GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.

How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?

Daniel 4:10-11
    The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Would you say that "a tree in the midst of the earth" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal tree?

    Matthew 4:8
    Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Would you say that "a very high mountain" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal mountain?

"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :

Michelson and Morley planned  to turn  their apparatus  until they  found  the maximum fringe shift produced  by light travelling  in two perpendicular  directions.  The position  of maximum fringe shift would show  the  direction  in which  the  earth  was  moving,  the  size  of the  fringe  shift  would be  a measure  of the  speed  of the  earth  through  the  aether.

But they  found that no matter  how they turned  their apparatus,  there was no significant  fringe shift. They had once  again  established  that  the earth  does not move.  They  reasoned  that  the  movements  of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  and the sun  around  the  universe  must have  exactly  cancelled  out, so  that  just at that moment  the  earth  happened to  be  stationary.  The  obvious  thing  to do was to repeat  the experiment  six months  later,  when  the earth  would be going  in the  opposite  direction,  on  the  "other side"  of its orbit around  the  sun,  and  the motions  would no  longer  cancel.

So  they  repeated  the  experiment  six months  later,  but  still  there  were  no  significant  fringe  shifts.  The earth  was  still standing  still! They  repeated  the experiment  at  all seasons  of  the  year.  They  repeated  it at  all  times  of  the  day and  night.  They  repeated  it  in Berlin,  in  Chicago,  on  the  tops  of mountains  ...and  everywhere  ..  . no  fringe  shift.

In other  words,  the  earth  was  not moving.

It is  interesting  to  see  what  various  scientists  have  said  about  this:

Adolf Baker  said  "Thus  failure  to  observe  different  speeds  of  light  at  different  times  of  the  year  suggested  that  the  earth  must  be at rest'  ...  it was  therefore  the 'preferred' frame  for measuring  absolute  motion  in space".

Bernard  Jaffe  said  "The data  were  almost  unbelievable.  There  was  only  one other  possible  conclusion  to  draw,  that  the  earth  was  at  rest.  This,  of course, was  preposterous".

But we  might  ask  "Why preposterous?"  After  all,  has  anybody  ever  actually proved  that  the  earth  is moving?

Giancoli put it this  way:-  "But  this  implies  that  the  earth  is somehow  a preferred  object;  only  with  respect  to  the  earth  would  the  speed  of  light  be  c as  predicted  by Maxwell's  equations.  This  is  tantamount  to  assuming  that  the earth  is  the  central  body  of  the  universe".

That  of course  is  unacceptable  to anyone  who  has  decided  that  the  earth  is  a very  ordinary  second  class  planet  speeding through  some  insignificant  backwater  of the  universe.  Another  ad  hoc  was  required  to save  the  theory  from the  evidence.

The man who came up with the ger  of the  dea for the required  ad  hoc  was an lrish physicist called George  Francis  Fitzgerald.  His suggestion was developed into the idea that  if Michelson  and  Morley's  apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just  the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's  spaceship) at high speed  it becomes slightly  shorter than when it was stationary.  An  interesting  idea.  To accept  such  an  idea  as  scientific  one should,  of course,  take measurements  and check  that  it  is so. Our intrepid motorist  (or  space  traveller)  takes  his  ruler with him and  measures  his  vehicle to see  if it really  does  become  shorter.  Unfortunately  the  ruler must  get  shorter by exactly  the  right amount  to make  the measurement  identical  to that when it is stationary.

Measurement  says  it does  not  get  shorter.

Then  how do we know it really  does  get  shorter?

Obviously  it must  get  shorter.

Otherwise  Michelson and Morley's experiment  shows  that  the earth  stands still.

But  there  is  a  way  to  test  for  "Fitzgerald  contraction".  An  interferometer  would get  shorter  by exactly  the  right  amount  only  if  the  lengths  of the  two arms were  exactly  equal.  But  if an  interferometer  were  made  with, say,  one  arm only  half  the  length  of  the  other,  the  contraction  would  no  longer  be  just  right, and  a  fringe  shift  would  be  observed.  Such  an  interferometer  was  built. 

It is interesting  to  see  Arthur  Beiser's  comment  on  this  experiment:-  "We might be  tempted  to consider  the  Michelson-Morley  result  solely  as  evidence  for the  contraction  of  the  length  of  their  apparatus  in  the  direction  of  the  earth's motion. 

