ZIGZAG of the Full Moon - Irrefutable argument against the rotation of the earth

  • 139 Replies
  • 9465 Views
*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Come on guys, you know when sticky pajamas has a flare up of his condition, he immediately goes into "NUH UHH" mode, then stage 2 he changes the subject. 

My not so expert diagnosis






I guess if you insist on derailing your own thread again...

Are you saying my car wasn't moving when I took this picture?

Are you saying my car wasn't moving when I took this picture?
He will say you were because of the squiggly lines.
The issue is very few things have smooth movement. Typically there is some wobble or bumps or something causing it to not be smooth.

*

cikljamas

  • 2069
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
@ Jack,

4400/2800 = 1,57
4400/60*5min. = 366,6
2800/60*5min. = 233,3
366,6/233,3 = 1,57 (also)
The difference between 4400 & 2800 (and between 366,6 & 233,3) = 46 %

The moon "apparently" moves across the sky (WESTWARDS) 0,5 degrees per 2 minutes. Moon's angular diameter = 0,5 degrees... So, the moon "apparently" moves westwards 1 angular diameter (0,5 degrees) per 2 minutes.

Since the difference between the speeds in above two different scenarios is 46 %, then we have to assume that the same directly proportional difference would be noticeable regarding the amount of the displacement of moon's angular diameter (as measured throughout certain period of time - let's say 5 min.), if above depicted different scenarios would really reflect what happens in our reality.

If such scenarios really existed, the difference of 46 % (regarding westward displacement of moon's angular diameter) would be quite substantial and very noticeable even with the naked eyes.

According to you modern science is not able to detect such (alleged) discrepancy regarding two (alleged) different speeds of moon's relative motion throughout ONE SINGLE polar day (4400 km/h vs 2800 km/h), even if the direction of earth's rotation wouldn't make any difference regarding the core of my ZIGZAG argument (which is : there would be unavoidable change in the direction of moon's apparent motion)???

According to you it doesn't matter weather the earth rotates to the RIGHT or to the LEFT? In both cases the moon would appear to move in one single direction? Then, you have to be able to sanely answer to this question :

Why the moon appears to move to the RIGHT all day long (throughout one single polar day)?

Because the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), isn't that so?

Well, the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), only first half of one polar day, during the second part of one polar day the earth turns to the RIGHT (with respect to the moon), so why the moon still appears to move to the RIGHT (westward) if now the earth turns to the RIGHT in relation to the moon?

The problem of the first order :

If the difference of 46 % between two alleged different relative speeds of the moon (Noon scenario vs Midnight scenario) means that in Midnight scenario (earth rotates in the same direction in which the moon allegedly orbits the earth) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,25 degrees per 5 minutes, and in Noon scenario (earth rotates in the opposite direction of the direction of moon's alleged orbital motion) apparent speed of the moon would be 0,675 degrees per 5 minutes.

The problem of the second order :

Since earth's rotation is much more decisive than moon's orbital motion then the result within Noon scenario wouldn't be decreased apparent speed of the moon's motion (in the same apparent direction as it would be the case in Midnight scenario), the result would be REVERSED direction of the moon's apparent motion in the sky.

@ Rabinoz,


So, literally "one forth of 30km/s" could be interpreted as an upper bound, since "some value which can't be higer than that value" could be understood as an upper bound. But, as always, in this case you are reasoning illogically, also. Why? Because what really matters here (regarding the result of MMX) is the fact that alleged orbital speed of the earth CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN "one forth of 30km/s".

So, what is your point when pointing out that Michelson didn't put lower bound (by saying that the result of his experiment indicates that alleged orbital speed of the earth is "probably less than one-sixth of 30km/s")?

Are you suggesting that if Michelson had put lower bound somewhere close to ZERO, it would have spoken in favor of HC theory?

Of course it wouldn't have spoken in favor of HC theory!

