make bodies of different masses fall the same?

Hence, the unacceptable coincidence. It is because of this apparent nonsense that science has spent millions of dollars and centuries of effort to create sensitive laboratory experiments to detect the difference between inertial and gravitational mass, to which they have found none.

57

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: June 23, 2024, 03:33:40 PM »

Actually, the experiment is looking at whether the masses are attracted (the equivalency excuse says that they are not attracted based on differing mass because there is something that cancels out the differences). It is looking for whether the masses were attracted under the idea that there is an increase of gravitational attraction when there is an increase of mass. This is what the usual interpretation of attraction based on mass means. More mass should mean more attraction. If they were attracted in that way, there would have been a difference.

The explanation that there is a canceling effect is a magic wand, waved over a null result that contradicts mass-attraction theory. It's the magic wand which physicists have been attacking as ad-hocery in the previous quotes.

The same magic wand is waved over the fact that the same torsion balance experiment cannot detect the Coriolis force. 

On page p.219 of "Foundations of Modern Cosmology" by Professor John F. Hawley, and Katherine A. Holcomb we read a history on this experiment:

  “ The first highly accurate experiment to test the equivalence principle was performed in 1889 by Barron Rosland von Eötvös. Eötvös constructed a device called a torsion balance. He suspended two bodies of nearly equal mass but different composition, from a beam which hung from a very fine wire precisely at its center. If the magnitudes of the Coriolis force (from the Earth's rotation) and the gravitational force had differed between the bodies due to their differing composition, Eötvös would have been able to detect a twisting of the wire. None was seen, and Eötvös was able to conclude that inertial and gravitational mass was equal, to approximately one part in 10^9. In the 20th century, Robert Dicke and others pushed the limit of such an experiment to 10^11, but the Baron's results were sufficient to convince many, including Einstein, that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. ”

This time the explanation for this is explaining away why the experiment cannot detect the Coriolis force.

The above is another exercise in excuse-making. If you put a two balls of different compositions and slightly different masses on a rotating turntable, there will be a difference in velocities when the table turns. There is no reason for why there should be a magical equation which cancels out all expected effects. They looked for that effect and could not find it. Hence, the earth is not rotating. You are left with excuses for why the experiments are not working out for you.

Really, you should have a whole bunch of slam dunk laboratory experiments in your favor here. Instead, you have silly excuses with a fix-it mechanism that has been widely criticized.

58

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 12:03:57 PM »

I told you that I'm not going to be putting money towards this. You have not even offered to give us money to go.

If you want to participate in this experiment and document it for us, then you have my encouragement. However, if you are not going to participate or do anything to facilitate our funds then you need to stop asking us to do this.

59

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 11:06:34 AM »

Per The Final Experiment website the "free" slots are already taken. Their FAQ says they are only going to pay for one FE and one GE. All others need to pay, and they have 9 participants who have signed up. Are you going to risk sending $31,495 to the person the amateurish website tells you to in order to go on this trip? If not, then kindly stop posting.

60

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica

« on: June 23, 2024, 09:59:10 AM »

With enough preparation you can build a boat with your bare hands and travel to Antarctica, avoiding any potential authorities who police entrance into Antarctica, and perform the experiment yourself.  However, this is irrelevant to whether The Final Experiment is a scam.