SMOKING GUN

There is an admission of the sort in there, only you don't see it, and you don't see it because you don't want to see it (you don't want to open your eyes).

And there you go projecting again. You are the one wilfully rejecting reality and intentionally quote mining people and misrepresenting what they say.
There is no admission there. You are just pretending there is one because you want to cling to the Bible claiming Earth is stationary.

I like people of principle, however, how about being in line with the following principles :
--Following the evidence wherever it leads!
--Admitting the obvious!
--Preferring the truth over lies, no matter what!
--Doing whatever (and whenever) you can to be an honest person! (Hint : being an honest person is not compatible with deliberate lying and/or deliberate burying head in the sand)

They are good principles. You should try following them some time.
Instead you repeatedly reject evidence, refuse to admit the obvious, not only preferring lies but repeating and promoting them and in general doing whatever you can to be a dishonest person with blatant misrepresentation of people's positions including lying about them.
Another that is quite relevant for you is to pick one topic and stick to it, rather than being extremely dishonest by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant BS to try and distract from your inability to rationally defend your position.

So follow your own advice.

Pimp out? Do you know what the word PIMPEK means in croatian? Google translation can be very helpful tool...

According to Google translate, PIMPEK. But I don't give a damn. Your videos are useless. They offer absolutely nothing. You posting them just serves to pimp out your videos to boost your view count.

There is a way to detect absolute motion of the earth through motionless aether. However, it was established :

It was established that the aether doesn't exist due to the massive contradiction required as it needs Earth to be stationary and moving relative to the aether, and it can't be both.

It has never been shown that the aether exists, and thus no motion relative to the aether or absolute motion of the aether has ever been shown.

It has never been shown that Earth is motionless, however it has been shown that Earth moves.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

Stop repeating the same lie.
No experiment to detect the absolute linear motion of Earth has ever been carried out as it is literally impossible. However plenty have shown relative motion or rotational motion.
Even your precious Airy's failure still showed what amounts to changing linear motion, showing that Earth orbits the sun at a speed of roughly 30 km/s.

Michelson-Gale confirmed that the Earth was spinning. If you take anything else from it you are misrepresenting their findings or you do not understand it properly.

Good. Glad you can finally admit that Earth is rotating.
So we can end this nonsense discussion of yours where you repeatedly claim it is stationary?

If the aether

That requires the aether to exist, completely discarding relativity and instead appealing to the already refuted idea of light propogating through a motionless aether. Try addressing the experiment without that BS.

Now, let's see this very interesting quote :

No. Lets stop with these pathetic quotes and instead you can start actually trying to make an argument.
Especially considering you pull the quotes completely out of context and removes parts you don't like, and don't even provide a link to the source.

This is the central theme of Sagnac:

The central theme of the Sagnac effect is that rotation can be detected and that this rotation is not relative to anything.

Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

Pure BS. There is no reason to stupidly assert that because you cannot detect linear motion that you cannot detect rotational motion. The 2 are vastly different. Against stop appealing to the refuted BS of aether.

On stellar aberration :

It conclusively demonstrates that Earth orbits the sun at a speed of 30 km/s. If you want to make an argument, do so yourself. Don't just copy and paste crap.

But the question is this :
1. Why such hypothesis is unwelcome?
2. How can you justify rejecting such hypothesis on the basis that it is unwelcome hypothesis?

For 2, you don't. The reason it is rejected is the same as the reason it is unwelcome.
It requires special pleading to the extreme, the completely unsupported idea that Earth is magically fixed and unmovable, occupying a magically special location in the universe.

If your hypothesis requires that, and has no evidence or justification or explanation for why that is true, it will be rejected in favour of more rational alternatives.

You might read, Misquoting Hubble by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on September 26, 2018
And this might be relevant too, Geocentric gobbledegook: A review of The Earth is not Moving by Marshall Hall, Fair Education Foundation, Cornelia, Georgia, 1991 by Danny Faulkner

You might read this :
Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference!

You might try and read it yourself, it already addresses it.
One is uniform linear motion, the other is rotational motion, where the apparatus moves relative to itself, continually accelerating.
They are vastly different.
The question should be why would one expect an inability to measure linear motion means you can't measure rotational motion?

1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference

Where did he do that?
That seems to go entirely against what his work was showing. He showed that they were similar but had slight difference. Perhaps the biggest being the speed of light. In an inertial reference frame, the speed of light is constant, in all directions, and the same as in other inertial reference frames, and light travels in a straight line.
In a non-inertial reference frame the speed of light is not necessarily the same, and light will not necessarily travel in a straight line.

It is that massive difference which addresses your wilful ignorance.

The paradox could not have been greater.

Again, you have no paradox.

Mach's principle ... fixed aether

Notice how that has nothing to do with relativity, which doesn't appeal to the stupidity of Mach's principle nor the already refuted aether?

And once again you have gone off on hundreds of tangents as you are completely unable to rationally defend your position.
I will take that as an admission that your prior claims have been pure BS, that you have no smoking gun, and that no one should ever trust anything you say.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 12, 2019, 03:47:18 PM

You might read, Misquoting Hubble by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on September 26, 2018
And this might be relevant too, Geocentric gobbledegook: A review of The Earth is not Moving by Marshall Hall, Fair Education Foundation, Cornelia, Georgia, 1991 by Danny Faulkner

1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation?  The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.

Have you so soon forgotten this?

Mach's Principle was nothing more than a hypothesis that was never shown to have any basis.
Even Isaac Newton, long before Ernst Mach was aware of the implications and proposed the "Newton's Bucket Experiment".

No, Einstein General Relativity does not include Mach's Principle. Initially, Einstein would certainly have preferred a system but he found that was not possible.
Ernst Mach hypothesised that even rotary motion was relative so that the forces due to rotation (centripetal, Coriolis etc) could be explained the stars, etc rotating above the object.

Funnily the name was given to the "principle" by Einstein who discarded it on "his pathway to General Relativity".
You can read more in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity in technology Chapter "Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But these things are so hard to explain to you because you do not seem to understand or accept even the simplest "laws" of motion.

Einstein did attempt to include "Mach's Principle" but his theory had to explain reality not what Einstein might have wanted.

The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.

Why would you claim that "Newton's Law of Gravitation . . . . remained disconnected from planetarian rotation"?
Newton was one of the first to develop calculus and the first to do the maths on elliptical orbits.
And astronomers were quick to test and use Newton's work.
Of course "motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is"! Who denies it.

But, for example, the angular velocity of the earth around the sun, 8.27 x 10^-9 rad/sec is far too small to measure directly whereas
the earth's rotation, at 7.27 x 10^-5 rad/sec can be measured and has been with the MGP experiment and modern ring lasers gyroscopes.
Not only that but the earth's orbital motion is not strictly an additional rotation. Orbital motion is not rotation but a translation.
If the moon orbited the earth without also rotating it we would not always see (almost) the same face.

---

Rather than attempt answering the rest of that wall of text that has been answered in many places by many people please answer this that I have asked before:

If Newton's Laws are correct then it is quite impossible for the far larger total masses of the rest of the Solar System (let alone the whole universe) to orbit the relatively small mass of the earth.