So, even if your formal expression is correct, there is no sane logic in it, and that is what causes misunderstandings.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 05:56:33 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

@ Jack,

4400/2800 = 1,57
4400/60*5min. = 366,6
2800/60*5min. = 233,3
366,6/233,3 = 1,57 (also)
The difference between 4400 & 2800 (and between 366,6 & 233,3) = 46 %

The moon "apparently" moves across the sky (WESTWARDS) 0,5 degrees per 2 minutes. Moon's angular diameter = 0,5 degrees... So, the moon "apparently" moves westwards 1 angular diameter (0,5 degrees) per 2 minutes.

Since the difference between the speeds in above two different scenarios is 46 %, then we have to assume that the same directly proportional difference would be noticeable regarding the amount of the displacement of moon's angular diameter (as measured throughout certain period of time - let's say 5 min.), if above depicted different scenarios would really reflect what happens in our reality.

If such scenarios really existed, the difference of 46 % (regarding westward displacement of moon's angular diameter) would be quite substantial and very noticeable even with the naked eyes.

According to you modern science is not able to detect such (alleged) discrepancy regarding two (alleged) different speeds of moon's relative motion throughout ONE SINGLE polar day (4400 km/h vs 2800 km/h), even if the direction of earth's rotation wouldn't make any difference regarding the core of my ZIGZAG argument (which is : there would be unavoidable change in the direction of moon's apparent motion)???

According to you it doesn't matter weather the earth rotates to the RIGHT or to the LEFT? In both cases the moon would appear to move in one single direction? Then, you have to be able to sanely answer to this question :

Why the moon appears to move to the RIGHT all day long (throughout one single polar day)?

Because the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), isn't that so?

Well, the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), only first half of one polar day, during the second part of one polar day the earth turns to the RIGHT (with respect to the moon), so why the moon still appears to move to the RIGHT (westward) if now the earth turns to the RIGHT in relation to the moon?

The problem of the first order :

If the difference of 46 % between two alleged different relative speeds of the moon (Noon scenario vs Midnight scenario) means that in Noon scenario (earth rotates in the same direction in which the moon allegedly orbits the earth) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,25 degrees per 5 minutes, and in Midnight scenario (earth rotates in the opposite direction of the direction of moon's alleged orbital motion) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,825 degrees per 5 minutes.

The problem of the second order :

Since earth's rotation is much more decisive than moon's orbital motion then the result within Midnight scenario wouldn't be increased apparent speed of the moon's motion (in the same apparent direction as it would be the case in Noon scenario), the result would be REVERSED direction of the moon's apparent motion in the sky.

@ Rabinoz,


So, literally "one forth of 30km/s" could be interpreted as an upper bound, since "some value which can't be higer than that value" could be understood as an upper bound. But, as always, in this case you are reasoning illogically, also. Why? Because what really matters here (regarding the result of MMX) is the fact that alleged orbital speed of the earth CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN "one forth of 30km/s".

So, what is your point when pointing out that Michelson didn't put lower bound (by saying that the result of his experiment indicates that alleged orbital speed of the earth is "probably less than one-sixth of 30km/s")?

Are you suggesting that if Michelson had put lower bound somewhere close to ZERO, it would have spoken in favor of HC theory?

Of course it wouldn't have spoken in favor of HC theory!

So, even if your formal expression is correct, there is no sane logic in it, and that is what causes misunderstandings.


Repeating your stupid Bullshit makes you only look more stupid.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
@ Rabinoz,

So, literally "one forth of 30km/s" could be interpreted as an upper bound, since "some value which can't be higer than that value" could be understood as an upper bound. But, as always, in this case you are reasoning illogically, also. Why? Because what really matters here (regarding the result of MMX) is the fact that alleged orbital speed of the earth CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN "one forth of 30km/s".

