What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):
But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution.
Who do you mean by "they"?
Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).
Have you read this yet, and better yet, understood what he's saying? Or are you just posting it again in hope that its meaning will change for some reason?
Here's the deal: By the time the MMX was conducted, the Copernican model of the solar system was very well established by centuries of careful direct observation and analysis. The theory of the Luminiferous Ether, necessary to transmit light, was presumed to be correct because the nature of electromagnetic waves was not yet well developed. The MMX was an elegant experiment to demonstrate the motion of the Earth through the Luminiferous Ether.
Presuming the experiment wasn't flawed, the null result obtained meant there were two possible conclusions, both distasteful: the Earth wasn't moving, or the Ether didn't exist (or both!) We now have a well-understood and well-verified basis for light transmission through a vacuum, but this was in development at the time and far from widely known and accepted, so the result caused a bit of a stir at the time. Your quote above speculates what the reaction might have been before the Copernican model was so well verified and when there was no basis whatever to disbelieve the necessity of the Ether. It's a cautionary tale about how results of valid experiments will be interpreted in the context of the understanding at the time.
The fact that the "failed" experiment wasn't simply swept under the rug because it ran counter to what was widely believed at the time speaks volumes. It was also one of the findings that hastened acceptance of models that we now know better describe observations.
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).
Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).
Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).
These quotes are reflections, well after the fact, on the effect the MMX had on the scientific community at the time. It was, indeed, a profound finding.
As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
Or, more likely, their experiments simply didn't show what they expected them to show. That happens sometimes. If the results are published and the experiment accurately described, they become another data point in the accumulated knowledge base. Often we learn more from "failed" experiments than the successful ones.
2.
Every point on a UNTILTED globe that is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the observer - NOON time), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!
This is a representation of the situation in which Sun's rays hit the point which is 11 time zones farther away from the NOON time position of the Sun:
It seems that this is the part that you didn't understand:
Every point on a UNTILTED globe that is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the observer - NOON time), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!
Haven't you figured out yet that you really want to say 6 time zones here? This is a problem with just using copy-paste without thinking about what's being copied.
Since there is no motion of the Earth whatsoever, there is no TILT of the Earth, also!
If there were no motion of the Earth whatsoever, then "tilt" would have no meaning. "Tilt" of what with respect to what?
Now, if there is no TILT of the Earth, and if you still want to stipulate RET, you have to take into consideration that on an UNTILTED globe EVERY point which is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the NOON time meridian), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!
Why do you keep going on about 9 time zones? What's special about 135 degrees? [I misspoke saying it was 120 earlier].
"Now, if there is no TILT of the Earth, and if you still want to stipulate RET" I'm not willing to accept this, because of the seasons and all that, but do go on...
It doesn't matter if the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, the sun's rays still can't reach Australia from that particular point (being directly above the meridian which goes thru Salt Lake City, Utah), because we are now on an UNTILTED globe for this particular purpose!
You've described a particular geometry: the Sun above the Tropic of Capricorn at the longitude of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 112 W. Whether it arrived there because the Earth is rotating about an axis tilted with respect to the plane of its orbit or not is irrelevant for what follows. Let's just accept that it's exactly where you say, however it got there.
If the Sun is directly over the Tropic of Capricorn at the Meridian of SLC, apparently the Sun's rays
can reach at least part of eastern Australia.
Here's a photo of my globe centered on those coordinates from a distance about 35 times its diameter (roughly the distance of the Moon at scale).
This is representative of what the Sun would "see", and therefore could be seen from, if it were that close. The Sun is actually almost 400 times further away, and that will increase, slightly, the part of the Earth seen and seen from.
See that dark area to the left of New Zealand at the edge ("limb" if you were an astronomer) of the globe? That's the easternmost part of Australia. If the camera lens were the Sun, then the Sun could be seen from there. G'day, mate!
Does it offend you that this is true? Is this going to upset some critical balance of the universe since it happens? Seriously, I don't see why this seems to bother you so much.
Did you forget this illustration:
"Easily" is a rather vague and useless word in discussions like this. Either it can shine there or it can't; "ease" means nothing. The Sun can shine over the eastern part of Australia while directly over the longitude of at least the western part of Utah if it's far enough south. Again, why do you think this would this be a problem?
asenci: If you're reading this, sorry about the long response again. cikljamas brings up many issues in his posts, and explaining each one just takes space. You might request he stick to a single topic at a time; I've done so to no effect, but he might honor your request. It might help. An alternative would be for me to reply to the entire thing, or sections of it, with one-liners like "That's complete bullshit", of "You dumbass! Are you drunk again?" That might be entertaining for a short while, but somehow doesn't seem very useful.