So, cikljamas, either come up with some alternate Laws of Motion and Gravitation or admit that your Geocentric ideas can have no basis.

Then answer:
      Is there any physical limit on the velocity of stars etc? and
      in your Geocentric Cosmology what is the pproximate distance to the moon, sun, planets and stars?
Answer that or nothing's doing.

And some bedtime reading:
          Creation.com, Geocentrism and Creation by Danny Faulkner
and   Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion by David Palm.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2019, 07:20:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 24, 2019, 05:45:05 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 23, 2019, 02:05:31 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 23, 2019, 01:50:52 PM

in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,

Interesting.

Isn't it?

And on heliocentric model, the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day corresponds to one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year.  Which is what we observe.

How does the geocentric model account for this?  Coincidence?

If you have no explanation, just say so and I’ll stop asking.

No, this is actually trivial, few years ago i thought i could use this ratio (the difference of one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year) in favor of geocentricity, and then Alpha2Omega responded with one very entertaining comment :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

Accompanying post : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1691932#msg1691932

...

Well, it seems that we have to come back to this issue once again!

Alpha said :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s???

Alpha, how can you redefine the length of the day from 24 h to about 24 h 3 m 57s, having in mind that one solar day is exactly 24h???

All we are interested about is to pay attention to :

A The Exact length of the sidereal time ("rotational" period of the earth)
B The Exact length of the synodic time (solar day)

Once we determine A and B we have to do this :

365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860
 
31 536 000 - 31 449 860 = 86 140 (24sec less than sidereal time)

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that rotational period of the Earth were 472 sec less (instead of 236 sec) than one solar day (24 h), then we would have to reckon like this :

365 * 85928 (hypothetical sidereal time) = 31 363 720

31 536 000 - 31 363 720 = 172 280 seconds (48sec less than two sidereal times)

The point is this :

You can't artificially change the length of one solar day because it is determined by the exact time that sun needs to come back to the local meridian!!!

So, the difference between one solar year and one sidereal year being almost exactly one sidereal day is far from being just a coincidence, it is not trivial thing after all...

-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
---

Let's see how it looks like in Mars' case :

Mars' orbital period : 687 earth days = 59 356 800 seconds

Mars' rotational period : 88 642 seconds

59 356 800 (687 earth's days) : 88 642 = 669,6 rotational periods

Mars's solar day : 88 775 seconds

59 356 800 : 88775 = 668,6 solar days

ONE SOLAR DAY DIFFERENCE?!?!?!?!?

Very interesting!

According to Copernicus : Mars' distance to the sun = 11 110 400 km
According to modern science : Mars' distance to the sun = 228 000 000 km


Tycho obtained precise measurements of the apparent diameters of the fixed stars, determining that a typical first-magnitude star has an apparent diameter of two minutes of arc—one fifteenth the diameter of the Moon or Sun. 

In a geocentric universe, fixed stars could lie just beyond Saturn (Figure 2)—a distance of just over 12.5 A.U.  Thus Tycho determined that the physical diameter of the typical first-magnitude star was about 80% that of the Sun—one of the larger bodies in a celestial
assemblage whose smallest member was the Moon and whose largest was the Sun (see Table 1).

But in a Copernican universe, in order for annual parallax to be no more than a minute of arc (just falling under Tycho’s circle of general accuracy, and thus just evading detection),the distance to the fixed stars would have to be almost 7,000 A.U.

Copernicus’s Saturn-to-stars “gap of the largest size” would be over 700 times the Sun-to-distance. And the stars themselves, rather than falling within the size range of the other heavenly bodies, would have to be hundreds of times the diameter of the Sun (see Table 2).

What’s more, said Tycho, what if the parallax turns out to be smaller than that minute of arc? Then the fixed stars would have to be
still larger.  Such immense stars at such immense distances were absurd. (see Blair 1990, 364; Moesgaard 1972, 51 Brahe 1601, 167)

But according to Christoph Rothmann (~1555~1600), the German Copernican against whom Tycho leveled this argument, this was not absurd at all. The Creator need not make Creation conform to our notions of reasonableness (Moesgaard 1972, 52).  Said Rothmann —

But as far as I am concerned ... why should it seem untrue for the distance from the Sun to Saturn to be contained so many times between Saturn and the remoteness of the fixed Stars? or what is so absurd about a Star of the third Magnitude having size equal to the whole annual orb?  What of this is contrary to divine will, or is impossible by divine Nature, or is inadmissible by infinite Nature?  These things must be entirely demonstrated by you, if you will wish to infer from here anything of the absurd.  These things which common men see as absurd at first glance are not easily charged with absurdity, for in fact divine Sapience and Majesty is far greater than they understand.  Grant the Vastness of the Universe and the Sizes of the stars to be as great as you like —these will still bear no proportion to the infinite Creator.  It reckons that the greater the King, so much more greater and larger the palace befitting his Majesty.  So how great a palace do you reckon is fitting to GOD? [Brahe 1601, 186; Graney 2012]

Rothmann was not the first Copernican to invoke “palace of God” imagery in regards to the enormous stars demanded by the Copernican theory.

Thomas Digges (1546-1595) of England — one of only perhaps fifteen identifiable Copernicans in Tycho’s time, one of even fewer to write publicly on the theory, and the first to write on it in a vernacular language (Danielson 2006, 232; Wernham 1968, 461) — described the stars in supernatural terms (see Figure 3).

Indeed, Copernicus himself had spoken of the stars in such terms: “So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most excellent Almighty [Copernicus 1543, 133].” However, Tycho was most unreceptive to the use of God to solve the problem of the bigness of stars.

He asks where in nature — where all things are well-ordered in all ways of time, measure, and weight, and there is nothing empty, nothing irrational, nothing disproportionate or inharmonious —do we see the Will of God acting in an irregular or disorderly manner?  It is true, Tycho says, that a finite world can bear no proportion to an infinite Creator, but nature does show proportion and symmetry within itself — and as an example he cites the human body illustrated in the work of the artist Albrecht Dürer. 

There is nothing proportional or harmonious or rational, says Tycho, in the Copernican theory’s so distant stars that so dwarf the Sun(Brahe 1601, 191-2).Despite Tycho’s exhortations, Copernicans continued to connect the bigness of stars to the power of God. Several decades after the German Copernican Rothmann spoke of gigantic stars using the language of the “palace of God”, and well after the advent of the telescope (Figure 4), the Dutch Copernican Philips Lansbergen (1561–1632) could be found using the same language in his 1629 Considerations on the Diurnal and Annual Rotation of the Earth, as well as on the True Image of the Visible Heaven; Wherein the Wonderful Works of God are Displayed.

In this widely read and influential book (the first in Europe whose purpose was popularizing the Copernican theory among a non-mathematical audience), Lansbergen accepts the immense sizes of the stars, as to him these show the divine nature of the heavens. 
He determines the heavens to be threefold, owing to a reference in 2 Corinthians 12:2 to a “third heaven”.  The first heaven, says Lansbergen, is that of the planets. The second is that of the fixed stars.  It is immense compared to the planetary heaven; each star is indeed the size of Earth’s orbit (as Tycho had said must be the case if Copernicus was right).  The light of those stars illuminates the whole of the second heaven, which is therefore full of immense splendor. The purpose of this immense size and splendor is to indicate God’s infinity to humankind.  The heavens, Lansbergen says, echoing the words of Digges and Rothmann before him, are like a fore-court in front of God’s palace. The third heaven, that of God, is to the second heaven of the stars as that second heaven is to the first heaven of the planets (Vermij 2007, 124-5).