So, what is your point when pointing out that Michelson didn't put lower bound (by saying that the result of his experiment indicates that alleged orbital speed of the earth is "probably less than one-sixth of 30km/s")?
My point was simply that you claimed
You already proved many times your chronic dispute with basic logic!
Should i remind you to this marvellous example of a permanent quarrel between you and basic logical principles?
Here we go : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1910657#msg1910657
And I refuted that completely with:
Quote from: cikljamas
So, since the parallax is a measure of distance it means that parallax ALSO has everything to do with the amount of an APPARENT displacement of the lights in the sky!!!
You already proved many times your chronic dispute with basic logic!
Should i remind you to this marvellous example of a permanent quarrel between you and basic logical principles?
Here we go : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1910657#msg1910657
Who has proved many times their chronic dispute with basic logic again? I don't think it was I!
Please point out "this marvellous example of a permanent quarrel between you and basic logical principles".

Isn't that where I gave
Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.
And you tried to claim that
certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound
Do you know something? I stand by my claim that
When Michelson says
"the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.
Surely he can mean nothing other than 
         "the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity,"
And
         "the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is . . . . . . . . certainly less than one-fourth the Earth’s orbital velocity".


Yes, I stand by the claim that Michelson gave no lower bound and that he meant "probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity".

Quote from: cikljamas
Are you suggesting that if Michelson had put lower bound somewhere close to ZERO, it would have spoken in favor of HC theory?
Of course it wouldn't have spoken in favor of HC theory!
So, even if your formal expression is correct, there is no sane logic in it, and that is what causes misunderstandings.
I certainly think that Michelson was open to the possibility that it might be even zero.

But whether it might have "spoken in favor of HC theory" is totally irrelevant, the question was never about the correctness or otherwise of the Heliocentric Globe, but about the existence and properties of the luminiferous ether.

I don't believe for one second that Michelson, Morley,  Sagnac, Gale, Dayton Miller and anyone else you like to dig up ever had the slightest doubt that the Heliocentric Globe was 100% correct.

Michelson and Morley expected to measure the earth's orbital velocity, modified of course by the earth's rotation and angles, etc.
When they did not measure anything like this velocity, and claimed a figure certainly less than 1/4 and probably less than 1/6 of the expected figure, the choices at the time seemed to be:
1)  No ether.
2) An ether, but completely dragged along by matter.
3) An ether partially dragged by matter, which was pursued in more accurate and detailed experiments by Dayton Miller.

As to Einstein's work. He claimed that it was based the work of Maxwell, Fitzgerald and Lorentz, not Michelson and Morely's,
though it would seem unlikely that he was not aware of Michelson and Morely's work.

But, my whole point is that none of these people gave a thought to the possibility even of a flat stationary earth.

That's something I find about so inconsistent about many flat earth arguments and yours and Sandokhan's are typical in this regard.
You quote all these "questionable" results of people such as I have mentioned and many others as well such as George Airy (of the non-failure) and Maurice Allais who may raised queries, but who themselves never considered the possibility that the earth was stationary,  let alone flat!
George Airy, for example, was an excellent astronomer, whose work would be quite meaningless on a flat earth.

Then you have mentioned Tycho Brahe who made very precise (for his time) measurements on the planets and stars.
He, quite understandably rejected the Copernican hypothesis because
  • It was not a very good system anyway, having circular orbits and was hardly any better than Ptolemy's geostationary Globe.

  • The Heliocentric Solar System had to display stellar parallax and Tycho Brae with his huge quadrant could not measure any.
    His problem was that all of his measurements were done with his unaided eye (and that huge quadrant), he had no telescope.
    As a result, he could not resolve below one arcminute. The star with the largest annual stellar parallax, Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of only 0.7687 arcsec, so he did not stand a chance of detecting any annual stellar parallax.
The "hybrid geocentric" system of Tycho Brahe was probably better that the Copernican system, but even with some "tweaks:did not fit his own unservations perfectly.
And it remained for Kepler to find that elliptical planetary orbits fitted much more closely. This received a theoretical backing with Newton's laws if motion and gravitation. But 'nuff of that,

My only point here is that even though the Tychonian system was geocentric, it was still most certainly based on the Globe Earth!