This  interpretation  was  tested  by Kennedy  and  Thorndike  using  an interferometer  with  arms  of unequal  length.  They  also  found  no  fringe  shift which  means  that  these  experiments  must  be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether."

But  why  "MUST be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether"?  Why not  taken  as  evidence  that  the  earth  stands  still?  All the  observations  would  fit that  idea!  And  if this  experiment  proves  that  there  is  no  aether,  then  it  raises  a very  interesting  philosophical  question.  Is  it possible  for  scientists  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist?  Fresnel  had measured  properties  of  the  aether.  If it is  possible  for scientists  to measure  the  properties  of something  that  does  not exist,  then  what  value  can  we assign  to science?

Anything  the  scientists  measure  might  be  a measurement  of something  that does  not  exist  at  all! But  if it is  not  possible  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist,  then  what  about  Fresnel's  (and  several  other  scientists')  measurements  of properties  of the  aether?  And  if  there  is no aether, how  do we  explain  away  the  failure  of Airy to  find  the  result  he  expected  in Boscovich's  experiment?  And how do we make  sense  of Maxwell's  equations,  which  come  directly  from  consideration  of  the  aether?

It is intriguing  to note  that  all the  experiments  fit  in with the  idea  that  the earth  does  not  move  ... without  the  need  for  any  ad  hocs  at  all.

It was  not  only optical experiments that were giving this problem. Electromagnetic experiments, such as that of Trouton and Noble, also suggested that the earth does not move.

The man who came up with the way out of the dilemma was Hendrik Anton Lorentz, a famous Dutch physicist. He proposed that high speed motion through the aether led not only to length contraction but also to increased resistance to acceleration (which is equivalent to increase in mass), and the slowing down of clocks. The famous  "Lorentz  Transformations" formed the core of his "Theory  of Relativity".

A young "genius" working in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, later expressed Lorentz's theory in a different way a mathematical abstraction without a physical basis. Expressed this way the theory needed no aether, in  fact it could not tolerate the aether. It was later realised that this solved the problem of Thorndike and Kennedy's experiment. Einstein's version of relativity became more popular than Lorentz's, and the idea of the aether went out of fashion.

Most physicists continue to deny the existence of the aether yet they are forced to admit that "free space" is, as K.W. Ford expressed it, "a turbulent sea of  randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields, and short-lived, virtual particle pairs that form and annihilate". It is generally agreed that key "vacuum" properties  include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance - properties associated with the "aether" of Maxwell and Lorentz. This gives the  impression that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by repudiating its former name.

Einstein's original contribution to relativity centres on two fundamental assumptions, neither of which is obvious, and both of which contradict Maxwell's equations (which the theory was intended to justify!?!?!?!??!?!??!). 

The first assumption is that no matter how an observer is (uniformly) moving he will always come to the same conclusion about the laws of science. No matter how he is moving he will always come to the same conclusions about the universe. In other words, all frames of reference are absolutely equivalent.

The second assumption is that however an observer is (uniformly) moving, he will always measure the speed at which light reaches him as being the same, a constant,  "c".

This means that if the earth is moving through space with a speed "v", and it meets a ray of light moving in exactly the opposite direction in a head-on collision,  then the impact speed will be  c+v but  this  will be  exactly  equal  to  c! A ray of light moving in the same direction as the earth, catching the earth up, will meet the earth with an impact speed of c-v, and this will also be exactly equal to c.

So (c+v) = c = (c-v) :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

To anyone with a little knowledge of mathematics it looks as if there is one, unique, solution, v = 0 ...  the  earth  is  not  moving.

Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the  aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed  unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is  largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).

Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise  around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise.  After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes.  Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be  chasing the camera  (which is moving away at  speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a  relative  speed  of c +v.  If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.

But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth  alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed  out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the  evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's  experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations  of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General  Theory  of Relativity" (GTR).

Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is  clearly  invalid.

Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago.  The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause  a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both  beams would take the same time. the  earth's  rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the  earth were standing still with the universe, including the  aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.

They measured a difference. Existence  of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out  "One may scan  Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said  of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.

Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to  all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate. Some point out that the difficulties can be explained away by working in terms of  "Riemanian space", a mathematical abstraction which can be bent, warped and twisted in as many dimensions as a mathematician may care to invent. Since the reality  which we live in actually seems to consist of normal ("Euclidian") space of exactly three dimensions which are "flat" (i.e.not bent, warped or twisted) these arguments are only convincing to confirmed believers in Einstein's theory - or to those so intimidated by the mathematics that they are afraid to appear ignorant if they disagree!

