The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Jimmy911 on February 15, 2008, 01:52:31 PM
-
All evidence points to that planets and the moon are spherical (Lunar Libration and the fact that with powerful enough telescopes you can details in planets disappear over time). Then why is the Earth special?
-
The planets and other celestial bodies aren't spherical. We are simply seeing only their front face.
-
The planets and other celestial bodies aren't spherical. We are simply seeing only their front face.
They are spherical... Lunar Libration proves the moon is spherical (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19761.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19761.0)) and with a good telescope you can prove that planets are spherical. For instance Jupiter has the Great Red Spot. If it happens to visible at one time, it will likely not be visible in awhile. Logically the only explanation is that it is no longer visible due to the rotation of the spherical planet. Same with Mars. You can see different features move and disappear with a telescope over time as well.
-
The planets and other celestial bodies aren't spherical. We are simply seeing only their front face.
They are spherical... Lunar Libration proves the moon is spherical (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19761.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19761.0)) and with a good telescope you can prove that planets are spherical. For instance Jupiter has the Great Red Spot. If it happens to visible at one time, it will likely not be visible in awhile. Logically the only explanation is that it is no longer visible due to the rotation of the spherical planet. Same with Mars. You can see different features move and disappear with a telescope over time as well.
The photographs and phenomena you're referring to are hoaxes or do not exist. The spherical appearance of planetoids and other heavenly bodies, viewed through a telescope, are illusions caused by atmospheric, gravitational, and electromagnetic lensing of the body's light. The red spot on Jupiter is not permanent. It comes and goes cyclically, just like hurricanes and monsoons on earth, only much more regular due to peculiarities of Jupiter's atmosphere.
-
The photographs and phenomena you're referring to are hoaxes or do not exist. The spherical appearance of planetoids and other heavenly bodies, viewed through a telescope, are illusions caused by atmospheric, gravitational, and electromagnetic lensing of the body's light. The red spot on Jupiter is not permanent. It comes and goes cyclically, just like hurricanes and monsoons on earth, only much more regular due to peculiarities of Jupiter's atmosphere.
Nope. Anyone can see these. And the red spot on Jupiter just happens to appear and reappear the same shape and size in the same path with timed appearances? I think not. Lunar Libration can be observed by anyone with good observation techniques. Plus the image from the libration thread is non-governmental. The planetary details on Mars can in no significant way be affected by what you said. The only logical explanation is that they cannot be seen at times due to its rotation on a spherical axis. Many FE'ers believe that other celestial bodies are spherical because of this conclusive evidence. Which brings me back to my original problem. Why is the Earth special?
-
Bump.
-
All evidence points to that planets and the moon are spherical (Lunar Libration and the fact that with powerful enough telescopes you can details in planets disappear over time). Then why is the Earth special?
Why not?
-
Very scientific Chris ;)
-
valid, though. If there's no reason why it should be impossible for the earth to be flat, then observation of other bodies which are not flat should not be taken as proof that the earth is not flat.
-
All evidence points to that planets and the moon are spherical (Lunar Libration and the fact that with powerful enough telescopes you can details in planets disappear over time). Then why is the Earth special?
The earth is potentially an infinite plane which cuts the universe in half. The earth is not a celestial body. The earth is our Terra Firma; the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.
-
It is a valid point. Is there any reason you feel you can logically state that the earth should be like other bodies?
-
By tom's argument, for the same reason I can state that the earth is not similar to the clouds in it's atmosphere.
-
It is a valid point. Is there any reason you feel you can logically state that the earth should be like other bodies?
Because of how they formed. Also becasue of gravitaiton by mass.
-
It is a valid point. Is there any reason you feel you can logically state that the earth should be like other bodies?
Because of how they formed. Also becasue of gravitaiton by mass.
How can gravitation by mass pull everything to the center if the earth is an infinite plane and there is no center?
-
or, if the earth is not an infinite plane, then why hasn't all-attracting gravity condensed the universe into a single point again?
-
It is a valid point. Is there any reason you feel you can logically state that the earth should be like other bodies?
Because of how they formed. Also becasue of gravitaiton by mass.
How can gravitation by mass pull everything to the center if the earth is an infinite plane and there is no center?