Thus when Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598- 1671) in his 1651 Almagestum Novum reprised Tycho’s argument on the bigness of the fixed stars — now using precise telescopic measurements of their diameters and maximum annual parallax (see Figure 4), but obtaining essentially the same result: that in a geocentric cosmos the sizes of stars were consistent with the Sun, Earth, and planets, while in a heliocentric cosmos they dwarfed the Sun (Graney 2010b) — he also reprised Tycho’s complaint about how Copernicans answered the star bigness problem.

Since nothing is beyond the power of God the Copernican answer was beyond refute in one sense, but, like Tycho, Riccioli rejected that answer to the star bigness problem, stating that “even if this falsehood cannot be refuted, nevertheless it cannot satisfy the more prudent men” (Graney 2012).



 

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach

“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle




Having in mind quotes above i have to put forward this question :

In HC and GC universe when we observe the sun from certain latitude (let's say from the equator), the sun's equator inclination changes equally in both systems.

Now, in HC universe when we observe other TILTED (wrt the ecliptic) planets (from the TILTED earth which is going along it's orbital plane (ecliptic) around the sun), then we wouldn't expect to see any change in the TILT of other planets wrt to certain latitude on the earth, no matter where the earth is in it's orbit around the sun.   

However, in GC universe there should be a massive change regarding the TILT of other planets wrt to certain latitude on the earth, depending on the inclination of the ecliptic wrt the same latitude, because in GC universe all the planets (as well as the sun)  go up (23,5 degr. above the equator) and down (23,5 degr. below the equator), and by doing so, their TILT could be preserved only wrt the sun, but not wrt the earth and wrt the stars (or vice versa),  isn't that so?

If that is so, then how come that all those physicists can claim that there is no observational difference (regarding the motion of the planets) between GC and HC model?

How about Tycho's argument regarding an absence of the retrograde motion of the comets?

If there is no absence of retrograde motion of the comets, how come that no one from HC camp haven't pointed out (yet) such a powerful observational proof in favor of HC theory???

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system?"

Neither and neither is the Keplerian system.

Please get a little up to date. Tycho Brahe's observations were good for the unaided eye but quite inadequate to observe either stellar aberration or stellar parallax.
In the morning I might take a closer look at your previous post and have much more to say on that.

PS I don't need to as Googleotomy has done it better than the could hope to .

Quote from: cikljamas on March 24, 2019, 12:32:14 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2019, 07:20:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 24, 2019, 05:45:05 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 23, 2019, 02:05:31 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 23, 2019, 01:50:52 PM

in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,

Interesting.

Isn't it?

And on heliocentric model, the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day corresponds to one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year.  Which is what we observe.

How does the geocentric model account for this?  Coincidence?

If you have no explanation, just say so and I’ll stop asking.

No, this is actually trivial, few years ago i thought i could use this ratio (the difference of one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year) in favor of geocentricity, and then Alpha2Omega responded with one very entertaining comment :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

Accompanying post : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1691932#msg1691932

...

Well, it seems that we have to come back to this issue once again!

Alpha said :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s???

Alpha, how can you redefine the length of the day from 24 h to about 24 h 3 m 57s, having in mind that one solar day is exactly 24h???

Actually, the length of the mean solar day is currently defined as exactly 86,400 SI seconds (which works out to exactly 24 hours).

Since 1967, the definition of the SI second is:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

Unfortunately, those definitions do not correspond exactly with the actual mean time between transits of the sun; it's ever so slightly too short overall. This necessitates the addition of leap seconds every now and then to keep the actual mean solar day in sync to within a second of the defined mean solar day.

The point is that we can define these terms to be whatever we want. The consequences of defining a day to be a length of time that is not very close to the actual length of time will cause problems (like civil noon occurring in the middle of the night). I said you should expect resistance to the idea.

All we are interested about is to pay attention to :

A The Exact length of the sidereal time ("rotational" period of the earth)
B The Exact length of the synodic time (solar day)

Once we determine A and B we have to do this :

And therein lies the problem: the sidereal day does not have an exact length. It varies slightly and irregularly from day to day and is lengthening on a long-term trend. Since the true length of the mean solar day depends on the length of the sidereal day as well as the orbital motion of the earth-sun system, it, too, has no fixed exact length.

So we work with approximations.

365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860
 
31 536 000 - 31 449 860 = 86 140 (24sec less than sidereal time)

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that rotational period of the Earth were 472 sec less (instead of 236 sec) than one solar day (24 h), then we would have to reckon like this :

365 * 85928 (hypothetical sidereal time) = 31 363 720

31 536 000 - 31 363 720 = 172 280 seconds (48sec less than two sidereal times)

The point is this :

You can't artificially change the length of one solar day because it is determined by the exact time that sun needs to come back to the local meridian!!!

Yes we can. It was done in 1967.

The result is the necessity of either dealing with leap seconds every year or so on average, or accumulating a discrepancy between the defined civil day and the mean time of solar transits, or having a second of variable length. Each of these has its own problems, but they all stem from the fact that the rotation period of the earth is not constant, which precludes knowing its exact value because 1) it's not possible to measure exactly (although we can get close) and 2) even if we could find its exact value at some moment in time, because it's changing, that exact value would immediately be obsolete.

So, the difference between one solar year and one sidereal year being almost exactly one sidereal day is far from being just a coincidence, it is not trivial thing after all...

By "solar year" I presume you mean "mean tropical year" (mean period between vernal equinoxes after averaging out some jitter due primarily to the position of the moon). This differs from the length of the mean sidereal year (period of time between the sun returning to the same right ascension in a non-precessing reference system) by about 20 minutes due to precession. If you compare the number of sidereal days in a year and solar days a year using the same reference system for both day and year (precessing or non-precessing) they differ from each other by exactly one. This is indeed no coincidence, but is not a revelation, either, since exactly one orbit causes a difference of exactly one day between these day lengths.

Let's see how it looks like in Mars' case :

Mars' orbital period : 687 earth days = 59 356 800 seconds

Mars' rotational period : 88 642 seconds

59 356 800 (687 earth's days) : 88 642 = 669,6 rotational periods

Mars's solar day : 88 775 seconds

59 356 800 : 88775 = 668,6 solar days

ONE SOLAR DAY DIFFERENCE?!?!?!?!?

Very interesting!

Again, this is indeed no coincidence, but is not a revelation, either, since exactly one orbit causes a difference of exactly one day between these day lengths.

Thanks for not labeling those approximate numbers as "exact"!

If you want to see something even more interesting, do the same comparison between solar and sidereal days on Venus using that planet's rotation rate (and direction!) and year length..

According to Copernicus : Mars' distance to the sun = 11 110 400 km
According to modern science : Mars' distance to the sun = 228 000 000 km

Tycho obtained precise measurements of the apparent diameters of the fixed stars, determining that a typical first-magnitude star has an apparent diameter of two minutes of arc—one fifteenth the diameter of the Moon or Sun. 