That figures!!!

But we might ask why the scientist  always need to invent excuses to explain away the evidence? Is it not possible that the earth really is stationary at the centre of the universe? Why the unwillingness to consider that possibility?

Rutherford probably came close to answering that question when he said:

-"Even if it is recognized that different frames of reference are possible mathematically, a reference system that is acceptable to one person may involve PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are unacceptable to another". 

Now doesn't that ring a bell? 

Why did Copernicus take the earth away from the centre in the first place? 

The philosophical assumptions of his Greek inventors.

Burgess, writing in "Earth Chauvinism" probably came even closer to the truth when he said this:- "The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centred  upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as  astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense."


THAT FIGURES!!!

But we might ask why the scientist  always need to invent excuses to explain away the evidence? Is it not possible that the earth really is stationary at the centre of the universe? Why the unwillingness to consider that possibility?

Rutherford probably came close to answering that question when he said:

-"Even if it is recognized that different frames of reference are possible mathematically, a reference system that is acceptable to one person may involve PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are unacceptable to another". 

Now doesn't that ring a bell? 

Why did Copernicus take the earth away from the centre in the first place? 

The philosophical assumptions of his Greek inventors.

Burgess, writing in "Earth Chauvinism" probably came even closer to the truth when he said this:- "The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centred  upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as  astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense."


THAT FIGURES!!!

Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.

Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....

1.

 It was not only experiments like those of Sagnac and Michelson and Gale which pointed to the earth as central. Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared in his telescope (and therefore presumably the further away), the more its spectrum was shifted to the  red.

It did not matter in which direction he looked. In every direction, the further away from the earth the more "red  shifted" the spectrum.

This is usually explained in terms of what is called the "Doppler" effect. The "redder" the spectrum, the faster something is supposed to  be  moving away from us. This leads to the  idea of the "expanding universe".  The further an object is from us, the faster it is moving away  from us. 

It is almost certain that this interpretation is wrong. 

Scientists like Halton C. Arp and W.G. Tift have shown that the red shifts are not due to the Doppler Effect and the universe may no be expanding at all.

Halton C. Arp, was a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved died on Dec. 28  2013. in Munich. He was 86.

2.

Michelson and Morley planned  to turn  their apparatus  until they  found  the maximum fringe shift produced  by light travelling  in two perpendicular  directions.  The position  of maximum fringe shift would show  the  direction  in which  the  earth  was  moving,  the  size  of the  fringe  shift  would be  a measure  of the  speed  of the  earth  through  the  aether.

But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established  that  the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movement of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment  the  earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat  the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.

So they repeated  the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains...and everywhere... no fringe shift.

In other words, the earth was not moving.

3.

 If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. 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.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.

4.

Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are!

Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider:

A. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity.

B. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist).

C. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period.

D. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe!

E. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions!

For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.

5.

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

6.



Yes, why wouldn't we see Polaris if north-south tangent line at the equator would be exactly parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation?

Hm, strange question i must admit, pay attention to a green line in above picture and meditate some more on this issue...


Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:

Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:

Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?

So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?

So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!

Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!

7.

 Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067

PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 10, 2015, 08:55:58 AM

Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.

How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?

Quote

Daniel 4:10-11
    The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Would you say that "a tree in the midst of the earth" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal tree?

Quote

    Matthew 4:8
    Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Would you say that "a very high mountain" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal mountain?

The tree: clearly not, as obvious from the context.

The mountain: hard to say, but for the point of the story somewhat irrelevant.

The storehouse of the sun: hard to say, but somewhat relevant, for that part of the book tries to explain the motion of the celestial bodies. The author obviously believed that sunsets are real, contrary to the current FE models, where the sun never really sets. So if the storehouses are figurative, they are figures for what?

@ FalseProphet,

They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.

@ FalseProphet,

They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.

I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?

Quote from: cikljamas on April 11, 2015, 10:23:19 AM

@ FalseProphet,

They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.

I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?

Of course it is, why do you even ask such an odd question?

Now, let me ask you this: do you know who is stilling the Sun from you?

I am going to give you a clue:






https://chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com/tag/project-cloverleaf/

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 11, 2015, 10:59:48 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 11, 2015, 10:23:19 AM

@ FalseProphet,

They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.

