Evidence

  • 29 Replies
  • 6529 Views
*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Evidence
« on: February 18, 2015, 08:21:54 PM »
I have seen a lot of argument over whether FE is possible. Whether season, sunsets, constellations exedra are possible in FE. However, I still haven't seen any evidence for FE.

Is there any evidence for FE? Additionally, is there any thing that doesn't work on RE that can be explained on FE?
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Evidence
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2015, 01:24:32 AM »
I've been wanting to start this exact sane thread dammit.
Beat me to it.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2015, 02:57:14 AM »
Quote
is there any thing that doesn't work on RE that can be explained on FE?

SEE AN ILLUSTRATION BELOW, THIS ILLUSTRATION IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION!!!

When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruđer Bošković (1711 -1787).

The performance of Bošković's proposed decisive experiment was deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Two plus two equals four, and the earth races around the sun—those are truths beyond reasonable doubt. Not until one and a half centuries later did new theoretical developments make it advisable to affirm assurance doubly sure by buttressing the Copernican conviction with Bošković's verification of Bradley's exegesis. And thereby hangs a tale!

The point is this: Bradley's 20”.5 angle of aberration depends on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth. The latter, Boscović reasoned, we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one.

Enter Airy

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
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 1 & 2 then...guess what?  ;D

If 3 then 4!

How come?

This way:


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2015, 03:55:22 AM »
we can tell this because there is no way for the round earth model to exist. you have everything accelerating away from the center of the universe, and if that happens, matter will form discs, not spheres. push any powder along, you will find the same: it flattens.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Evidence
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2015, 04:34:18 AM »
we can tell this because there is no way for the round earth model to exist. you have everything accelerating away from the center of the universe, and if that happens, matter will form discs, not spheres. push any powder along, you will find the same: it flattens.

Powders form discs because they are within the gravitational field of the earth.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: Evidence
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2015, 06:19:40 AM »
we can tell this because there is no way for the round earth model to exist. you have everything accelerating away from the center of the universe, and if that happens, matter will form discs, not spheres. push any powder along, you will find the same: it flattens.

No, matter will form spheres, because a the shape with the least possible surface area.
That's why rain forms round, raindrops as it falls through the sky.

Pushing powder along on a desk doesn't work because it's being acted apon by two forces-your hand and gravity. And it won't form a disk, it will form a pile
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 07:39:46 AM by kman »
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2015, 07:31:41 AM »
we can tell this because there is no way for the round earth model to exist. you have everything accelerating away from the center of the universe, and if that happens, matter will form discs, not spheres. push any powder along, you will find the same: it flattens.

No, matter will for spheres, because a the shape with the least possible surface area.
That's why rain forms round, raindrops as it falls through the sky.

Pushing powder along on a desk doesn't work because it's being acted apon by two forces-your hand and gravity. And it won't form a disk, it will form a pile
it cannot form a sphere if it is being pushed along. If something is being pushed, it flattens.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2015, 07:35:34 AM »
Gravity does not push.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2015, 07:39:05 AM »
Gravity does not push.
who's talking about that fantasy? everything accelerates away from the center of the universe. even round earthers admit that.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: Evidence
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2015, 07:40:38 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 07:51:39 AM by kman »
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2015, 07:49:50 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: Evidence
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2015, 07:50:53 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.

Thank you for that intellectually stimulating and fascinating remark.

Seriously, tell us why instead of just being in denial.


If you want further proof, here's some fluids forming spheres in free fall:
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2015, 07:57:04 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.

Thank you for that intellectually stimulating and fascinating remark.

Seriously, tell us why instead of just being in denial.


If you want further proof, here's some fluids forming spheres in free fall:
two words: surface tension.
the first matter was little more than dust, it wasn't already-connected fluid. do you know anything?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Evidence
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2015, 01:34:09 PM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.

You do know how lead shot has been manufactured for centuries don't you?  Oh, apparently not tsk tsk.

They drop measured amounts of molten lead down the centre of a structure known as a shot tower, and as the lead falls and solidifies, it ends up as..... ta daaa..... a perfect sphere!

Who woulda thunk it eh?    ;D

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2015, 04:24:19 AM »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Evidence
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2015, 08:34:12 AM »
Still no answer to this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1661766#msg1661766
I think both the "points" in that post have already been answered, since for some reason you feel the need to throw them up again and again. It's easy to lose track, but just in case they haven't...

This pdf explains the result of Airy's Experiment pretty well.

It would be easy to see the sunlit parts of your "wire frame" globe if the sub-solar point were centered. It's hard to tell as it's presented (was that the idea?) because of the orientation of the model, but eastern Australia is less than 90° from the sub-solar point, so it's sunlit.