Tycho had no way to precisely measure the apparent diameter of fixed stars. They are below the threshold of his instruments' ability to measure them by several orders of magnitude. He may have thought he measured that, but he was wrong.

Well, it seems that we have to come back to this issue once again!

Yes, we do seem to be repeatedly coming back to the same non-issues.

Alpha, how can you redefine the length of the day from 24 h to about 24 h 3 m 57s, having in mind that one solar day is exactly 24h???

No, a solar day is not exactly 24 hours.
An hour was defined to be 1 24th of a mean solar day.
This remaining 24 hours over a long period of time where the hour was defined based upon it means nothing in regards to Earth taking the same time to rotate.

Once we determine A and B we have to do this :
365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860

Why would we do this?
Why not do it the correct way? i.e.:
365.2425 * 86400 = 31556952
366.2425 * 86164.0905 = 31556951.91494625

Wow, almost identical.
You can't use 365 days, as that isn't actually the length of the year. This is shown with leap years.
A year is roughly 365.2425 mean solar days.
There is one more sidereal day in a year than a mean solar day.

No, this isn't a coincidence. It is a consequence of Earth orbiting the sun and rotating in the same direction.
If you did it with Venus, it is the other way around, with the solar day being shorter and there being one less sidereal day.

Tycho obtained precise measurements of the apparent diameters of the fixed stars, determining that a typical first-magnitude star has an apparent diameter of two minutes of arc—one fifteenth the diameter of the Moon or Sun.

Yes, an apparent diameter, you can even call it precise (but that doesn't mean accurate). This is due to a multitude of factors, including atmospheric distortion and limitations of the optics being used. Just what did he use to measure the size? His eyes? The important thing to note is that this has no relation to the actual size of the star. 

In a geocentric universe, fixed stars could lie just beyond Saturn (Figure 2)—a distance of just over 12.5 A.U.  Thus Tycho determined that the physical diameter

You mean he made a bunch of wild assumptions and just guessed.

And the stars themselves, rather than falling within the size range of the other heavenly bodies, would have to be hundreds of times the diameter of the Sun (see Table 2).

Why? Because he couldn't resolve them property and determine their actual angular size?

We have already been over this.

And I will skip over the rest of your copy pasted BS. (yes, that is right, BS, as plenty of it is outright lies).

Yes, it is incredibly unlikely for all the planets to orbit in the same plane by chance. This just further destroys the GC model as it has no explanation at all (which seems to be a common theme).
But it isn't a problem for HC at all. It means the planets, including Earth all have a common origin which resulted in them orbiting in roughly the same plane.
So good job backing up HC once more.

In HC and GC universe when we observe the sun from certain latitude (let's say from the equator), the sun's equator inclination changes equally in both systems.

Are you sure about that?
With the stationary Earth, not even rotating, the sun has to circle Earth in a completely magical way which makes no sense at all. But if we ignore that and instead just use conservation of angular momentum to keep that the same, lets see what we would expect for GC and HC over the course of a day near the solstice. First HC (this works any time over the course of a day):


So it wouldn't matter what your longitude is, you would observe the same tilt at Zenith and it would appear to vary.
But now lets see GC:

One observer at midday sees it almost orthogonal to them, pointing straight up, another sees it aligned with them.
So there should be massive differences there.

But what about over the course of a year?
Well, first HC:

Notice how the tilt changes.
In some cases the sun appears to tilt towards the north pole, in others it appears to tilt away, and in some cases it is sideways.

And now GC:

Notice how the sun just moves up and down, not changing its tilt?

So a massive difference yet again.
The only way out is for GC to just discard it and have their sun be magic.

Now why don't you go get a solar telescope and see what happens.

If that is so, then how come that all those physicists can claim that there is no observational difference (regarding the motion of the planets) between GC and HC model?

Because if you want to go like that, the GC has no explanation for why the planets circle the sun, so that would already be a difference and the GC model predicts everything should just appear to orbit Earth. Not circle, orbit. But the GC model doesn't care about physics. Instead it just forces everything to appear the way it does. This ties in with the retrograde motion of the planets. In a GC universe there should be no retrograde motion. But the GC people don't care about a model which makes sense, just one that keeps their religious BS of Earth being stationary and all other predictions matching.

The GC model is not a model based upon explanation and prediction. It is based upon "well we see this" and as such repeatedly defies physics by pure magic and produce the same observations.
That is why.
No amount of observation of planets will change the mind of those who religiously believe in GC (like you). Instead you will just have the GC model forced to match reality. The big difference is in the ability to explain these observations. GC has no explanation. HC explains it quite well.

How about Tycho's argument regarding an absence of the retrograde motion of the comets?

You mean the already refuted nonsense?

If there is no absence of retrograde motion of the comets, how come that no one from HC camp haven't pointed out (yet) such a powerful observational proof in favor of HC theory???

Several reasons. One, as already pointed out above, if the comets do display retrograde motion, why should the GC camp care? If retrograde motion was enough to destroy GC, the retrograde motion of the planets already would have.
But perhaps more importantly, by the time we had the tools which would allow us to detect that (their highly elliptical orbit and variable brightness makes it quite difficult to see them at times when they would be changing direction), people already knew Earth orbited the sun and there was no point. It would be like someone trying to come along now and prove people need air to live.

Alpha, let's put the Earth in Mars' orbit (and let's adjust it's rotational speed so that we can preserve the difference between Earth's sidereal and synodic period) :

59 356 800 : 86400 = 687 rotations
59 356 800 : 86164 = 688,88 rotations

So, the difference is 1,88 rotations (not one rotation)

Let's assume that the earth rotates on it's axis 236 sec * 2 (472 seconds) faster than 24 hours (one solar day) :

59 356 800 : 86400 = 687 rotations
59 356 800 : 85 928 = 690,77

So, the difference is now 3,77 rotations (not one rotation)

If i am missing something, feel free to point out where i made a mistake...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack, watch this video :



And then tell me, does this guy has any idea what he is talking about???

If his interpretation of GC theory was correct, then it would be utterly easy to determine whose/which model is true interpretation of reality.

However, CHL is so wrong...

169 713 views of this piece of shit of the video

3 100 likes

90 dislikes

Is this is how heliocentrists are dumbing down society (their gullible followers)?

According to this HC idiot, ecliptic every so often is aligned with Earth's equator...

According to this GC expert, ecliptic within GC model wobbles :



So, before we can proceed further (regarding this issue), we have to determine if there is even a shred of truth in any of these peculiar interpretations :

A) According to CHL's interpretation : Ecliptic every so often aligns with the equator of the Earth
B) According to Michael Bowden's interpretation : Ecliptic wobbles

I am almost absolutely sure that both interpretations of GC theory (and/or Tychonic system) are totally wrong!