I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?

Of course it is, why do you even ask such an odd question?

Because of iWitness  .

And well, I am concerned about Global warming. Because I do not live in England, I live in Malaysia, and here it is already warm enough.

If chemtrails are real then we can add just about everybody who works with airplanes to the list of conspirators.

I just have to put in my two cents about some experiments being mentioned here, but I don't have enough interest to put in more time than this on the subject. I admit to not reading the long ramblings about the geocentric experiments, but I know what they entailed anyway.

The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction was an attempt to explain the result of the Michelson-Morely experiment while salvaging the classical ether. In his special theory of relativity Einstein took the result of the Michelson–Morely experiment at face value and assumed the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate. Geocentrists must realize that special relativity and geocentricity are only two of many possible explanations for the Michelson-Morely experiment. Why did special relativity come to be so widely accepted? The predictions of special relativity, such as mass increase and time dilation, have been observed in countless experiments. Newtonian mechanics does not anticipate these results, though anti-relativists have managed to modify Newtonian mechanics with backward engineering to mimic these results.

In regards to Airy’s ‘failure’, this is not the destruction of relativity/heliocentric theories that geocentrists would have us believe. The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments are less known, though I did find a mention of the latter. That source indicated no problem with modern relativity theory, making a distinction between translational and rotational motion of the Earth.

I suspect that since both the Sagnac and Michelson–Gale experiments involve rotational motion, and hence centripetal acceleration, the special theory of relativity does not apply, since that theory only addresses inertial frames of reference. Accelerated frames must be analyzed with general relativity.

RE: Chemtrails. Ugh. Yes, everybody is either lying or out to get you, ruining the world for you and for them as well, and their offspring, apparently, since they live here. There is absolutely no evidence for this that hasn't been debunked. My in-laws believe in this too, so I hear it all the time. (But I don't argue with them, so I'll vent here instead, hehe!) They live in isolation, fearing cities and government, living in constant worry and cynicism. I think you all just need a greater purpose to your life, so you live for the sensational.

Scientists have examined and said that the behavior of contrails is nothing out of the ordinary for the vapor they excrete. Wikipedia has some good info on this. They have also said that from here, their trails look much more uniform than they actually are. It's a matter of perspective.

I shot these photographs from my balcony:




These are contrails, ha?

Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...

Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...

I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.

I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.

He is not living in fear or ignorance. If you think that shit is normal, you are wrong.

Quote from: sokarul on April 11, 2015, 04:47:44 PM

I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.

He is not living in fear or ignorance. If you think that shit is normal, you are wrong.

Do you know what reaction happens inside an airplane engine?

These are contrails, ha?

Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...

Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...

Yes, those are contrails. I will not stoop as low as you and respond with snide remarks about your character. You are not a Christian, so I wish you'd stop pretending you are, and giving those who actually care to be like Jesus a bad name. You are so extreme to call anyone who disagrees with you a "Satanist" as if you know what a Satanist actually does, and obviously there is no reasoning with you. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 11, 2015, 04:19:40 PM

These are contrails, ha?

Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...

Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...

could you please explain exsactly what a Christian is ?

Yes, those are contrails. I will not stoop as low as you and respond with snide remarks about your character. You are not a Christian, so I wish you'd stop pretending you are, and giving those who actually care to be like Jesus a bad name. You are so extreme to call anyone who disagrees with you a "Satanist" as if you know what a Satanist actually does, and obviously there is no reasoning with you. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.

Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.

Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.

Not giving Christianity a bad name and having Christian values is a big part of it and cikljamas isn't doing to great at either of those.

Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.
[/quote]

Of course. Quite simply, a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who paid for our sins, that we may have eternal life. Although that is all it means to be a Christian, there are "fruits of the Spirit" a true Christian would be able to show: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self-control, just to name a few. Of course we can't be perfect and struggle all the time, but it should be clear in situations when one is publicly announcing that they are a Christian and discussing beliefs, by that person's character and how they are treating others, whether or not they are a true follower of Christ or a hypocrite. It's never too late to change, though, and I don't mean to condemn anyone with my words.

Another thing that Christians should *not* do, is focus on conspiracy theories. The Bible says in Isaiah, “Do not say, ‘A conspiracy,’ Concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled." This is because, even if things like chem trails, 9/11 inside job, nasa lying and all that were true (I don't believe they are), it shouldn't be our focus, because God is the one in control of our lives, when we trust him. We need to be at peace with that instead of doubting everyone and living in fear. But sometimes, people forget.

