22861
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why the vacuum of space isn't sucking up all earth's atmosphere ?
« on: December 02, 2016, 05:17:08 AM »
You're welcome.

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
you are almost 100% right and i couldn't agree with you more... except oxygen is definitely used in mitosis unless you are exercising rather vigorously in which case muscle cells will perform anaerobic respiration.
If 1 then the cosmos is just another word for God! - What is wrong with such ludicrous identification? This is what is wrong: - The true meaning of a word "God" is: A being which cannot not to be!!! Such Being can't be created since God has no need to have been created, He exists outside time, but the cosmos HAS NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED and IS submitted to the second law of thermodynamics!No. It isn't just another word for God.
Of course, there is one necessary "exception"And any exception will disprove the rule. As such, things can come into existence out of nothing.
- In the philosophyPhilosophy indicates God is a useless, needless, complication.
- In "the book of nature" (creation)
- In the Bible (in history)
God even became one of us, and took our sins away! It is hard to understand such a great love, but it is possible for us to believe that such a perfect love can exist! Creation itself is a token of God's perfect love towards us!That is because it isn't love.
I will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied by science.Religion has no right in the domain occupied by science. Science seeks the truth. Religion seeks indoctrination into pure bullshit which it claims as truth.
I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This has of course been said many times before (YET NOT NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH!)Yes, and in doing so we discovered the Bible is complete nonsense which contradicts reality.
It was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls. - Max PlanckExcept they weren't.
Read more : http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm
God is a necessary existence!No. There is nothing necessary about God. That is just a pathetic attempt at defining God into existence
Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil.And so far, no one has been able to find a solution for it.
Let's see what prominent philosopher William Lane Craig has to say on this problem :Really? A blatant conman with no integrity at all, happy to blatantly lie and misrepresent things just to push his own views.
So, since i can't find any logical flaw in the reasoning above, i would very gladly accept the claim that the earth is spherically shaped if someone managed to convince me (scientifically) that this is really the truth and not just a theory.But until then, you outright reject reality because it contradicts your fantasy?
Because the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, so if the earth is not flat then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong then stupid (according to my reasoning) story about man's fall is wrong also, and if stupid story about man's fall is wrong then christianity is also wrong, and if christianity is wrong then we are fucked up...I at least like your honesty with this.
I am afraid that you are frightened to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, since you are christian, aren't you RABINOZ?Because like so many Christians they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Since you believe in spherical shape of the earth, you are frightened to death to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, aren't you RABINOZ?
1. "The good thing about the shape of the earth is that it's surface is flat whether or not you believe in it!." - NEIL SMARTASS TYSONNo. It is round regardless of if you believe it or not.
5. ZIGZAG argument is SIMPLE AND 100 % VALID PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST!!!So simple, you can't even explain it here. Are you sure it is?
During day, sun should move as normal, going east to west.
At night (during midnight sun times), sun should move opposite, going west to east.
6. AIRY'S FAILURE WASN'T a FAILURE for no GOOD REASON!!! It was a FAILURE for a VERY GOOD REASON!!!It was a failure because he failed to take into effects like refraction.
Good luck with your self-deception!Sure, My self deception, when you are the one continually spouting pure bullshit, using completely fake numbers and failing to address serious flaws in your case, such as the missing mountains (or sections of them) and the height order being wrong.
I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!What did they claim can go no higher than LEO?
A. If the earth is stationary round-earth geometry falls to pieces!No. It doesn't.
B. There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!Sure. There isn't a single one. There are loads.
Now, you have to ask yourself this : What is more likely :Or you are just spouting pure bullshit and there actually are authentic pictures of Earth from space which you ignore, with Earth moving and round.
C) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is ROUND (although stationary)?
D) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is FLAT and stationary?
-If the earth is round, it wouldn't matter if the earth were stationary, would it? If the earth were round (although stationary) there would be no problem (for NASA or anyone else) to present to us at least ONE SINGLE (if not thousands) AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space!Except getting there, and getting people like you to accept them when you have made it clear you have no interest in doing so as it goes against your religion which you care more about than reality.
-On the other hand, if the earth is flat, there would be a huge problem to show us ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!Nope. That would be quite easy as you wouldn't need to go up all that far to be able to easily see all of Earth.
1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!Yes, Heliocentric theory is wrong. This is because the sun is not the centre of the universe. It moves as well as Earth.
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT.No. That isn't in question either to any rational human beings. Again, it is round, without a doubt.
There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:So don't bother with a geocentric round Earth model.
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well.i.e. you can't understand how it works so you discard it.
If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!Yes, which is why rational people would then jump to a heliocentric model, and then when the question of the galactic core comes into it, put that in the centre and so on.
1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!Like I said, all pure bullshit.
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!
If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)
If 3 then 4 !!!!?
You want some new stuff?No. I want you to focus on 1 thing, and deal with that until you realise that you were wrong about it and can admit it rather than spouting so much crap and ignoring so much.
Here it is, just for you (and Jack) :So the same bullshit I have refuted before?
[RAILGUN!!!]
nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.So 11.2 km/s straight up?
One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)
3. Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth...THE RAILGUN BULLET IS NOT A GUIDED MISSILE!!!That depends on exactly what you mean by "in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory".
4. Now, if you want to use railgun to intercept missile which flies at high altitudes, how do you think you can hit such fast moving (and so small) target without being able to shoot bullet (which is not guided missile) in PERFECTLY STRAIGHT trajectory???
Forget time zones :Okay, lets forget time zones (you didn't, you still used them).
You won 1 day.
Number of breaths determine lifetime;
Number of sun risings determine age.
NASA is hiding the result of experiment. Instead of discussing with me ask NASA for the result of the twin experiment.
Why i do relevant with number of breaths to lifetime?
because every breath refreshes some of your cellulars. Scientists say that some of cellulars have Number of final renewals. After over it, cellular start to die. They turn into cancerous cells.
So Cellular renewal isin't Rejuvenation, oppositely it causes getting old.
You really think you're funny, but you should hear my wife's comments when I complain of thenon-scientific rubbish in some so-called Sci-Fi books
! She says, "It's only fiction!" But, in my opinion, Sci-Fi should not totally un-scientific. To be classed as my sort of Sci-Fi, it should reasonably with current science, but then extending it imaginative ways. That's why I called Star Wars Space Westerns, not Sci-Fi.
If I recall correctly from elsewhere, if humans were magically not effected by gravity but everything else was, an 80 kg person would need to carry roughly 2.7 kg to counter the rotation.
If humans were magically not effected by gravity, why would it matter what they weigh?
(sometimes I wish I was less effected by gravity.)
I was talking about the weight that would be required to counteract the spinning.No, the 2.7 kg
is
The lost weight due to reduced "g" is only about 0.4 kg.just the weight of all that cold weather gear you strip off (sure hope you've something
decent on underneath
),
when you move to the equator.
And some seem definitely to insist that the earth is Flat:Quote from: Logical ThinkerProof that the Quran thinks the Earth is Flat 29 Jan, 2008From Proof Quran thinks Earth is Flat
I have read many articles over the last year where different people have tried to explain that the Quran is describing a flat earth. Countering this, many Muslims like Dr Naik have tried to prove that the Quran is describing a spherical model as we know it today. What I find with Dr Naik’s arguments is that he makes too many assumptions and tries to manufacture Quran verses to fit his model. This is both dangerous from religious and scientific viewpoints.
Yes this is a public forum and everybody can act as how he want. I can't stop your interrupting my conversations but you can't stop i ignore you. So i said it as an advice but it is not important if you do not care about my ideas, i do not ever care about yours. You were ignored by interrupting my conversation. You have a right to ignore me too as how i do or you can go elsewhere.
Yes, you can ignore me if you choose, but it just shows your dishonesty and inability to refute things.
If you were rational you would respond to my objection.
I have better question, how come that the relative vacuum of cruising altitude dont suck up all the air from ground level ?
Okay, honest question here so honest answers only please. So if the Earth is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference and it completes one rotation every 24 hours, that would mean that any given point on the globe would be traveling at over 1,000 mph...wouldn't that be a little noticeable? Wouldn't gravity have to be so strong as to crush us?
Do you have the math to illustrate your point?
I think the biggest obstacle would be the large vacuum chamber. However I am wondering if that is really needed (other than to say control the structure) as we just need to find a difference between the 2 (or show it doesn't exist).A spinning object in a fluid can create a small vortex around it, which would press the fluid outwards and decrease the pressure below the object. The bearing would probably not cause a noticeable effect, but maybe the spin-mechanism could... So if there was a way to shield the dropping environment from the spinning mechanism, that might be enough, and a really smooth bearing to decrease friction with the air. Though maybe we shouldn't underestimate the power of aerodynamics.
If we have the spinning object enclosed, such that the spinning and non-spinning one appear the same to the wind, would a vacuum chamber be needed?
It may require a more aerodynamic object thought.
Also jackblacks point of how a millimeter can kill the test, since the drop height won't be terribly high is a concern. I had already planned on building a structure to hold it, so the drop height would be static..that is also why I said it would need to be the exact same object..one time spinning and the other not.
Check the tracking of the race, the two leaders are now two thirds of the way between South Africa and Australia. On a flat earth how far would they have travelled since this thread started? In fact a direct route would probably take them through Dubai like FE'ers claim for the direct flights.Remember, these people aren't rational or sane.
That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.
And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!
Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.
Yes this is a public forum and everybody can act as how he want. I can't stop your interrupting my conversations but you can't stop i ignore you. So i said it as an advice but it is not important if you do not care about my ideas, i do not ever care about yours. You were ignored by interrupting my conversation. You have a right to ignore me too as how i do or you can go elsewhere.
So what kind of rotation axis are we even talking about? Vertical or horizontal?
Awesome thanks Jack, I was hoping you would get in on this.
Welcome to the FES if no one has said it already.
jack black, you are just trolling around.No. I'm refuting your bullshit.
You are no scientist.
You tried to bullshit your way around offering the WRONG equations in the Sagnac experiment description.
Now everybody knows you are a fake.
"Without the science behind it, engineering is effectively nothing. You need the scientific foundation to build upon with engineering." Yes JackBlack, that's what I meant, Engineering is applied science, the science behind it has to work or the machine, or whatever it is, will not work...again, the proof is in the pudding, if the machine works the science is sound, there is no debate...now if the machine starts to run and then explodes then there is a problem with the science. I wasn't implying that there weren't any other scientists that have had valuable contributions to society, that is obviously a ridiculous notion, I just think Tesla was in a class all by himself, that's my opinion, I'm sure there are those who would disagree and that's just fine.
The so called vacuum of space beyond the frozen dome would contain NOTHING.Why doesn't the air pour off the sides?Because it's frozen and creates a barrier from floor to ceiling.
Why doesn't this alleged frozen air reaching to an alleged ceiling sublimate into the vacuum of space?
To understand it, all you have to do is look into how liquids react when placed inside a chamber with atmosphere evacuated to extreme low pressures.
A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.
Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.Record, or correct for only to undo the correction for Earth?
If such had been the case, do you really think that the editors at the British Scientific Research Association Journal would have even taken into consideration the publication of Dr. DePalma's paper?You are yet to prove they published it or even exist.
i.e. they do not need to be adjusted to the sun centred reference frame.
As such, the orbital motion around the sun can be ignored.
To show the utter nonsense of this statement, I will go to even greater lengths.
The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light.
A precisely calculated beforehand thrust of the assembly was used.
The assembly was released by hand, but the entire setup had a precise momentum/projection angle, as was verified by the editors of the journal.Prove it. So far all you have are baseless claims.
My previous answer still stands correct.
If such had been the case, do you really think that the editors at the British Scientific Research Association Journal would have even taken into consideration the publication of Dr. DePalma's paper?
You simply do not understand the business of scientific journals.
They are in constant competition with one another.
The British Scientific Research Association Journal would have become the laughing stock of the entire scientific world, by publishing an experiment where the thrust was similar to that of throwing tennis balls into the air (what you are implying).
Some publish complete crap.
You are missing the moral of the story.
The fact that Newton’s laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotatingWhich not even this experiment demonstrated was false.
object.
Gravitons are NOT electrically neutral: they come in pairs, the dextrorotatory subquark/magnetic monopole causes terrestrial gravity, while by activing the laevorotatory subquark (by torsion, DePalma/Kozyrev experiments, by electricity, Biefeld-Brown-Nipher effect, by sound, cymatics) we can access the antigravitational force, the missing holy grail of modern physics.1 - Prove it.
Your first task at hand, since you like to investigate margins of error, would be to find out how Kepler faked/forged his ENTIRE SET OF DATA on planet Mars.Why? So you can continue to deflect and refuse to defend your crap?
There are no margins of error in the DePalma experiment: do you understand what that means?I understand. It means he didn't bother with any margins of error as it would show his experiment to be crap without a conclusion. It wouldn't be a null result, it would be no result.
Unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!Yes, because they were not launched identically.
In the gyrodrop experiment you have to understand that it takes a certain period of time for the ether strings to accumulate/resonate with the spinning gyroscope.Which would have had to occur for all experiments/runs, and doesn't explain why the first few runs it went slower.
If we eliminate the first runs, the statistical data will show exactly the existence of ether.i.e. if you ignore the results that disagree with your conclusion you get the conclusion you want.
Even if we add the other runs, the authors do specify:And as I explained, if they only did the first 2 runs for the experiment, they would have a 99.7% confidence level that it falls slower.
On the basis of the Standard Deviations of the data from this experiment, one can say with a 97% level of confidence that a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.
Runs 3-7 simply were not supposed to happen within the framework of newtonian mechanics.No. With the result of random errors within experiments they were.
You are ever ready to call others "stupid", "moron", and the like.Yes. When people repeatedly act stupid I will be ready to point it out.
Yet, you have shown here in front of everyone, that you do not understand the meaning of the Sagnac experiment.No. I have shown that I do understand it, while you just repeat the same crap without addressing any of my concerns.
You are refusing to accept the results of a clearly described experiment.No. I am refusing to accept your bullshit conclusions about this clearly described experiment, where the description shows they were clearly not launched identically.
This experiment was accepted by the British Scientific Research Association Journal.Yet you are yet to specify anything more about this, such as volume, issue and page number, and I can find nothing on it. I can't even find any evidence of the British Scientific Research Association Journal even existing. As such, I will dismiss this as just another baseless bullshit claim.
The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.NO IT WASN'T.
You cannot complain about the momentum imparted by the cup, using baseless accusations.Yes. I can.
You FAILED to address the gyroscope experiments performed by Dr. Kozyrev and which do verify the DePalma experiment.You mean the experiment that shows the results are the same within error, the selective choice of choosing more runs for one experiment than the other, you picking and choosing which runs to focus on?
In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.Except, it didn't.
N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.
Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html
It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect. N.A.Kozyrev, A.I.Veinik and other researchers who obsered the change of weight emphasized repeatedly that the rotation must be non-stationary. For instance, N.A.Kozyrev and A.I.Veinik used special vibrations, and H.Hayasaka experimented with moving (falling) gyroscopesSo it isn't the spinning which is causing an apparent variation in weight, it is repeatedly vibrating it.
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.Yet more baseless claims.
You cannot DENY the Galaev ether drift experiments: they are real and do prove the existence of ether.I don't need to deny them. I am sure they were real test. They just had flaws and did not prove the existence of aether or its drift.
The charge produces an electric field, which interacts with other charges resulting in a thrust.Yes. Do you? Because you are sounding like a complete moron.
In the atmosphere, it will interact with air, with the field drawing particles to it due to an induced dipole, transferring charge to the particle and pushing it away or towards the other electrode.
In a vacuum, there are still particles which can then still be ionised and pushed away.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL ATTRACTION?
If you do, then you will understand that the Biefeld-Brown effect CONTRADICTS/DEFIES/VIOLATES this supposed law of attractive gravitation.No. It doesn't.
FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE CAPACITOR, in full vacuum, this same capacitor ROTATED (in the Gravitec experiment) or THRUSTED UPWARDS (in the T. Brown experiment performed in France) in full defiance of Newtonian mechanics.BULLSHIT.
We are being told that GRAVITY is NOT related to ELECTRICITY.No. Currently the link between gravity and electricity is unknown. People are trying to formulate theories of everything which tie the 2 together.
Using ONLY the force of electricity, GRAVITY WAS DEFIED, a clear antigravitational effect was being measured.No. Not defied, overcome. There is a big difference.
There are no more particles for you to rely upon in VACUUM to dream of an ion wind effect, no such thing will save your day.Good thing they never achieved a perfect vacuum.
The motion of the gas molecules themselves will cause mixing without needing wind.No. I haven't. I am just accepting facts. Facts you need to outright reject and declare nonsense to pretend your worldview is sane.
You have totally lost it.
You have no knowledge of the Brownian motion paradox.Because there is none.
"Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.Why?
There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction."Again showing ignorance/misunderstanding/dishonesty.
The moment the wind stops, the gases will be TOTALLY affected by gravity.They are always affected by gravity.
No scientist at the present time can explain why the gases do not separate according to their specific gravities ONCE the wind subsides.Plenty can. Even I can. You just reject it because it doesn't fit into your delusions.
You cannot use the Brownian motion argument, since that is a sure proof of the existence of ether.No. It is proof of the molecular nature of gasses and other substances.
This is because they don't have the kV of charge needed nor a power source to give them it.So? This doesn't help your case.
A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.No. They are made of water molecules.
I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.Yet you can explain no basis for this electrical nature.
ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float above the ground.No. It can't. It has no explanation for the source of the electric field, nor does it have an explanation for why it eventually falls as rain.
i.e. they do not need to be adjusted to the sun centred reference frame.Nope.
As such, the orbital motion around the sun can be ignored.
You are embarrassing yourself by showing that you do not understand the meaning of the orbital Sagnac effect.
YOU HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO ADDRESS THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
What if the Earth frame (lab,ECEF) itself were the absolute frame??!!It is rotating so it can't be.
MMX misinterpretation: …” the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..No. It did not detect any motion of Earth relative to a hypothetical stationary aether.
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.”No. A null result does not need to be 0.
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. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:
Einstein saidStop talking about what people said.
Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),No. It measured the Sagnac effect, which works regardless of the inertial reference frame you have chosen.
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.
there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explainIt just has the issue of all the other experiments and observations which show Earth is rotating around its axis and orbiting the sun.
both MMX and MGX!
Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmosWhich we don't.
If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.No. They don't.
All of us don't accept same shape. We need a research organization for a complete proof.The problem is your calculations are using non-direct flight paths, and using the times of the flights as distance. It doesn't work like that.
I calculated it like this. But you are still free to accept everything.
I just gave an example about small powers effect low causes generally nothing. It is compatibled what you say but for a reason you are excited. In the otherway it is a conversation with another one. It did not suit you to intervene.
We can find out everykind of reasons for we don't want to accept. Like jetstreams, refraction, perspective, etc. But these reasons can't change the truth.Yes, you can find all sorts of nonsense to justify your flat Earth nonsense, but it won't change the truth.
A vacuum is not a force. It cannot suck. This thread can though.
Ahahah ahahah ahahah a vacuum is not a force. Ahahah you are true but what about diffusion? Vacuum is not a force but causes diffusision which stronger than your father gravity.
10 cm^2 vacuum take over about 500 kg. Calculate what does it do to you? It throws you out of other corner of your space.
No. The vacuum is not a force. Air is.
For a 1m^2 plate, air exerts a force of roughly 100 kN or around 10 000 kg.
Do not interrupt my conversations. Try to start another one.
A vacuum is not a force. It cannot suck. This thread can though.
Ahahah ahahah ahahah a vacuum is not a force. Ahahah you are true but what about diffusion? Vacuum is not a force but causes diffusision which stronger than your father gravity.
10 cm^2 vacuum take over about 500 kg. Calculate what does it do to you? It throws you out of other corner of your space.