Great circle distance (as central angle):



phi1, lambda1 and phi2, lambda2 are the geographical latitude and longitude of two points 1 and 2.
Delta lambda is lambda1 - lambda2 or lambda2 - lambda1; it doesn't matter.

For a sub-solar point phi1 = -120°, lambda1 = -23.4° and, just SW of the Sydney Airport, phi2 = +151°, lambda2 = -34°.

Central Angle = cos-1( sin(-120°) sin(151°) + cos(-120°) cos(151°) cos((-23.4°) - (-34°)) )
 = cos-1( sin(-120°) sin(151°) + cos(-120°) cos(151°) cos(10.6°) )
 = cos-1( -0.866 * 0.485 + (-0.500 * -0.875 * 0.983) )
 = cos-1( 0.00999 )
 = 89.4°

Sun's up! Have a nice day, mate!

[Edit] Insert ° symbol for angles in the formula.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 08:37:21 AM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Evidence
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2015, 09:41:42 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.

Thank you for that intellectually stimulating and fascinating remark.

Seriously, tell us why instead of just being in denial.


If you want further proof, here's some fluids forming spheres in free fall:
sur...face... ten...sion
you people are idiots.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Evidence
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2015, 09:43:06 AM »
Just look at a raindrop. It's evidence that when matter is accelerating, it forms spheres.
no it isn't.

Thank you for that intellectually stimulating and fascinating remark.

Seriously, tell us why instead of just being in denial.


If you want further proof, here's some fluids forming spheres in free fall:
sur...face... ten...sion
you people are idiots.
Please keep low content posts and personal attacks in CN or AR.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2015, 10:06:42 AM »
Alpha2Omega, that pdf explains nothing!

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. 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).

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.).

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.

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:








"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Evidence
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2015, 10:08:37 AM »
I don't even know what point he is trying to make anymore.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: Evidence
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2015, 01:02:25 PM »
Alpha2Omega, that pdf explains nothing!
If you can't understand it then there's little I can do. I thought it was a pretty clear and concise analysis, but it does contain technical material. At any rate, there are plenty of other articles about it if you can be bothered to look. Maybe one of them will be able to explain it in a way you can understand.

Quote
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. 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).
Did you actually read what is printed? It doesn't say what you seem to think it says. You probably spotted "irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis" and ignored (or didn't understand) the rest.

Quote
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions
Or, just perhaps, evidence to the contrary from other experiments?

Quote

<Reminiscences about reaction to the MMX, which was designed to test a then-popular but now-obsolete idea - the Luminiferous Ether.>

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!
Now there is something I can agree with! Nine time zones is 120° - assuming you mean the conventional 1-hour time zones (15° each), and by 'untilted', the Sun is directly over the Equator. Anything further than 90° (plus a smidgen more for refraction and the non-point-source nature of the Sun) will be out of the direct rays.

Quote
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:


Dude! That map shows the Sun directly over the Tropic of Capricorn, so it violates your "untilted" stipulation. Areas of Antarctica 12 time zones away (that's as far as you can get!) are illuminated. This is exactly what we expect to see on a rotating earth, distant from the Sun, with its axis tilted with respect to the orbital plane - and matches what we do see! What's your point here?

Quote

Your "sun" is too close to the globe. Use a bare light bulb a couple rooms away for a more realistic simulation. Orient the globe so that its center, the Tropic of Capricorn, and the center of the bulb are in a straight line.

Incidentally, your earlier "wireframe" illustration has solar noon at about Santa Barbara, CA (120° W longitude), not SLC (112° W).
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2015, 03:37:32 PM »
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. 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).

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.).

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.

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!


Since there is no motion of the Earth whatsoever, there is no TILT of the Earth, also!

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!

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!

Did you forget this illustration:








« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 03:40:12 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Evidence
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2015, 03:50:55 PM »
I live in Utah and I believe Alpha2Omega lives in Australia, we should do a test to see if your claim is actually true.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: Evidence
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2015, 06:26:11 PM »
I live in Utah and I believe Alpha2Omega lives in Australia, we should do a test to see if your claim is actually true.
Nope. U S of A. Guv, Ausgeoff and some others do, though.

Been there, though. Cool place, but a long way to get there!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Evidence
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2015, 08:34:14 PM »
I live in Utah and I believe Alpha2Omega lives in Australia, we should do a test to see if your claim is actually true.
Nope. U S of A. Guv, Ausgeoff and some others do, though.

Been there, though. Cool place, but a long way to get there!

I live in Australia.
West coast though
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

Re: Evidence
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2015, 09:52:50 PM »
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"?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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...

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2015, 04:07:48 AM »
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).


Yeah, i can see East Coast of Australia, but i can't see West Coast of Africa...