Here is my response to all the chemtrail stuff, I didn't want to quite it because there is a lot of stuff cikljamas posted about it.

Contrails are only formed when it's cold enough for condensation to happen which is why planes only produce them at high altitude when it's relatively warm.  If you look at cikljama's photos of contrails there are a lot of them and I would bet that that's because it's not too warm there.  I live in St. George which is generally quite hot especially at this time of the year and despite living next to an airport the sky couldn't be clearer right now because it's too warm here for contrails to form.

If chemtrails were real then what are they supposed to do?  I have heard people say that they supposedly dump people down but if that's the case then why is cikljamas with many contrails over his house questioning the shape of the Earth while I have no contrails over me and yet to flat earthers I am the most indoctrinated fool there is.  Maybe chemtrails are real and make you dumber, that would explain cikljama's intelligence.  No, that's impossible because it would require all aircraft mechanics, airline pilots, and just about anyone else who works with planes to be in on the conspiracy^TM without one blowing the whistle.

Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.

Of course. Quite simply, a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who paid for our sins, that we may have eternal life. Although that is all it means to be a Christian, there are "fruits of the Spirit" a true Christian would be able to show: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self-control, just to name a few. Of course we can't be perfect and struggle all the time, but it should be clear in situations when one is publicly announcing that they are a Christian and discussing beliefs, by that person's character and how they are treating others, whether or not they are a true follower of Christ or a hypocrite. It's never too late to change, though, and I don't mean to condemn anyone with my words.
[/quote]Well I have a different interpretation of Jesus Christ & what he was teaching.  Does that make me less Christian then you ?

“If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”
Albert Einstein

Senator David Norris" Israel bombs first and weeps later" must see : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Israeli sniper killing wounded civilian : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Shocking Clip: Israeli Checkpoint Cruelty : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

How Israeli soldiers abuse Palestinian children : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Young American Jew, Israeli National police beat him : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Jimmy Carter unveils truth about Israel : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If this turned out to be true i wouldn't be surprised : http://www.infowars.com/former-al-qaeda-commander-isis-works-for-the-cia/

The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history : http://www.iosworld.org/shame_of_being_an_american.htm

Ending the impunity of perpetrators of human rights atrocities: A major challenge for international law in the 21st century : https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqhj.htm

CNN Wants This Video Banned (SEE WHY) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT!  : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

DANIEL BARENBOIM WOLF PRIZE VIDEO must see : http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/






Mahalia Jackson vs Troubles Of The World 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Revelation 3:15
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

Mark 11:15
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.

24 Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

25 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence!

26 You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too.

27 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity.

28 Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed.

30 Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

31 But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.

32 Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started.

33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

34 Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city.

35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar.

36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

Buried amongst the religious screeds and political rants was this little gem of a post...

Quote from: Mainframes on April 11, 2015, 06:11:17 AM

Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....

Care to explain why you think the statement above is so funny?

1.

 It was not only experiments like those of Sagnac and Michelson and Gale which pointed to the earth as central. Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared in his telescope (and therefore presumably the further away), the more its spectrum was shifted to the  red.

It did not matter in which direction he looked. In every direction, the further away from the earth the more "red  shifted" the spectrum.

This is usually explained in terms of what is called the "Doppler" effect. The "redder" the spectrum, the faster something is supposed to  be  moving away from us. This leads to the  idea of the "expanding universe".  The further an object is from us, the faster it is moving away  from us. 

It is almost certain that this interpretation is wrong. ^{[citation needed]}

Scientists like Halton C. Arp and W.G. Tift have shown that the red shifts are not due to the Doppler Effect and the universe may no be expanding at all.

Halton C. Arp, was a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved died on Dec. 28  2013. in Munich. He was 86.

Through much of the early to mid-'60s a battle was raging between "Big Bang" and "Steady State" cosmology. The former was most famously championed by Dr. George Gamow, and the latter by Dr. Fred Hoyle[nb]It was Dr. Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang", as a pejorative. Instead, the term was not only adopted, but embraced, by the other side.[/nb]. Eventually the "Big Bang" model won out because it was a better theory and made better predictions. Dr. Arp was a holdout for the Steady-State theory until the bitter end, long after the preponderance of evidence rendered the Steady-State model obsolete. It is not at all unusual for there to be a few guys like this.

2.

Michelson and Morley planned  to turn  their apparatus  until they  found  the maximum fringe shift produced  by light travelling  in two perpendicular  directions.  The position  of maximum fringe shift would show  the  direction  in which  the  earth  was  moving,  the  size  of the  fringe  shift  would be  a measure  of the  speed  of the  earth  through  the  aether.

But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established  that  the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movement of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment  the  earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat  the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.

So they repeated  the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains...and everywhere... no fringe shift.

In other words, the earth was not moving.

Or, much more likely, the Earth was not moving through an aether, as was supposed.

3.

 If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. 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.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not.[citation needed] Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.

Since the Sun's movement around the galaxy is approximately the same as all the other bright stars, they're all in the same frame of reference and there's no aberration due to this motion. The Earth's orbital speed about the Sun doesn't change enough to be significant. The constant of aberration you cite is the maximum a star will be shifted due to average orbital motion (which doesn't change). What does change is the direction of the apparent displacement through the year; at the ecliptic pole, the pattern is (nearly) circular, becoming more elliptical as you approach the ecliptic. On the ecliptic, it's a straight line. Where's the problem?

4.

Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are!

Since science is based on evidence, not proofs, this is to be expected. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is consistent with the Earth moving, so that's the model science uses with great success.

Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider:

A. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity.

B. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist).

C. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period.

D. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe!

E. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions!

For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.

So what are your brilliant ideas about all of the above? Why do you think any of these are problems for a heliocentric solar system and spherical earth?

5.

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

Is there any evidence that Rowbotham actually carried out this experiment, or is this simply another fabrication?

6.

http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg

Yes, why wouldn't we see Polaris if north-south tangent line at the equator would be exactly parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation?

Hm, strange question i must admit, pay attention to a green line in above picture and meditate some more on this issue...


Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:

Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:

Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) [41' is less than 0.7°] difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?

So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?

Do you have any evidence that this is actually true?

So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!

Yes. It's unlikely that Polaris is visible from 2° south except in rare circumstances, though. At 1° south it should be dim but visible at certain times of night under typical, but very clear, conditions if you have a clear view of the northern horizon September - February.

Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!

You have no reliable evidence that anyone has seen Polaris from 12° south.

7.

 Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067

PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

False dichotomy.

Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

Since your "zig-zag" argument has been shown to be faulty time and time again, why do you keep bringing it up? The amount of parallax you postulate simply does not exist.
 

Alpha, do you remember these wise words of my dear friend Acenci:

Third, your attempts to debunk all my proofs don't work, because I have addressed all your objections before. The problem with you shills is that if there are three points in someone's argument, after he's done explaining the third point, you ask for his first point again.

Then someone else comes along and he asks the truther to explain his second point again. Then another shill comes along and he says the truther forgot to explain his third point.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642

But i can do you a favor by repeating these words:

Quote from: cikljamas on April 09, 2015, 10:38:30 AM

"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :

Michelson and Morley planned  to turn  their apparatus  until they  found  the maximum fringe shift produced  by light travelling  in two perpendicular  directions.  The position  of maximum fringe shift would show  the  direction  in which  the  earth  was  moving,  the  size  of the  fringe  shift  would be  a measure  of the  speed  of the  earth  through  the  aether.

But they  found that no matter  how they turned  their apparatus,  there was no significant  fringe shift. They had once  again  established  that  the earth  does not move.  They  reasoned  that  the  movements  of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  and the sun  around  the  universe  must have  exactly  cancelled  out, so  that  just at that moment  the  earth  happened to  be  stationary.  The  obvious  thing  to do was to repeat  the experiment  six months  later,  when  the earth  would be going  in the  opposite  direction,  on  the  "other side"  of its orbit around  the  sun,  and  the motions  would no  longer  cancel.

So  they  repeated  the  experiment  six months  later,  but  still  there  were  no  significant  fringe  shifts.  The earth  was  still standing  still! They  repeated  the experiment  at  all seasons  of  the  year.  They  repeated  it at  all  times  of  the  day and  night.  They  repeated  it  in Berlin,  in  Chicago,  on  the  tops  of mountains  ...and  everywhere  ..  . no  fringe  shift.

In other  words,  the  earth  was  not moving.