Alpha, let's put the Earth in Mars' orbit (and let's adjust it's rotational speed so that we can preserve the difference between Earth's sidereal and synodic period) :

59 356 800 : 86400 = 687 rotations
59 356 800 : 86164 = 688,88 rotations

So, the difference is 1,88 rotations (not one rotation)

Let's assume that the earth rotates on it's axis 236 sec * 2 (472 seconds) faster than 24 hours (one solar day) :

59 356 800 : 86400 = 687 rotations
59 356 800 : 85 928 = 690,77

So, the difference is now 3,77 rotations (not one rotation)

If i am missing something, feel free to point out where i made a mistake...

Your mistake is that you cannot pick just any difference between sidereal and synodic days you want for a given orbital period. The difference is determined by the fact that the number of sidereal and synodic rotations in a synodic year must differ by exactly one, because exactly one circuit around the sun "consumes" exactly one rotation (for prograde orbit and rotation).

In other words, you can only pick any two of these quantities: length of sidereal day, length of synodic day, orbit period. The third depends on the two you picked. If you just choose numbers for all three, which you were doing in your examples, the answer is meaningless.

Also, in your second example you increased the difference between sidereal day synodic day in the slower orbit. That is incorrect; in the slower orbit the difference will be less, not greater.

Just using a quick calculation, Mars' orbital period is about 687 mean solar (earth) days, or 1.88 times as long as the mean tropical earth year. Does that number sound familiar?

If you want a planet in Mars' orbit to have its synodic day to be 86400 SI seconds, its sidereal period must be 236 SI sec divided, not multiplied, by 1.88 = 125 sec less.

59 356 800 : 86400 = 687 rotations
59 356 800 : (86 400 - 125) = 59 356 800 : 86 275 = 687.995 rotations

Close enough to exactly one rotation different considering the rounding.

@Alpha, in order to make it simpler let's come back to this (basic) example :
 

Quote from: cikljamas on April 15, 2019, 04:37:51 AM

365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860
 
31 536 000 - 31 449 860 = 86 140 (24sec less than sidereal time)

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that rotational period of the Earth were 472 sec less (instead of 236 sec) than one solar day (24 h), then we would have to reckon like this :

365 * 85928 (hypothetical sidereal time) = 31 363 720

31 536 000 - 31 363 720 = 172 280 seconds (48sec less than two sidereal times)

The point is this :

You can't artificially change the length of one solar day because it is determined by the exact time that sun needs to come back to the local meridian!!!

Yes we can. It was done in 1967.

The result is the necessity of either dealing with leap seconds every year or so on average, or accumulating a discrepancy between the defined civil day and the mean time of solar transits, or having a second of variable length. Each of these has its own problems, but they all stem from the fact that the rotation period of the earth is not constant, which precludes knowing its exact value because 1) it's not possible to measure exactly (although we can get close) and 2) even if we could find its exact value at some moment in time, because it's changing, that exact value would immediately be obsolete.

So, if we sped up earth's rotation for additional 236 sec., there would be 2 sidereal (annual) rotations, that is to say : an observer on the earth would see two (not one) annual rotations of the stars because 236 * 366 = 86376, and 472 * 366 = 172752 (which is 86376*2)...Can it be simpler than this? I don't see how you can escape this conclusion (that there would be 2 annual rotations of the stars if the time length between sidereal rotation and synodic period would be twice longer (236*2) than it is in our reality???

@Alpha, in order to make it simpler let's come back to this (basic) example :
 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 15, 2019, 10:33:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 15, 2019, 04:37:51 AM

365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860
 
31 536 000 - 31 449 860 = 86 140 (24sec less than sidereal time)

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that rotational period of the Earth were 472 sec less (instead of 236 sec) than one solar day (24 h), then we would have to reckon like this :

365 * 85928 (hypothetical sidereal time) = 31 363 720

31 536 000 - 31 363 720 = 172 280 seconds (48sec less than two sidereal times)

The point is this :

You can't artificially change the length of one solar day because it is determined by the exact time that sun needs to come back to the local meridian!!!

Yes we can. It was done in 1967.

The result is the necessity of either dealing with leap seconds every year or so on average, or accumulating a discrepancy between the defined civil day and the mean time of solar transits, or having a second of variable length. Each of these has its own problems, but they all stem from the fact that the rotation period of the earth is not constant, which precludes knowing its exact value because 1) it's not possible to measure exactly (although we can get close) and 2) even if we could find its exact value at some moment in time, because it's changing, that exact value would immediately be obsolete.

So, if we sped up earth's rotation for additional 236 sec., there would be 2 sidereal (annual) rotations, that is to say : an observer on the earth would see two (not one) annual rotations of the stars because 236 * 366 = 86376, and 472 * 366 = 172752 (which is 86376*2)...Can it be simpler than this? I don't see how you can escape this conclusion (that there would be 2 annual rotations of the stars if the time length between sidereal rotation and synodic period would be twice longer (236*2) than it is in our reality???

No, you're confusing yourself.

If we could speed up earth's rotation so the sidereal day is shortened by 236 seconds but kept the same orbit, the length of the mean solar day would also be shortened by (almost exactly) 236 seconds, so the difference remains at (about) 236 seconds. The result would be 366.25 solar days in a year and 367.25 sidereal days in a year (one additional for both).

If you speed up earth's rotation and keep the orbit same, the length of the solar day has to change. It's as simple as that.

If you double the difference between synodic and sidereal days, then the orbit must take half as long. That is reality.

Alpha, let's put the Earth in Mars' orbit (and let's adjust it's rotational speed so that we can preserve the difference between Earth's sidereal and synodic period) :

So, the difference is 1,88 rotations (not one rotation)
If i am missing something, feel free to point out where i made a mistake...

Yes, you are missing something very important. You can't just dump them in elsewhere and expect the same relationship.
The difference is entirely due to the sun's apparent motion due to the planets motion in its orbit creating an offset between the sidereal day and the mean solar day.

A year will always have a difference of 1 day between the sidereal days and rotational days. This can be either 1 more solar day or 1 less.
The sole exception is when the rotational axis is perpendicular to the orbital axis. In that case you get a strange effect of part of a solar day just vanishing (either being skipped or a break between them) at the solstices.

The sidereal and synodic period are completely different things which haven't been discussed here yet, so I assume you just mean day rather than period, as the synodic period requires a reference, which is typically Earth, giving Earth a synodic period of 0.

Jack, watch this video :

Why should I?
If you think there is a valid argument in there, make it yourself.

If his interpretation of GC theory was correct, then it would be utterly easy to determine whose/which model is true interpretation of reality.

Again, if you go from trying to have an explanation, GC is wrong as everything should orbit Earth (or at least circle it). That doesn't match what is observed at all. That would mean the retrograde motion of the planets refutes GC, just like the retrograde motion of the comets and parallax and abberation. The issue is that GC supporters don't care about explanations, instead they just cares about the religious BS of having Earth the fixed centre of the universe and just having a model which matches observations, even if the model makes no sense.
You even appealed to the stars magically tracing out little circles around Earth to explain away aberration clearly showing the motion of Earth. That is how desperate you are. You pile on more and more nonsense just to keep Earth magically fixed in place.