December 1th

Sydney - Sunrise 5.37

Dakar Senegal - Sunset 18.51

Time difference between Sydney and Dakar = 11 hours

So, in the first half of  December (at least) Sun is already above the horizon for the observer in Sydney and in the same time the Sun is still above the horizon for the observer in Dakar - Senegal.

You can't even explain this with the help of your heliocentric holly grail "the alleged tilt of the Earth", let alone how could this be possibly explainable without the alleged tilt of the Earth???

Now, will you show us the picture of your globe in a proper position, so that we can see in the same time Sydney and Dakar?

Watch:



Quote
Did you forget this illustration:



"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Evidence
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2015, 07:27:42 AM »
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).

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Globe1_zpsjxh1akhq.jpg

Yeah, i can see East Coast of Australia, but i can't see West Coast of Africa...

December 1th

Sydney - Sunrise 5.37

Dakar Senegal - Sunset 18.51

Time difference between Sydney and Dakar = 11 hours

So, in the first half of  December (at least) Sun is already above the horizon for the observer in Sydney and in the same time the Sun is still above the horizon for the observer in Dakar - Senegal.
Where did you get those times?

USNO for Sydney sunrise at 18:38 2014-12-11 UTC

USNO for Dakar sunset at 18:41 2014-12-11 UTC

That's three minutes of overlap.

Here's the page with the USNO definitions of sunrise and sunset. Locations for the cities from Wikipedia.

The Sun isn't a point source; it takes at least two minutes for its entire disk to cross the horizon. The reported times also include at least about two minutes on each end to account for refraction. To get the geometric solution, you have to shorten the time between sunrise and sunset by at least three minutes on each end. The point is, geometrically, the center of the Sun is not above the horizon in both places at the same time for the date given.

Also, remember that the photo above was taken from about 35 globe diameters away, which is much closer than the scaled distance to the Sun, about 12000 diameters. The result is that more than 1.6 degrees of the surface are behind the limb compared with the proper distance. Even if the cities were just barely on the same side of the globe from the perspective of the Sun, the picture would have to be taken from much further away to show it.

Quote
You can't even explain this with the help of your heliocentric holly grail "the alleged tilt of the Earth", let alone how could this be possibly explainable without the alleged tilt of the Earth???
The "tilt of the Earth" you object to so strongly (why?) is the reason the Sun can be at a declination other than directly over the Equator. Your simply declaring that "the Earth has no tilt" has no relevance. We see it and routinely make reliable predictions based on the effects of that tilt all the time; sorry you don't like it.

Quote
Now, will you show us the picture of your globe in a proper position, so that we can see in the same time Sydney and Dakar?
As we can see from the above, Sydney and Dakar won't both be visible at the same time, although they'd be close. Since that's a 12-inch globe, the distance to scale one AU would be more than 2 miles, and I don't have a telephoto lens that good. Nor am I at your beck and call.

Sorry.

You can try, though.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Evidence
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2015, 07:56:15 AM »
Alpha2Omega, all you can do is to seat and cry, there is no way out of this.

When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.

You have to compensate 2 hours in order to make this possible, and you can't do it, because no one can do it.

Seat and cry!

Btw, are you completely blind?

Watch this, once again:



So, if you are not completely blind, and we know very well that you are not completely stupid, either, then what's the matter with you?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Evidence
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2015, 03:58:46 PM »
Alpha2Omega, all you can do is to seat and cry, there is no way out of this.

When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.
You can split a globe in half using any great circle. They don't have to be meridians. Did you know that?

You need to use the GC 90° from the sub-solar point, which is most assuredly not a meridian since the Sun is well south of the Equator in your example. Using meridians makes it easy to count time zones. You'll get the wrong answer, but, hey, it's easier!!
Quote
You have to compensate 2 hours in order to make this possible, and you can't do it, because no one can do it.
Meridians are totally irrelevant to what is happening, so there's nothing to "compensate" for.

Quote
Seat and cry!
Is it OK to laugh instead? I'm laughing at you.   :D

Quote
Btw, are you completely blind?
No, but I am mildly hyperopic if not wearing glasses. You might want to get checked, though.

Quote
Watch this, once again:

http://i.imgur.com/w2s4qnE.jpg
That image is still completely meaningless. Posting it again doesn't make it less so.

By the way, where did the sub-solar point on the earlier version of this image go? The one that has it well south of the equator. This one:



Quote
So, if you are not completely blind, and we know very well that you are not completely stupid, either, then what's the matter with you?
I like what I say to be at least reasonably correct. Is that a problem? I really recommend you try it sometime; not feeling you have to defend completely impractical explanations of the everyday can be liberating.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan