If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

How could the gravitationnal acceleration range between 9.78 m/sē and 9.83 m/sē ?

Four possibilities:

> Earth is round and gravity is true

> Earth is a disc accelerating at different accelerations depending of the position (thus a disc that would easily break)

> Earth is a disc accelerating at the same acceleration everywhere, and the measurable gravitationnal acceleration is the same (implying hundreds of years of measuring errors)

> Earth is a disc accelerating at the same acceleration everywhere, but the measurable gravitationnal acceleration isn't the same (looks self-contradictory)

Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.

Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.

If one of you lives near the equator (measures say that g = 9.78 there) and another around 45° north or south (g = 9.81), two simple chronophotographies could determine if g varies with the latitude. Looks like the experiment could easily be made, and will definitely prove if the third answer could or could not be true.

EXPERIMENT

Definitions : "gravitationnal acceleration" means here the acceleration of the objects towards Earth, either by gravity (round earth theory) or by Earth's acceleration (flat earth theory)

Question : Does gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude ?

Implications : If gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies, the third answer could not be possible, and the modern scientifical measures are confirmed. If it does not, the earth could not be an oblate spheroid as the scientists think it is.

Hypothesis : The scientifical-admitted theory is that, the Earth being an oblate spheroid, gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies.

Experiment : Two persons, one around 45° and one near the equator, will drop regular ping-pong balls from the height of 1.5 meters, and will make a chronophotography.

Data analysis : If the photographical evidence shows a visible difference between the two tests, and we could calculate from this gravitationnal constants compatible with the modern scientific data, we could consider the answer is "Yes". If there is no visible difference between the two chronophotographies, and precision is high enough to determinate there is no difference at a scale of 0.02 m/sē, the answer will be "No".

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 10:27:09 AM

Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.

If one of you lives near the equator (measures say that g = 9.78 there) and another around 45° north or south (g = 9.81), two simple chronophotographies could determine if g varies with the latitude. Looks like the experiment could easily be made, and will definitely prove if the third answer could or could not be true.

EXPERIMENT

Definitions : "gravitationnal acceleration" means here the acceleration of the objects towards Earth, either by gravity (round earth theory) or by Earth's acceleration (flat earth theory)

Question : Does gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude ?

Implications : If gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies, the third answer could not be possible, and the modern scientifical measures are confirmed. If it does not, the earth could not be an oblate spheroid as the scientists think it is.

Hypothesis : The scientifical-admitted theory is that, the Earth being an oblate spheroid, gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies.

Experiment : Two persons, one around 45° and one near the equator, will drop regular ping-pong balls from the height of 1.5 meters, and will make a chronophotography.

Data analysis : If the photographical evidence shows a visible difference between the two tests, and we could calculate from this gravitationnal constants compatible with the modern scientific data, we could consider the answer is "Yes". If there is no visible difference between the two chronophotographies, and precision is high enough to determinate there is no difference at a scale of 0.02 m/sē, the answer will be "No".

No, way too many variables for the needed level of precision. Apparently, you can measure the acceleration of gravity using pendulums, but you would probably need a vacuum chamber to rule out drag.

There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.

Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.

There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.

Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.

No, the variation has been reliably measured. It's not that hard to do it. All you have to do is use pendulums in vacuum, and see how long it takes them to perform a large amount of oscillations, and count how much time it takes.

Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?

Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?

I listed two possibilities. Eric Dubay, for example, believes that it is simply a fundamental law: larger densities are drawn downwards. His evidence for this is helium balloons; certainly, it does seem density has an impact, though it is unlikely to be independent. Dubay remains frustratingly evasive on the 'why', though it can be hard to answer 'why' with respect to many questions.
The other is the idea of pressure. This is common to the dome model: it we live within a dome, above us is compressed air. Moving up will have the air exert a force down on us, keeping us on the world's surface. This is actually very similar to what we experience in the RE model: gravity acts on the air. What we would experience in each case is similar. The flaws there are horizontal forces (explainable if the dome is far wider than high, however) and why air concentration reduces so with height (this observation would, though, explain gravity reducing with altitude). Neither is insurmountable: and there is no need for air to be the relevant medium.

Universal acceleration, however, is not fatally flawed. The real question, for me, is what provides the energy for the constant acceleration of such a huge body: varying amounts of gravity are very explainable.

There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.

Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.

1 - Other theories are existing, but they need either gravity, either a new law that would be more or less similar to gravity.

2 - The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

3 - If gravity still exists and could be compatible with observations and experiments, I don't understand why they need to bring out another thing.

4 - The variation was measured with a precision far higher than the variation itself.

5 - I'm just saying that, because of this contradictory evidence, FE needs more developpement than just "earth is accelerating", if we demonstrate acceleration isn't the same everywhere.

1 - Other theories are existing, but they need either gravity, either a new law that would be more or less similar to gravity.

2 - The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

3 - If gravity still exists and could be compatible with observations and experiments, I don't understand why they need to bring out another thing.

4 - The variation was measured with a precision far higher than the variation itself.

5 - I'm just saying that, because of this contradictory evidence, FE needs more developpement than just "earth is accelerating", if we demonstrate acceleration isn't the same everywhere.

1. Often they involve gravity being weaker than what is normally said. This is still quite a departure.
2. What the inventors say is rarely that meaningful: if they invented a theory, they predate much development and knowledge.
3. Gravity works in the RE model because that is what it is designed for. It would not explain a flat plane, nor the attraction we have to it.
4. Perhaps: as I said, it is a possible objection, not necessarily a correct one.
5. Of course it does need development: this was what I provided in my post. Acceleration is not the only possibility: and even if it were, many answers exist.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 01:37:07 PM

Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?