There is nothing that says the earth is an infinite plane.
or, if the earth is not an infinite plane, then why hasn't all-attracting gravity condensed the universe into a single point again?
Because gravity doesn't exist. While gravitation does add together, see gravitational lensing around galaxies, gravitation is driven by mass. Mass is not everywhere.
-
It is a valid point. Is there any reason you feel you can logically state that the earth should be like other bodies?
Because of how they formed. Also becasue of gravitaiton by mass.
How can gravitation by mass pull everything to the center if the earth is an infinite plane and there is no center?
There is nothing that says the earth is an infinite plane.
tom bishop says the earth is an infinite plane.
or, if the earth is not an infinite plane, then why hasn't all-attracting gravity condensed the universe into a single point again?
Because gravity doesn't exist. While gravitation does add together, see gravitational lensing around galaxies, gravitation is driven by mass. Mass is not everywhere.
but the earth has mass, in fact, everything except protons have mass, because photons are a theoretical particle invented to explain the transmission of light . Gravity exists unless you care to be a semantic Nazi and insist that gravity and gravitation are perceptibly different. Gravitational lensing around galaxies is significant. Gravitational lensing has been shown to obscure the existence of black holes. There is no reason to assume that gravitational lensing has not obscured the existence of a flat earth.
[/quote]
-
tom bishop says the earth is an infinite plane.
Because he had to change his theory when people said air would leak off an none infinite plane flat earth.
but the earth has mass, in fact, everything except protons have mass, because photons are a theoretical particle invented to explain the transmission of light . Gravity exists unless you care to be a semantic Nazi and insist that gravity and gravitation are perceptibly different. Gravitational lensing around galaxies is significant. Gravitational lensing has been shown to obscure the existence of black holes. There is no reason to assume that gravitational lensing has not obscured the existence of a flat earth.
I think you meant photons here too.
Photons were not invented to explain the transmission of light as photons are light. There are many ways to prove photons. Admitting that gravitation by mass is real means you admit the earth is round.
-
Uh, if the earth is an infinite plane, then the moon and the sun would fall, like everything else.
Can you explain that, Tom? Whatever it is that causes the "universal acceleration", it can't affect the sun and the moon if the earth is totally blocking it.
-
Doesn't this "Infinite" Earth theory go against the first law of Thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and since Mass is energy an infinite Earth would be impossible...
-
Doesn't this "Infinite" Earth theory go against the first law of Thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and since Mass is energy an infinite Earth would be impossible...
Why would an infinite earth be creating or destroying energy?
-
Uh, if the earth is an infinite plane, then the moon and the sun would fall, like everything else.
Can you explain that, Tom? Whatever it is that causes the "universal acceleration", it can't affect the sun and the moon if the earth is totally blocking it.
The earth is infinite. It has a finite gravitational pull. There is no "UA". The space between the earth and the heavens is expanding.
-
Doesn't this "Infinite" Earth theory go against the first law of Thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and since Mass is energy an infinite Earth would be impossible...
Why would an infinite earth be creating or destroying energy?
An infinite earth would need infinite energy. There is not infinite energy.
-
Did you just see how Tom Bishop disproved the conspiracy?
Tom says: the earth is infinite.
- That means it exists infinite energi.
The FAQ says: the reason for the conspiracy is probably money.
With infinite energy, everyone could have infinite money. So the conspiracy can't exist.
-
Or the conspiracy could just hoard the resources past the icewall for their own uses.
-
That's so far-fetched that NO ONE can believe in it.
What would be beyond the ice wall? How can a round ice wall have formed, in the middle of a infinite plane?
-
That's so far-fetched that NO ONE can believe in it.
What would be beyond the ice wall? How can a round ice wall have formed, in the middle of a infinite plane?
The sun melted the ice, unveiling the lands which we know as our Local Area.
-
This infinite Earth theory has already been shot down. It goes against one of the most fundamental laws of physics.
-
This infinite Earth theory has already been shot down. It goes against one of the most fundamental laws of physics.
What law would that be? Can you link us to the law which states that infinite matter/energy cannot exist?
-
What law would that be?