It is  interesting  to  see  what  various  scientists  have  said  about  this:

Adolf Baker  said  "Thus  failure  to  observe  different  speeds  of  light  at  different  times  of  the  year  suggested  that  the  earth  must  be at rest'  ...  it was  therefore  the 'preferred' frame  for measuring  absolute  motion  in space".

Bernard  Jaffe  said  "The data  were  almost  unbelievable.  There  was  only  one other  possible  conclusion  to  draw,  that  the  earth  was  at  rest.  This,  of course, was  preposterous".

But we  might  ask  "Why preposterous?"  After  all,  has  anybody  ever  actually proved  that  the  earth  is moving?

Giancoli put it this  way:-  "But  this  implies  that  the  earth  is somehow  a preferred  object;  only  with  respect  to  the  earth  would  the  speed  of  light  be  c as  predicted  by Maxwell's  equations.  This  is  tantamount  to  assuming  that  the earth  is  the  central  body  of  the  universe".

That  of course  is  unacceptable  to anyone  who  has  decided  that  the  earth  is  a very  ordinary  second  class  planet  speeding through  some  insignificant  backwater  of the  universe.  Another  ad  hoc  was  required  to save  the  theory  from the  evidence.

The man who came up with the ger  of the  dea for the required  ad  hoc  was an lrish physicist called George  Francis  Fitzgerald.  His suggestion was developed into the idea that  if Michelson  and  Morley's  apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just  the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's  spaceship) at high speed  it becomes slightly  shorter than when it was stationary.  An  interesting  idea.  To accept  such  an  idea  as  scientific  one should,  of course,  take measurements  and check  that  it  is so. Our intrepid motorist  (or  space  traveller)  takes  his  ruler with him and  measures  his  vehicle to see  if it really  does  become  shorter.  Unfortunately  the  ruler must  get  shorter by exactly  the  right amount  to make  the measurement  identical  to that when it is stationary.

Measurement  says  it does  not  get  shorter.

Then  how do we know it really  does  get  shorter?

Obviously  it must  get  shorter.

Otherwise  Michelson and Morley's experiment  shows  that  the earth  stands still.

But  there  is  a  way  to  test  for  "Fitzgerald  contraction".  An  interferometer  would get  shorter  by exactly  the  right  amount  only  if  the  lengths  of the  two arms were  exactly  equal.  But  if an  interferometer  were  made  with, say,  one  arm only  half  the  length  of  the  other,  the  contraction  would  no  longer  be  just  right, and  a  fringe  shift  would  be  observed.  Such  an  interferometer  was  built. 

It is interesting  to  see  Arthur  Beiser's  comment  on  this  experiment:-  "We might be  tempted  to consider  the  Michelson-Morley  result  solely  as  evidence  for the  contraction  of  the  length  of  their  apparatus  in  the  direction  of  the  earth's motion. 

This  interpretation  was  tested  by Kennedy  and  Thorndike  using  an interferometer  with  arms  of unequal  length.  They  also  found  no  fringe  shift which  means  that  these  experiments  must  be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether."

But  why  "MUST be  considered  evidence  for  the  absence  of an  aether"?  Why not  taken  as  evidence  that  the  earth  stands  still?  All the  observations  would  fit that  idea!  And  if this  experiment  proves  that  there  is  no  aether,  then  it  raises  a very  interesting  philosophical  question.  Is  it possible  for  scientists  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist?  Fresnel  had measured  properties  of  the  aether.  If it is  possible  for scientists  to measure  the  properties  of something  that  does  not exist,  then  what  value  can  we assign  to science?

Anything  the  scientists  measure  might  be  a measurement  of something  that does  not  exist  at  all! But  if it is  not  possible  to measure  properties  of something  that  does  not  exist,  then  what  about  Fresnel's  (and  several  other  scientists')  measurements  of properties  of the  aether?  And  if  there  is no aether, how  do we  explain  away  the  failure  of Airy to  find  the  result  he  expected  in Boscovich's  experiment?  And how do we make  sense  of Maxwell's  equations,  which  come  directly  from  consideration  of  the  aether?

It is intriguing  to note  that  all the  experiments  fit  in with the  idea  that  the earth  does  not  move  ... without  the  need  for  any  ad  hocs  at  all.

It was  not  only optical experiments that were giving this problem. Electromagnetic experiments, such as that of Trouton and Noble, also suggested that the earth does not move.