I listed two possibilities. Eric Dubay, for example, believes that it is simply a fundamental law: larger densities are drawn downwards. His evidence for this is helium balloons; certainly, it does seem density has an impact, though it is unlikely to be independent. Dubay remains frustratingly evasive on the 'why', though it can be hard to answer 'why' with respect to many questions.
The other is the idea of pressure. This is common to the dome model: it we live within a dome, above us is compressed air. Moving up will have the air exert a force down on us, keeping us on the world's surface. This is actually very similar to what we experience in the RE model: gravity acts on the air. What we would experience in each case is similar. The flaws there are horizontal forces (explainable if the dome is far wider than high, however) and why air concentration reduces so with height (this observation would, though, explain gravity reducing with altitude). Neither is insurmountable: and there is no need for air to be the relevant medium.

Universal acceleration, however, is not fatally flawed. The real question, for me, is what provides the energy for the constant acceleration of such a huge body: varying amounts of gravity are very explainable.

Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?

The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.

UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.

The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory.  Have you never studied science? 

One of the major flaws with UA is the variation in gravity at different places on earth,   there is also a mineral survey technique, that uses micro variations in gravity to locate minerals.

Here is a gravimetric survey.   Taken from here http://www.hgiworld.com/methods/gravity/



More info..

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gravimetric+survey+equipment&num=100&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwpGZkbffxwIVYjimCh2oPwzi&biw=1760&bih=886

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 01:50:23 PM

The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory.  Have you never studied science?

No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.

Quote from: jroa on September 04, 2015, 07:52:11 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 01:50:23 PM

The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory.  Have you never studied science?

No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.

Exactly.  The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration.  He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics.  What are you having such a hard time understanding?  Special Relativity? 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 01:40:01 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 04, 2015, 07:52:11 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 01:50:23 PM

The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory.  Have you never studied science?

No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.

Exactly.  The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration.  He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics.  What are you having such a hard time understanding?  Special Relativity?

Einstein also invented general relativity, who explains gravitation. If you admit that all that Einstein said is true, you should also admit general relativity, and therefore gravitation.

And also, Einstein considered the Earth was round and curved the space-time around it (general relativity's explanation of gravitation), not that your "flat earth" was accelerating.

However, if you consider that Earth really accelerates, another question : is there a force that "pushes" the Earth to accelerate it ? If I remember, we have :

F = m a (F is the force, m the mass and a the acceleration)
P = F v = m a v (P is the power and v the speed)
W = F d = m a d (W is the work and d the travelled distance)

Seems like we need a really, really big thing to explain all of this.

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community. 

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.

Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...

Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 01:40:01 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 04, 2015, 07:52:11 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 01:50:23 PM

The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.

Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory.  Have you never studied science?

No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.

Exactly.  The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration.  He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics.  What are you having such a hard time understanding?  Special Relativity?

Does that mean that he invented the idea of an accelerating disk earth? Because that's what you said he did.

You still didn't answer my last question, I notice...

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 03:09:43 AM

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.

Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...

Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.

Really?  Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity.  Enjoy.

Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.

the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.

The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether

the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.

And my favorite.

As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.

Oh, and this is my favorite quote.

Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 03:34:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 03:09:43 AM

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.

Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...

Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.

Really?  Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity.  Enjoy.

Quote from: Einstein

Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.

Quote from: Einstein

the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.

Quote from: Einstein

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether

Quote from: Einstein

the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity

Quote from: Einstein

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

Quote from: Einstein

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.

And my favorite.

Quote from: Einstein

As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.

Here is the whole document, to replace all of your quotes in their context : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

And the best of all quotes :

The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 03:34:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 03:09:43 AM

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.

Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...

Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.

Really?  Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity.  Enjoy.

Quote from: Einstein

Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.

Quote from: Einstein

the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.

Quote from: Einstein

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether

Quote from: Einstein

the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity

Quote from: Einstein

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

Quote from: Einstein

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.

And my favorite.

Quote from: Einstein

As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.

Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Once again, you are flat out wrong.  Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be. 

Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 05:20:37 AM

Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Once again, you are flat out wrong.  Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory#History

Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.

Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 05:38:49 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 05:20:37 AM

Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Once again, you are flat out wrong.  Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory#History

Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.

Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.

I think that is the first statement you have made in this thread that was not wrong.  Congratulations.  Maybe you won't be so wrong as often in the future?  We can only hope. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 05:54:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 05:38:49 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 05:20:37 AM

Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Once again, you are flat out wrong.  Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory#History

Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.

Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.

I think that is the first statement you have made in this thread that was not wrong.  Congratulations.  Maybe you won't be so wrong as often in the future?  We can only hope.

Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Congratulations for actually understanding something.

Looks like that no flat-earther is answering to my objections...

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 04:54:58 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 03:34:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 03:09:43 AM

Einstein also believed in the aether.  Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.

Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...

Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.

Really?  Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity.  Enjoy.

Quote from: Einstein

Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.

Quote from: Einstein

the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.

Quote from: Einstein

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether

Quote from: Einstein

the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity

Quote from: Einstein

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.

Quote from: Einstein

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

Quote from: Einstein

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.

And my favorite.

Quote from: Einstein

As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.

Here is the whole document, to replace all of your quotes in their context : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

And the best of all quotes :

Quote from: Einstein

The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.

Jroa is really good at posting things out of context. He's done that numerous times in the past.

What was out of context?  Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.