I was gonna say that.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Infinite Earth = Infinite Mass = Infinite Energy = Infinite Impossible
In an isolated system (the Universe) the energy must remain constant.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Infinite Earth = Infinite Mass = Infinite Energy = Infinite Impossible
In an isolated system (the Universe) the energy must remain constant.
I don't see anything about the first law of thermo which does not allow infinite matter or energy to exist.
An infinite earth wouldn't exist in an isolated system, but rather an infinite one.
Remember, there are some models of the RE which invoke an infinite universe teeming with infinite matter and energy.
-
The sun melted the ice, unveiling the lands which we know as our Local Area.
I see. But then you think it's just ice beyond the icewall? Could you answer my question at the previous page?
-
What is beyond the ice wall is not known to man.
-
What is beyond the ice wall is not known to man.
Why doesn't anyone go over it? Send some kind of probe? The people involved in the conspiracy must have been able to do it by now.
-
I'm sure they are publishing their results to us.
-
Why doesn't anyone go over it? Send some kind of probe? The people involved in the conspiracy must have been able to do it by now.
Yes, the conspiracy will televise the results to us. ::)
-
Why doesn't anyone go over it? Send some kind of probe? The people involved in the conspiracy must have been able to do it by now.
Yes, the conspiracy will televise the results to us. ::)
I never said that, the claim was that beyond the ice wall is not known to mankind. Unless we are going to get into some alien conspiracies. I'll get my Fox Mulder FBI hat out for that.
-
Why doesn't anyone go over it? Send some kind of probe? The people involved in the conspiracy must have been able to do it by now.
Yes, the conspiracy will televise the results to us. ::)
I never said that, the claim was that beyond the ice wall is not known to mankind. Unless we are going to get into some alien conspiracies. I'll get my Fox Mulder FBI hat out for that.
::)
-
Why doesn't anyone go over it? Send some kind of probe? The people involved in the conspiracy must have been able to do it by now.
Yes, the conspiracy will televise the results to us. ::)
I never said that, the claim was that beyond the ice wall is not known to mankind. Unless we are going to get into some alien conspiracies. I'll get my Fox Mulder FBI hat out for that.
Bringing the FE arguments to their absurdities is my new tactic, illustration of irrationality.
::)
-
Obviously I meant that the general populace and the vast majority of man has no idea what is over the wall. I obviously have no clue what hte conspiracy is up to.
-
Obviously I meant that the general populace and the vast majority of man has no idea what is over the wall. I obviously have no clue what hte conspiracy is up to.
No clue what they are up to, no clue how they do what they do, no clue on why they do what they do..does anyone have a clue?
-
Obviously I meant that the general populace and the vast majority of man has no idea what is over the wall. I obviously have no clue what hte conspiracy is up to.
No clue what they are up to, no clue how they do what they do, no clue on why they do what they do..does anyone have a clue?
How should we know hat the Conspiracy is up to when we're not part of the Conspiracy?
-
Obviously I meant that the general populace and the vast majority of man has no idea what is over the wall. I obviously have no clue what hte conspiracy is up to.
No clue what they are up to, no clue how they do what they do, no clue on why they do what they do..does anyone have a clue?
How should we know hat the Conspiracy is up to when we're not part of the Conspiracy?
You claim they are up to hiding arguably the most important truth about the earth we have ever known. And you know this without a doubt....hmm
-
Someone once brought up a good point about your infinite Earth/ infinite atmolayer theory. I don't remember where I saw it or who said it, and I don't recall you ever responding to it. If there is infinite atmolayer, how is it then possible for pollution to build up in the air? All other things aside, you still have absolutely no evidence for this theory. I'm more likely to believe the other FE theories before this one...
-
Obviously I meant that the general populace and the vast majority of man has no idea what is over the wall. I obviously have no clue what hte conspiracy is up to.
No clue what they are up to, no clue how they do what they do, no clue on why they do what they do..does anyone have a clue?
How should we know hat the Conspiracy is up to when we're not part of the Conspiracy?
I do. We're currently in the planning stages of operation "lets all go after Tom bishop"
-
Agent!?!?!? You told me you'd be done with the planning stage of that operation 1 week ago. I demand that you finish it up, and submit it to my office for approval for the operation. And I refuse to give you any more black ops troops. You took 2000 men for a simple assassination last time...
-
Someone once brought up a good point about your infinite Earth/ infinite atmolayer theory. I don't remember where I saw it or who said it, and I don't recall you ever responding to it. If there is infinite atmolayer, how is it then possible for pollution to build up in the air? All other things aside, you still have absolutely no evidence for this theory. I'm more likely to believe the other FE theories before this one...
Pollution isn't distributed evenly in a round earth either.
-
Only because of the way the wind blows IIRC the concentration is higher in some areas than others, but diffusion demands that it spread out, which would mean that it ought to disperse quite quickly...so what gives? Unless you're telling me somehow that there's an extremely powerful wind pushing towards us from Antarctica...
-
The only place in the southern 'hemisphere' with any notable level of polution is around zimbawbe. I think its fair to say there could be local wind that keeps it there.
-
of course if one wishes to look at it another way, the southern hemisphere could have already had its pollution diffused out.
-
Hmm...that's plausible. So you mean to say, it is diffracting, but the level of pollution we give, combined with local winds, etc, causes some to stick around.
-
Yes. And the edges (SH) obviously diffuse faster. With the exception of that area, which could either be due to it pumping so much out or local winds or who knows what. Really whatever reason its localized there in the RE is likely the same as the FE.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Infinite Earth = Infinite Mass = Infinite Energy = Infinite Impossible
In an isolated system (the Universe) the energy must remain constant.
I don't see anything about the first law of thermo which does not allow infinite matter or energy to exist.
An infinite earth wouldn't exist in an isolated system, but rather an infinite one.
Remember, there are some models of the RE which invoke an infinite universe teeming with infinite matter and energy.
Okay but you are saying that universe has no begining or end and it is static because if there is a beginning of the universe such as the big bang there is an amount of energy that is unchanging. Sorry it kinda hard to explain but basically the universe has the same amount of energy in it right now as t did when it started
-
Also for the earth to be infinite makes no sense we would never reach the end
-
Also for the earth to be infinite makes no sense we would never reach the end
That would be the definition, more or less, of infinite. How does that make "no sense?"
-
how does that coincide with yor ice wall b/c there would be no edge to your earth
-
how does that coincide with yor ice wall b/c there would be no edge to your earth
The icewall is along the perimeter of the habitated area of the earth.
-
how does that coincide with yor ice wall b/c there would be no edge to your earth
The icewall is along the perimeter of the habitated area of the earth.
Okay but do u believe that the universe is static?
-
At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.
-
At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.
Does that mean you don't believe in comets/asteroids/other celestial bodies?
-
No, it doesn't mean that.
-
No, it doesn't mean that.
Can FET explain them?
-
They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.
-
They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.
The RE model shows them as being extra solar (the ones with massive orbits) being affected by gravity of planets (which would mean gravity exists and the planets follow the RE model).
Also not sure if Charlie has anything to do with it. He couldn't explain how people can observe asteroids with great detail. Its a little more than frogs raining down. I can see a small relation but he couldn't explain that with his works.
-
They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.
The RE model shows them as being extra solar (the ones with massive orbits) being affected by gravity of planets (which would mean gravity exists and the planets follow the RE model).
Also not sure if Charlie has anything to do with it. He couldn't explain how people can observe asteroids with great detail. Its a little more than frogs raining down. I can see a small relation but he couldn't explain that with his works.
Gravitation does exist.
I had thought that Fort details in several places meteors, meteorites, falling stars, etc to be from terrestial origins. I don't have the citations offhand, however. I've got a copy of his works at home, I'll try to remember to give em a look later.
-
They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.
The RE model shows them as being extra solar (the ones with massive orbits) being affected by gravity of planets (which would mean gravity exists and the planets follow the RE model).
Also not sure if Charlie has anything to do with it. He couldn't explain how people can observe asteroids with great detail. Its a little more than frogs raining down. I can see a small relation but he couldn't explain that with his works.
Gravitation does exist.
I had thought that Fort details in several places meteors, meteorites, falling stars, etc to be from terrestial origins. I don't have the citations offhand, however. I've got a copy of his works at home, I'll try to remember to give em a look later.