The man who came up with the way out of the dilemma was Hendrik Anton Lorentz, a famous Dutch physicist. He proposed that high speed motion through the aether led not only to length contraction but also to increased resistance to acceleration (which is equivalent to increase in mass), and the slowing down of clocks. The famous  "Lorentz  Transformations" formed the core of his "Theory  of Relativity".

A young "genius" working in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, later expressed Lorentz's theory in a different way a mathematical abstraction without a physical basis. Expressed this way the theory needed no aether, in  fact it could not tolerate the aether. It was later realised that this solved the problem of Thorndike and Kennedy's experiment. Einstein's version of relativity became more popular than Lorentz's, and the idea of the aether went out of fashion.

Most physicists continue to deny the existence of the aether yet they are forced to admit that "free space" is, as K.W. Ford expressed it, "a turbulent sea of  randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields, and short-lived, virtual particle pairs that form and annihilate". It is generally agreed that key "vacuum" properties  include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance - properties associated with the "aether" of Maxwell and Lorentz. This gives the  impression that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by repudiating its former name.

Einstein's original contribution to relativity centres on two fundamental assumptions, neither of which is obvious, and both of which contradict Maxwell's equations (which the theory was intended to justify!?!?!?!??!?!??!). 

The first assumption is that no matter how an observer is (uniformly) moving he will always come to the same conclusion about the laws of science. No matter how he is moving he will always come to the same conclusions about the universe. In other words, all frames of reference are absolutely equivalent.

The second assumption is that however an observer is (uniformly) moving, he will always measure the speed at which light reaches him as being the same, a constant,  "c".

This means that if the earth is moving through space with a speed "v", and it meets a ray of light moving in exactly the opposite direction in a head-on collision,  then the impact speed will be  c+v but  this  will be  exactly  equal  to  c! A ray of light moving in the same direction as the earth, catching the earth up, will meet the earth with an impact speed of c-v, and this will also be exactly equal to c.

So (c+v) = c = (c-v) :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

To anyone with a little knowledge of mathematics it looks as if there is one, unique, solution, v = 0 ...  the  earth  is  not  moving.

Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the  aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed  unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is  largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).

Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise  around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise.  After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes.  Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be  chasing the camera  (which is moving away at  speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a  relative  speed  of c +v.  If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.

But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth  alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed  out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the  evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's  experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations  of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General  Theory  of Relativity" (GTR).

Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is  clearly  invalid.

Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago.  The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause  a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both  beams would take the same time. the  earth's  rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the  earth were standing still with the universe, including the  aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.

They measured a difference. Existence  of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.

Now, what is it exactly that you don't understand in the text above?

In addition: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678905#msg1678905

Anything suspicious?

Let's not forget to stress these important facts once more:

Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067

PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

Cheers!

Hey guys, if you didn't see this fight, would you like to watch it now : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Hey guys, if you didn't see this fight, would you like to watch it now : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

And this is part of the global conspiracy how?

No answers to my questions or replies to my comments, just another wall of copy-paste. A lot of it is the very text that prompted the unanswered questions.

Would you please answer the questions here? Comments and rebuttals to the observations would be welcome, also.

Alpha, do you remember these wise words of my dear friend Acenci:

Wasn't he the guy who kept saying "this is my last post" every few hours for months? I guess he must have finally kept his promise. Can't say he seems to be missed by many around here.

Third, your attempts to debunk all my proofs don't work, because I have addressed all your objections before. The problem with you shills is that if there are three points in someone's argument, after he's done explaining the third point, you ask for his first point again.

Then someone else comes along and he asks the truther to explain his second point again. Then another shill comes along and he says the truther forgot to explain his third point.

That happens all the time because the "explanations" offered each time are either inadequate or just plain wrong. Maybe there's a message here?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642

But i can do you a favor by repeating these words:

Please don't. This has all been addressed before.

Quote

Quote from: cikljamas on April 09, 2015, 10:38:30 AM

<Bunch of stuff already answered before, with a few nuggets needing comment>
...
Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. ^{[citation needed]}
...
Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.

Actually, no. That last point is clearly wrong. There are several experiments that directly and indirectly establish the rotation of the Earth. Sorry.

Quote

Now, what is it exactly that you don't understand in the text above?

1. The parts that are wrong.
2. The conclusions you're drawing.

Quote

<More repeated stuff>

Cheers!

Allow me to quote you:

How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?

I still think you should heed your own advice.