You even go to the trouble of refuting yourself by providing an expected difference between GC and HC, just to dismiss the difference as "God can do what he wants, so reality not matching what is predicted for GC is just fine and doesn't refute GC at all"

It is quite clear, HC is a rational, scientific position based upon the available evidence and rational thought.
On the other hand, GC is an emotional religious position based upon the baseless assertion that Earth is magically fixed in place and unmovable. GC has no rational backing at all, nor any experiments showing it to be correct (and before you say it, taking experiments out of context to ignore the result of aether being nonsense is not an experiment showing GC to be correct).

Quote from: cikljamas on April 16, 2019, 11:15:36 AM

@Alpha, in order to make it simpler let's come back to this (basic) example :
 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 15, 2019, 10:33:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 15, 2019, 04:37:51 AM

365 * 86400 (solar day) = 31 536 000
365 * 86164 (sidereal time) = 31 449 860
 
31 536 000 - 31 449 860 = 86 140 (24sec less than sidereal time)

Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that rotational period of the Earth were 472 sec less (instead of 236 sec) than one solar day (24 h), then we would have to reckon like this :

365 * 85928 (hypothetical sidereal time) = 31 363 720

31 536 000 - 31 363 720 = 172 280 seconds (48sec less than two sidereal times)

The point is this :

You can't artificially change the length of one solar day because it is determined by the exact time that sun needs to come back to the local meridian!!!

Yes we can. It was done in 1967.

The result is the necessity of either dealing with leap seconds every year or so on average, or accumulating a discrepancy between the defined civil day and the mean time of solar transits, or having a second of variable length. Each of these has its own problems, but they all stem from the fact that the rotation period of the earth is not constant, which precludes knowing its exact value because 1) it's not possible to measure exactly (although we can get close) and 2) even if we could find its exact value at some moment in time, because it's changing, that exact value would immediately be obsolete.

So, if we sped up earth's rotation for additional 236 sec., there would be 2 sidereal (annual) rotations, that is to say : an observer on the earth would see two (not one) annual rotations of the stars because 236 * 366 = 86376, and 472 * 366 = 172752 (which is 86376*2)...Can it be simpler than this? I don't see how you can escape this conclusion (that there would be 2 annual rotations of the stars if the time length between sidereal rotation and synodic period would be twice longer (236*2) than it is in our reality???

No, you're confusing yourself.

If we could speed up earth's rotation so the sidereal day is shortened by 236 seconds but kept the same orbit, the length of the mean solar day would also be shortened by (almost exactly) 236 seconds, so the difference remains at (about) 236 seconds. The result would be 366.25 solar days in a year and 367.25 sidereal days in a year (one additional for both).

If you speed up earth's rotation and keep the orbit same, the length of the solar day has to change. It's as simple as that.

If you double the difference between synodic and sidereal days, then the orbit must take half as long. That is reality.

Holy fuck, you are right, thank you for your patience, i figured it out, and i hope Unconovinced knows now exactly why he can't use this "argument" in favor of HC theory.

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

It is quite clear, HC is a rational, scientific position based upon the available evidence and rational thought.
On the other hand, GC is an emotional religious position based upon the baseless assertion that Earth is magically fixed in place and unmovable. GC has no rational backing at all, nor any experiments showing it to be correct (and before you say it, taking experiments out of context to ignore the result of aether being nonsense is not an experiment showing GC to be correct).

As i already stressed out, several times before, i could very easily live in HC universe if it were our reality, but you can't live with GC truth, that is the big difference between you and me. Why is there such a big difference between you and me? Because you are religious fanatic, and i am agnostic in a sense that i don't believe in God's goodness. Making such an inference presumes attaining the highest level of wisdom, compassion and intellectual honesty, on the other hand, being such an utter atheistic fanatic and liar (that you obviously are) requires lingering in the mud of the lowest level of intellectual laziness, immorality, and dishonesty.

Maybe you need to read these words once again (although i am sure that nothing can help you, since you are a lost cause which is really, really sad and tragic, but i (or anyone else) can't do nothing about that, although if i could i would gladly help you) :

What we have in the history of western science is a fully formed highly detailed geocentric cosmology and mathematical astronomy in the form of the Syntaxis Mathematiké from Ptolemaeus from the middle of the second century CE. This lays out in great detail all of the arguments for and against both the geocentric and heliocentric cosmologies known to the Greek astronomers and cosmologist over a period of about six hundred years. Not exactly fragments of ideas! These arguments are logically argued scientific hypotheses based on solid empirical observation made by Babylonian and Greek astronomers over a period of approximately nine hundred years. Thanks to Ptolemaeus we know exactly why geocentrism was the standard. A standard that was accepted and defended in the works of Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers and mathematical commentators. This standard was also maintained and defended by many, many Islamic philosophers and astronomers from about 800 CE into the Early Modern Period.

The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.

However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought. Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

And that will be no different to doing so in the HC model.
You will still get a difference of 1 day.

As i already stressed out, several times before, i could very easily live in HC universe if it were our reality, but you can't live with GC truth

You may have said that, but it is just a load of garbage.
All the evidence points to HC. There is nothing pointing to GC.
So no, you are unwilling to accept HC if it is the truth. Instead you cling to GC because that is what your religion teaches.

I can't live with GC BS. I will stick with reality, with the model supported by evidence and rational thought rather than religious nonsense.
If you can provide a compelling argument as to why I should accept GC is true, I will change my mind.
But so far all you have done is repeat the same refuted nonsense and appeal to wilful ignorance.
The closest you have gotten is some observations can't tell the difference.

If all you can do is repeat the same BS and insult me, then you have no case.

Maybe you need to read these words once again

Repeating the same refuted nonsense wont help your case.
We did not have a fully formed and detailed geocentric cosmology which actually worked.
You have no explanation of why the celestial objects follow the paths they do, as there is no explanation other than pure magic.
HC has an explanation, that is a key fundamental difference which distinguishes it.

There are no scientific arguments supporting GC, all you have is wilful ignorance and religious nonsense. If you think there are scientific argument backing it up (not just saying we can't tell the difference but actually supporting GC over HC) then provide one, stop just asserting they exist.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 16, 2019, 03:06:52 PM

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

And that will be no different to doing so in the HC model.
You will still get a difference of 1 day.

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Ask Alpha2Omega if you don't believe me!

To read before bed (a gift from above) :

As one can see, the shell game of modem science continued and Lorentz
became its premier magician, all in an effort to avoid having to admit to
the audience the possibility that the Earth was standing still in space.

The issue was further obfuscated when physicists began creating
different responses to explain the “contraction” solution. At one point
Lorentz held:

“Yes, it is as real as anything we can observe,” to which
Sir Arthur Eddington retorted, “We say it contracts; but length is not a
property of the rod; it is a relation between the rod and the observer .”
 
At another time Eddington said:

“The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true .”

In one of his more sober moments, however, he added:

“...it was like the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s
adventures in Wonderland.”

Albert Michelson didn’t buy it either. To him the Lorentz solution was artificial,
mainly because the so-called contraction was independent of the elastic property
inherent in the interferometer itself, as in, for example, the resilience of a
tennis ball returning to its original shape after it is struck.

He writes of Lorentz’s proposal:

“Such a conclusion seems so improbable that one is inclined to return to
the hypothesis of Fresnel and try to reconcile in some other way
the ‘negative result’ [of the Michelson-Morley experiment].”
Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, New York, MacMillian
Company and Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 33-34, emphasis his.

At other points Lorentz admitted he was uncertain. In 1904 he stated:

It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward
with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account
for all well-established facts, it leads to some consequences
that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these
is that the result of Michelson’ s experiment must remain negative...

The experiments of which I have spoken are not the only
reason for which a new examination of the problems connected
with the motion of the Earth is desirable... in order to explain
Michelson’ s negative result, the introduction of a new
hypothesis has been required... Surely this course of inventing
special hypotheses for each new experimental result is
somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were
possible to show by means of certain fundamental
assumptions ...

Notice that Lorentz is concerned with “problems connected with
the motion of the Earth,” which tells us that the fear of being forced to
accept the “unthinkable” immobile Earth was the basis upon which his
ad hoc solution was determined. Reading between the lines we know that
Lorentz was concerned with the fact that, if he could not come up with a
convincing explanation to Michelson-Morley, he and the rest of the
world would be in for a great embarrassment. Undaunted, Lorentz put
the contraction theory of Fitzgerald into a mathematical formula and the
equation eventually became world famous. Known as the “Lorentz
Transformation,” it is still employed by many scientists today for almost
any problem having to do with dismissing the possibility that Earth is
motionless in space .

As Arthur Miller explains it, hoping to give it some respectability: “Lorentz (1886)
used Huygens’ principle and Fresnel’s hypothesis to deduce the velocity of light that
traversed a medium of refractive index N that was at rest where the source could have
been either on the Earth or in the ether [which] explained Arago’s experiment and an
equivalent one by George Biddell Airy. Lorentz continued (1886), by noting that from
the viewpoint of the geocentric system we could say that ‘the waves are entrained by
the ether’ according to the amount -v/N 2 . For consistency with the nomenclature of the
time Lorentz defined v r as the velocity of the ‘relative ray’ and c/N as the velocity of
the ‘absolute ray.’ For example, in order to view the light from a fixed star, a telescope,
or a system of aligned slits, at rest on the Earth had to be oriented in the direction of the
relative ray because the relative ray was the direction in which energy was
transported. . ..On the other hand, an observer at rest in the ether measured the velocity
of the light that was propagating through the medium at rest on the moving Earth to be
c' = M r + v. ..Lorentz noted that the ether-fixed observer could interpret [c' = u T + v] as
the ‘entrainment of the light waves by the ponderable matter” {Albert Einstein 's Special
Theory of Relativity, pp. 19-20).

Of course, even Einstein could see through this hodgepodge of ad hoc explanations,
politely calling them “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena,”
in his 1905 Annalen der Physik article. In the end, Lorentz was forced to admit:
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays
were the absolute rays” {ibid., p. 20).
Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 120.


Other confusing statements include Wolfgang Pauli’s:

“It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of
a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods
moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle
observable” (Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-
13);

and Herman Minkowski’s:

“This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be
looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind,
but simply as a gift from above, - as an accompanying circumstance of
the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity :
A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory > of
Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W.
Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p.
81).

You need to quote your sources instead of trying to steal other people’s work. Plus you are taking things out of context.

Now what does length contraction have to do with this thread?

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

If you change the sun's rate of motion wrt the fixed stars in a geocentric model, you're still changing the length of the year. The relationship between the lengths of the sidereal day, solar day, and year will be the same in both the heliocentric and geocentric models. One model has no advantage over the other in this regard.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 16, 2019, 03:06:52 PM

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

If you change the sun's rate of motion wrt the fixed stars in a geocentric model, you're still changing the length of the year. The relationship between the lengths of the sidereal day, solar day, and year will be the same in both the heliocentric and geocentric models. One model has no advantage over the other in this regard.

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Am i right? Of course i am, because in HC model one annual sidereal rotation is necessity, and in GC model it isn't necessity!

So, in HC model one annual sidereal rotation is trivial, and in GC model it's a miracle!

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Ask Alpha2Omega if you don't believe me!

No, we can't.
This is because the sun is moving relative to the stars and when it reaches the same position it is a year.

To read before bed (a gift from above) :

No thanks. If you aren't willing to put in effort and instead just want to copy and paste pure BS, i see no reason to put in any effort to read it.

All you are doing is copying and pasting pure BS to pretend you have an argument when you cannot rationally defend your position at all.

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Am i right?

No, you are not right.
You will have 1 annual rotation regardless because that is how a year is defined.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 12:29:50 AM

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Am i right?

No, you are not right.
You will have 1 annual rotation regardless because that is how a year is defined.

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system one revolution of the earth around the sun defines a year. And since (as Alpha explained) the number of sidereal and synodic rotations in a synodic year must differ by exactly one, because exactly one circuit around the sun "consumes" exactly one rotation (for prograde orbit and rotation), then within HC model you can't get two annual sidereal rotations in one solar year.

However, in GC system what defines solar year is one accomplished cycle of sun's motion along the ecliptic which (motion) is in GC system independent of the rate of sidereal rotations, because in GC system sun's motion and sidereal rotation are two independent motions.

In HC system the sun and the stars are fixed in space and one and same motion of the earth among the stars and around the sun is what defines solar and sydereal year.

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system

You made a statement which involved several things. Me saying it is wrong doesn't mean that all parts are wrong.
In both systems the year is based upon how long it takes for the sun to return to the same point in the sky, as such you end up with an offset of 1.
The year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the stars. The ecliptic is the sun's path relative to the stars.

In both systems the year and the day are 2 separate motions and both have 1 motion for the year and 1 motion for the day.
The day is based upon the rotation of Earth or the rotation of the celestial sphere. The year is based upon Earth's motion around the sun or the sun's motion around the celestial sphere.

In HC system the sun and the stars are fixed in space

No they aren't.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 01:28:14 AM

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system

The year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the stars. The ecliptic is the sun's path relative to the stars.

That applies to HC system, not to GC system. In GC system solar year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the same latitude (analemma), and sidereal year is based upon the star's annual motion relative to the same local meridian.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 17, 2019, 01:03:03 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 12:29:50 AM

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Am i right?

No, you are not right.
You will have 1 annual rotation regardless because that is how a year is defined.

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system one revolution of the earth around the sun defines a year.

If you are looking for approximate values it's OK to say, for example, that a sidereal day = (mean solar day) x 365.2242/366.2422 but for precise values you need to look at the exact definitions.

And when you say "a year" you need to ask which year? By year we usually mean the "Tropical Year" which is the period from one vernal (March) equinox to the next and that is a little shorter than one complete revolution of the earth around the sun.
For example see:

Cosmos: Tropical Year

The vernal equinox (around March 21) occurs when the Sun passes from the southern hemisphere of the celestial sphere to the northern hemisphere. At this time, the number of hours of daytime and darkness are the same, with minor latitude corrections due to refraction.

The difference in time between the vernal equinox from one year to the next is called the tropical year. However, the tropical year is not always the same length. This is due to the detailed motion of the Earth, especially the ‘wobble’ in the Earth’s rotation axis known as precession.

Currently, a tropical year lasts for 365.24219 mean solar days. Compare this to the average length of a year as measured with the Julian calendar (365.25 days) and the Gregorian calendar (365.2425 days). The discrepancies between these calendar years and the tropical year means that the calendar slowly drifts, and the date of the vernal equinox changes.

But in addition to the "tropical year" there is the:

• Julian year: Defined in Julius Ceasar's time and still used but is "arbitrarily" as 365.25 days,
• anomalistic year: That's the measurement of the number of days it takes for the Earth to return to its perihelion - about 365.259636 days per year and
• sidereal year: the time it takes for the sun to return to the same position relative to the "fixed" stars - close to 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9 seconds.

For details see: Think you know how many days are in a year? Think again. The link is to the Washington Post but the information is from that U.S. Naval Observatory who know as much as anyone.

One point of understandable confusion is that the "length of day" can refer to either a unit of time (86 400 SI Seconds) or to the current length of a mean solar day and the two are not quite the same.

If you are interested in the historical length of day measurements,  going right back to Babylonian times this might be of interest:
            Measurement of the Earth's rotation: 720 BC to AD 2015 by F. R. Stephenson, L. V. Morrison  and C. Y. Hohenkerk.

That applies to HC system, not to GC system. In GC system solar year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the same latitude (analemma), and sidereal year is based upon the star's annual motion relative to the same local meridian.

It applies to both. All you are doing is trying to view it from a different perspective.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 17, 2019, 01:36:01 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 01:28:14 AM

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system

The year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the stars. The ecliptic is the sun's path relative to the stars.

That applies to HC system, not to GC system. In GC system solar year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the same latitude (analemma), and sidereal year is based upon the star's annual motion relative to the same local meridian.

You're making up a new geocentric system that is unlike others; one where the declination of the ecliptic is independent of right ascension, then defining the year based on the sun's declination instead of its right ascension. That might be possible to do that in a modified version of the model you were objecting to earlier in this thread, where the sun floats above and below the equatorial plane to create the seasons.

What's the point of suggesting that, when it clearly doesn't happen?

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 02:00:54 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 17, 2019, 01:36:01 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 17, 2019, 01:28:14 AM

Don't be ridiculous, in HC system

The year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the stars. The ecliptic is the sun's path relative to the stars.

That applies to HC system, not to GC system. In GC system solar year is based upon the sun's motion relative to the same latitude (analemma), and sidereal year is based upon the star's annual motion relative to the same local meridian.

You're making up a new geocentric system that is unlike others; one where the declination of the ecliptic is independent of right ascension, then defining the year based on the sun's declination instead of its right ascension. That might be possible to do that in a modified version of the model you were objecting to earlier in this thread, where the sun floats above and below the equatorial plane to create the seasons.

What's the point of suggesting that, when it clearly doesn't happen?

Imagine one typical Ptolemy's diagram which designates the deferent (we can disregard the epicycle, here) along which the sun orbits the earth in CCW direction. What this CCW motion really represents is actually (the amount of) sun's lagging behind the stars. In animated videos the most common starting point of sun's lagging motion begins at 12 o'clock position (perihelion), so that 9 o'clock position represents half way between Perihelion and Aphelion, 6 o'clock position represents Aphelion, and 3 o'clock position represents half way between Aphelion and Perihelion.

Now, at 12 o'clock postion we can imagine some star which is always there after every 23 h 56 min 4 sec period (it is how much it takes for every star to come back to it's "starting" position after accomplishing one full (daily) revolution around the motionless earth).

So, in such animations the stars are in fact depicted as motionless and the sun slowly (0,96 degr. per day) moves CCW so that after 365 days comes back again at 12 o'clock position.

What is going to happen if we modify one of these clasical animations in such a way that the stars also moves at the same rate as the sun, but in an opposite direction (CW)?

Our hypothetical star and the sun will overlap (after 6 months) at 6 o'clock position, will they not?

You could object to this concept by asking the following question :

What would be the difference between what you've just described and the situation in which we simply lengthened the difference between sidereal and synodic period (by speeding up star's motion, or slowing down sun's motion)

The answer :

We already lengthened the difference between sidereal and synodic period in my description above (by putting "motionless" stars in motion in CW direction)!

Your next hypothetical question :

Couldn't we achieve the same result by simply increasing the speed of Sun's motion in CWW direction and leaving the stars "motionless"?

No, we couldn't do that (within HC theory), since this would be the consequence (i am quotting you) :

"If you double the difference between synodic and sidereal days, then the orbit must take half as long. That is reality."

However, since within GC model the motion of the stars, and the motion of the sun are two different (independent) motions we can do this (doubling the difference between synodic and sidereal days) without yielding the same consequence (cutting down Sun's orbit into just one half of it's current orbit).

So, not only that the declination of the ecliptic is not independent of right ascension in our reality, and that i didn't mean to imply anything of that sort, moreover, it doesn't even have to be like that (as it seems that you imply that we have to radically transform standard GC theory so to be able to achieve such result) so that we could achieve our hypothetical result (two sidereal annual revolutions within one solar year) by simply using standard GC model (with only a minor modification within it : speeding up star's motion for 236 sec per day), which result is of course unattainable within HC model (not even in principle).

Imagine one typical Ptolemy's diagram which designates the deferent (we can disregard the epicycle, here) along which the sun orbits the earth in CCW direction. What this CCW motion really represents is actually (the amount of) sun's lagging behind the stars.

i.e. the sun's motion relative to the star. When it completes one cycle (i.e. has returned to the same longitude on the celestial sphere) a year is complete.

What is going to happen if we modify one of these clasical animations in such a way that the stars also moves at the same rate as the sun, but in an opposite direction (CW)?

Then you can achieve the same result by merely rotating the entire system keep the stars stationary.
Your year ends in 6 month.

If you want to change it so your solar year is 2 years long, then go ahead, it doesn't change the underlying facts, it just means you are improperly using a word.

If you want to change it so your solar year is 2 years long, then go ahead, it doesn't change the underlying facts, it just means you are improperly using a word.

Twisting my words won't help you.
Playing dumb won't help you, either.
Playing with words won't help your case, also.

Maybe i should remind you to one another similar case in which your lying techniques have been exposed (and your false logic has been revealed) :

Quote from: cikljamas on November 23, 2018, 05:31:13 PM

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.

But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.

1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :

If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity. 

2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :

This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.

3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :

This is utter nonsense, and here is why :

A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could   
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.

PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)

B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.

PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.

C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).

PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.

ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).

ACCOMPANYING POST : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2126528#msg2126528

You forgot number 4.

4. Let’s consider  aether doesn’t exist.


Why did you omit this?

You forgot number 4.

4. Let’s consider  aether doesn’t exist.


Why did you omit this?

Because aether exists.



Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”

But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift.

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
So, according to Einstein : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley :

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Miller’s work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having “proved the ether did not exist”.

While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no “outsider”. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "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." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years. Michelson and a few others of the period took Miller's work seriously, but Einstein and his followers appeared to view Miller only as a threat, something to be "explained away" as expeditiously as possible. Einstein in fact was catapulted into the public eye following the end of World War II. Nuclear physics was then viewed as heroic, and Einstein fast became a cultural icon whose work could not be criticized. Into this situation came the Shankland team, with the apparent mission to nail the lid down on Miller's coffin. In this effort, they nearly succeeded.