I'd be curious to see what Charlie has to say. Let me know and I can look up his works (I think they're in the public domain by now).
So gravitation towards planets and satelites exists in FET? I thought gravity was the result of us going up?
-
In the infinite earth model, which I thought was what we were discussing.
-
In the infinite earth model, which I thought was what we were discussing.
I was inquiring about the FET.
-
Right the flat earth infinite model. You quoted
At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.
In which me and Einstein were discussing the infinite flat earth model.
-
Right the flat earth infinite model. You quoted
At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.
In which me and Einstein were discussing the infinite flat earth model.
Yeah, but I am not refering to the infinite earth model, I was just wondering how FE expalins asteroids and the like. Its not the same as the infinite model, is it?
-
Okay well then how do you explain CBR, dark energy and of course universal expansion
-
What cat got your tongue
-
I don't attempt to explain holes in RE theory such as dark energy.
The other things I have answered before. CBR is the maximum heat that aether can be brought to by starlight.
And yes, the universe is expanding.
-
Dark energy aint a flaw and it has nothing to do with the round earth and finally the aether is the biggest mistake in physics history and has never been right whenever used
-
I don't attempt to explain holes in RE theory such as dark energy.
The other things I have answered before. CBR is the maximum heat that aether can be brought to by starlight.
And yes, the universe is expanding.
If CBR is an artifact of starlight on the aether, then local sources(The Sun) would completely overwhelm our ability to detect CBR at all. The aether would be saturated from the Sun and we would observe on almost uniformly bright sky. At the correct wavelengths of course.
-
Dark energy aint a flaw and it has nothing to do with the round earth and finally the aether is the biggest mistake in physics history and has never been right whenever used
Dark energy is a big patch over a flaw.
If aether was the biggest mistake in physics history, why is it constantly being reintroduced under other names? For example, to use something you seem to believe in, quintessence is a form of dark energy. Quintessence , coming from "fifth essence" coming from the greek fifth essence: aether.
Your namesake also believed in aether.
-
If CBR is an artifact of starlight on the aether, then local sources(The Sun) would completely overwhelm our ability to detect CBR at all. The aether would be saturated from the Sun and we would observe on almost uniformly bright sky. At the correct wavelengths of course.
It is saturated. Everywhere.
CBR is the maximum heat that aether can be brought to by starlight.
Am I misunderstanding you?
-
how does that coincide with yor ice wall b/c there would be no edge to your earth
The icewall is along the perimeter of the habitated area of the earth.
How could we know it continues on if we've never been there?
-
If CBR is an artifact of starlight on the aether, then local sources(The Sun) would completely overwhelm our ability to detect CBR at all. The aether would be saturated from the Sun and we would observe on almost uniformly bright sky. At the correct wavelengths of course.
It is saturated. Everywhere.
CBR is the maximum heat that aether can be brought to by starlight.
Am I misunderstanding you?
I think so. I'm saying that if we were to look at space near the Sun, it should appear about as bright as the space behind the Earth(night time for FE's). I'm saying that, as a medium which interacts with thermal energy, the aether surrounding Earth would be too bright to observe distant sources.
-
The temperature of starlight matches that of CBR, as theorized by Sir Eddington. The big bang estimate for the temperature of space doesn't.
Most of aether has settled down to its equilibrium temperature, that theorized by Sir Eddington. You observe the data with the sun, and then subtract it out. Just like in RE?
-
The temperature of starlight matches that of CBR, as theorized by Sir Eddington. The big bang estimate for the temperature of space doesn't.
Most of aether has settled down to its equilibrium temperature, that theorized by Sir Eddington. You observe the data with the sun, and then subtract it out. Just like in RE?
No one has ever detected the aether let alone took its temperature, stop making things up. Also Sir Eddington believed in relativity.
-
Why delete your post?
Relativity holds aether exists.
Eddington predicted the temperature of starlight affecting space.
-
Actually you know what, nevermind. I think I'm done conversing with you. You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver. And I have no place for that in my schedule.
Thats why.
-
The temperature of starlight matches that of CBR, as theorized by Sir Eddington. The big bang estimate for the temperature of space doesn't.
Most of aether has settled down to its equilibrium temperature, that theorized by Sir Eddington. You observe the data with the sun, and then subtract it out. Just like in RE?
No one has ever detected the aether let alone took its temperature, stop making things up. Also Sir Eddington believed in relativity.
When I argue, I always argue that there is a conspiracy.
Because you have too. There are things that are unexplainible unless you call them a conspiracy.
Actually you know what, nevermind. I think I'm done conversing with you. You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver. And I have no place for that in my schedule.
Thats why.
Relativity in no way requires there to be an aether. Einstein and other wanted there to be an aether so they put things into Relativity to make up for not finding one. (And also of an expanding universe)
-
Actually you know what, nevermind. I think I'm done conversing with you. You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver. And I have no place for that in my schedule.
-
When I argue, I always argue that there is a conspiracy.
Because you have too. There are things that are unexplainible unless you call them a conspiracy.
Actually you know what, nevermind. I think I'm done conversing with you. You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver. And I have no place for that in my schedule.
Thats why.
lol. While you have no comebacks I will point out how people like you,(you Levee, 17, tom) find random people and then claim they claim the earth is flat or some other random claim but you always fail.
-
Actually you know what, nevermind. I think I'm done conversing with you. You truely are a stupid and immature version of gulliver. And I have no place for that in my schedule.
-
(you Levee, 17, tom) find random people and then claim they claim the earth is flat or some other random claim but you always fail.
First page of last chapter of The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Eddington
-
(you Levee, 17, tom) find random people and then claim they claim the earth is flat or some other random claim but you always fail.
First page of last chapter of The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Eddington
The local library doesn't contain old outdated books. Google books does not contain the page.
-
Here is a brand new article from Discovery News about some new Dark Matter discoveries, if anyone is interested.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/22/dark-matter-giants.html
-
(you Levee, 17, tom) find random people and then claim they claim the earth is flat or some other random claim but you always fail.
First page of last chapter of The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Eddington
The local library doesn't contain old outdated books. Google books does not contain the page.
Stop making stuff up.
-
(you Levee, 17, tom) find random people and then claim they claim the earth is flat or some other random claim but you always fail.
First page of last chapter of The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Eddington
The local library doesn't contain old outdated books. Google books does not contain the page.
Stop making stuff up.
Go check yourself than. Use google books to post the page or go to my local library and get the book.
-
It is there!!!!!!
The Internal Constitution of the Stars
Chapter XIII (13) this is the last chapter in the book. Everything after that is appendices.
PAGE 371
Sorry the link is so long but none of the buttons work for me.
http://books.google.com/books?id=K_cYRYZCjNAC&dq=the+internal+constitution+of+the+stars&pg=PP1&ots=G39OVUGcUi&sig=75z2FD5AaylamX_S9TExufV3Qb4&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Internal+Constitution+of+the+Stars+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA371,M1
-
It is there!!!!!!
The Internal Constitution of the Stars
Chapter XIII (13) this is the last chapter in the book. Everything after that is appendices.
PAGE 371
Sorry the link is so long but none of the buttons work for me.
http://books.google.com/books?id=K_cYRYZCjNAC&dq=the+internal+constitution+of+the+stars&pg=PP1&ots=G39OVUGcUi&sig=75z2FD5AaylamX_S9TExufV3Qb4&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Internal+Constitution+of+the+Stars+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA371,M1
The link I was using had the first pages of that chapter as "not part of the preview".
So now that I can see it I see that I wasted my time looking for it. Its proves nothing.
-
Look, I hate to say it Username, but aether does not exist...
You can point out the flaws in the first Michelson-Morley experiment as many times as you like, but the fact remains that it was tested with better equipment later, yada yada. And...there's nothing. Aether was first postulated for diffraction/refraction reasons, and we now know about photons, which were not then. Then they went on to want to use aether as a universal FOR for light, sorta the master FOR, and we now know that there is no such thing. So, no, it doesn't exist, sorry there.
-
You can point out the flaws in the first Michelson-Morley experiment as many times as you like, but the fact remains that it was tested with better equipment later, yada yada. And...there's nothing.
Michaelson-Morley experiment showed nothing about whether aether exists or not, and neither did further iterations of it. It had a null result.
-
You can point out the flaws in the first Michelson-Morley experiment as many times as you like, but the fact remains that it was tested with better equipment later, yada yada. And...there's nothing.
Michaelson-Morley experiment showed nothing about whether aether exists or not, and neither did further iterations of it. It had a null result.
It was a negative result.
-
I know Einstein believed in the aether however, he wasn't always right and actually he was wrong often. And also dark energy isn't flawed, it is the theories describing it that are. They don't really know what dark energy is. Finally the aether aint dark energy as thy behave completely different.
-
You can point out the flaws in the first Michelson-Morley experiment as many times as you like, but the fact remains that it was tested with better equipment later, yada yada. And...there's nothing.
Michaelson-Morley experiment showed nothing about whether aether exists or not, and neither did further iterations of it. It had a null result.
It was a negative result.
No, stop making shit up.
-
Hmm no not responding to my comment
-
Probably because no one understood it.
-
Erm, it detected nothing. Look, if I make an experiment to test whether there is a magnetic field in a room by using a compass or a device to measure it, yada, yada. If the needle is completely unaffected, what can you assume about the magnetic field? It's a null result? No, there isn't a field.
-
You can point out the flaws in the first Michelson-Morley experiment as many times as you like, but the fact remains that it was tested with better equipment later, yada yada. And...there's nothing.
Michaelson-Morley experiment showed nothing about whether aether exists or not, and neither did further iterations of it. It had a null result.
It was a negative result.
No, stop making shit up.
The experiment was negative. They did not find the aether. If you think that the physics was wrong, then by all means, post up the right physics.
-
God...
"The famous Michelson-Morley experiment instead compared the source light with itself after being sent in different directions, looking for changes in phase in a manner that could be measured with extremely high accuracy. The publication of their result in 1887, the null result, was the first clear demonstration that something was seriously wrong with the aether concept of that time. A series of experiments using similar but increasingly sophisticated apparatus all returned the null result as well. A conceptually different experiment that also attempted to detect the motion of the aether was the 1903 Trouton-Noble experiment, which like Michelson-Morley obtained a null result.
It is important to understand what "null result" means in this context. It does not mean there was no motion detected; rather it means that the results produced by the experiment were not compatible with the assumptions used to devise it."
-
Does no-one understand how science works? The original Michelson-Morley, yes! Subsequent retests, no!!!!! Do FE'ers believe that you only do an experiment once? If, so, I have the secret of cold fusion to sell for only 1 million dollars, a bargain! Payment must be payed fully in advance and in cash...Furthermore, what that means is not that aether doesn't exist, merely has to behave insanely weirdly, and lots of nonsense was added to aether to make it work, but...there was no need for it anymore after relativity...so, we dropped it. You have to prove that it does exist in order to treat aether as a sufficient explanation, or at least come up with a proper explanation as to why it exists, and why both it and relativity exist without doubling said phenomenon, or why aether is a better solution then relativity.
-
I guess you missed this part:
"A series of experiments using similar but increasingly sophisticated apparatus all returned the null result as well. A conceptually different experiment that also attempted to detect the motion of the aether was the 1903 Trouton-Noble experiment, which like Michelson-Morley obtained a null result."
There is also this:
"Positive results were reported by several of the key researchers, including additional experiments by Michelson, Morley and Dayton Miller. Miller reported positive results on several occasions, but of a magnitude that required further modifications to the drag or contraction theories. During the 1920s a slew of increasingly accurate experiments returned the null result, and the positives were generally attributed to experimental errors.
Other positive results included Sagnac in 1913, and the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment in 1925. This effect that is known as Sagnac effect is nowadays used in optical gyroscopes and shows that rotation is similarly "absolute" for light as it is for pendulums. Sagnac regarded this as evidence for the aether[4]"
-
Apologies. You are correct. I thought you were talking about the errors that Michelson-Morley had. At any rate, true, null doesn't prove definitively that aether doesn't exist, but welcome to Russell's teapot. Remember who the BoP is on.
-
Aye, the BoP would be on Username; although there are a few positive experiments on Wikipedia, as well as through Google. While they can be, or have been attributed to error, it just comes down nothing more than a null argument. :P