*

cikljamas

  • 2069
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Rabinoz,

In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore. So questions concerning a possible "aether drag" are not considered meaningful anymore by the scientific community. READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

DO YOU KNOW WHY IS THIS SO?

Because if aether exists the earth is at rest!

MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s [/b]– a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
What Einstein meant to say by these words was this : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :

1. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + 2. NULL RESULT = 3. THE EARTH IS AT REST


So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed. But since there is no revolution of the Earth in the geocentric system, this answers why the
1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves. On a
purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!

EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : "If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong." (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

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. READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902

CASE CLOSED!
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 05:53:30 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Rabinoz,

In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore. So questions concerning a possible "aether drag" are not considered meaningful anymore by the scientific community. READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

DO YOU KNOW WHY IS THIS SO?

Because if aether exists the earth is at rest!

MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s [/b]– a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
What Einstein meant to say by these words was this : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :

1. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + 2. NULL RESULT = 3. THE EARTH IS AT REST


So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed. But since there is no revolution of the Earth in the geocentric system, this answers why the
1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves. On a
purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!

EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : "If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong." (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

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. READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902

CASE CLOSED!
Sandy why did you change your profile?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420


Because if aether exists the earth is at rest!


IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :

1. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + 2. NULL RESULT = 3. THE EARTH IS AT REST



Those IFs.  So IF aether and the aetheric wind is proven to exist in the capacity and with the properties that was theorized back then, then yes the Earth is at rest and a huge chunk of physics is wrong.  Since no aether has ever been discovered AT ALL.  Not even in the MMX, they detected a very tiny difference in the speed of light in perpendicular directions.  Their theorized it would be much larger due to the Earth moving through the aether.  Aether was only theorized due to the misunderstanding of EM waves at the time.  IT was thought that light and sound where similar when they are not.  Sound is a compression wave, propagating in a medium.  It requires a medium to propagate.  The thought was that if light behaved like a wave then it must need something to propagate through.  Luminiferous Aether was used as the placeholder "something" medium for light.  The MMX gave us a great step in the direction of better understanding light. 
So either aether exists then their is a ton of things that have clear evidence are now wrong with no clear reasoning as to what is actually happening.  These things have been as close to proven as possible many times over. Or aether does not exist and all those things do make sense.  I struggle to see how refraction would work in the case of an aetheric medium that cannot be detected and therefore does not interact with mass in predictable ways.  The thing is, relativity has predicted many things that have been shown to be true.  Luminiferous aether made a prediction or two and it was proven false.  So why base everything on the existence of something proven wrong before? 

You really need to get your mind opened up, start thinking for yourself and stop trying to be a FE cult celebrity.  It looks all fun and all, but in the end it hurts you.  People who do not have failed reasoning skills laugh at you, take you less serious with every posts or video, and it may limit your options in the future if it hasn't already.  I can tell you right now, if I was interviewing someone for a job that requires basic reasoning skills, I would not hire someone who blindly follows a clearly unreasonable idea.  I see right through you guys, the majority of you are just trolling for fun, the rest do it for the emotional response of feeling like you are some underground hero.

You are sadly predictable, closed minded and incorrect.

*

cikljamas

  • 2069
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
You are sadly predictable, closed minded and incorrect.
Am I? lol

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!!!



"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

You are sadly predictable, closed minded and incorrect.
Am I? lol

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!!!




Can you not speak in your own words or must you simply parrot things you don't understand?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
You are sadly predictable, closed minded and incorrect.
Am I? lol

Predictable copy pasta

Yes, very.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Rabinoz, In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics),
This is the "Flat Earth Society" and not the "Albert Einstein Veneration Society"!
So, the prime objective is evidence in favour of a Flat Earth or a Globe, not proving SR or GR!
Quote from: cikljamas
the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore. So questions concerning a possible "aether drag" are not considered meaningful anymore by the scientific community. READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

DO YOU KNOW WHY IS THIS SO?
Because if aether exists the earth is at rest!
And how do YOU work that out when so many very competent scientists, even those supporting ether  disagree?
As you know Sandokhan is an extremely outspoken flat and stationary earth believer, yet he "so kindly" gave us this:
Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look, by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Dayton Miller did some experimental work with Michelson, then carried on with more and more precise measurements which seemed to indicate a definite motion for the earth.
Go and read it yourself.
But Dayton Miller most certainly believed in the Heliocentric Globe.
He came to the conclusion the the whole solar system was moving "sort of north" at roughly 10 km/sec.
This paper is worth reading too A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether, James DeMeo, Ph.D..
It pictures Miller's ideas a little more clearly with:

Figure: 3 Earth Spiral Motion Around the Moving Sun.
Now, I'm hardly competent to judge the reliability of Dayton Miller's results and they have been queried as in:
I am presenting this just to assert very strongly that all these scientists most certainly accept the Heliocentric model.

It is worth noting this about the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment as in: 2.7  The Sagnac Effect
Quote
As mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Foucault's pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said
We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth
rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already.

As Harvey Lemon wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".

Quote from: cikljamas
MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley(sic) MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion…as did other tests.
And how do you work that one out. Dayton Miller claimed, with much more precise equipment than in the original MMX, to have measured movement of the earth (the whole solar system) of roughly 10 km/s.
His work seems meticulous, but others do not seem to have not replicated his results as in:
An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s, Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result cited above.

Quote from: cikljamas
As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun.
Really?
Quote from: cikljamas
Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)
Please note the
"probably less than the fortieth part" and "probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity"!
We went through this in detail before and you wrote:
Quote
So, what is your point when pointing out that Michelson didn't put lower bound (by saying that the result of his experiment indicates that alleged orbital speed of the earth is "probably less than one-sixth of 30km/s")?
Now you know the point of my insistence that
Michelson didn't put lower bound (by saying that the result of his experiment.
Because it makes your statement
"It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun"
totally at odds with Michelson's own words.

Quote from: cikljamas
<<<  not so relevant now! >>>
So now your
Quote from: cikljamas
CASE CLOSED!
is certainly not correct.

Now as stated above Dayton Miller's work from Sandokhan's generous reference claimed a motion of the whole Heliocentric Solar System of some 10 km/s - Hardly stationary!
And there is this paper The Michelson-Morley experiment and the cosmic velocity of the Earth, M. Consoli and E. Costanzo
with this found in the abstract:
Quote
However,
according to some authors, the observed Earth’s velocity was not negligibly small. To provide an independent check, we have re-analyzed the fringe shifts observed in each of the six different sessions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. They are consistent with a non-zero observable Earth’s velocity

vobs = 8.4 ± 0.5 km/s.
Assuming the existence of a preferred reference frame and using Lorentz transformations, this vobs corresponds to a real velocity, in the plane of the interferometer,
vearth = 201 ± 12 km/s.
This value, which is remarkably consistent with 1932 Miller’s cosmic solution, suggests that the magnitude of the fringe shifts is determined by the typical velocity of the solar system within our galaxy. This conclusion is consistent with the results of all classical experiments (Morley-Miller, Illingworth, Joos, Michelson-Pease-Pearson,...) and with the existing data from present-day experiments.

Now my main point here is not to defend SR or GR, they are clearly not the final answer nor to defend the accuracy of any of these papers.
BUT to show that all these researchers that you get your "evidence" from, accept that the Heliocentric Globe is 100% correct.
Are you really that much smarter than they?
These researchers include George Airy, Morley, Michelson, Gale, Pearson, Dayton Miller, Maurice Allais etc, etc.

Some of these may have raised questions about ether and its properties or about gravitation, but I have seen no evidence that they doubt the current earth and solar system model.
For example, there is THE EXPERIMENTS OF DAYTON C. MILLER 1925-1926 AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY from Maurice, seriously questioning relativity and gravitation, but not casting any doubt on the accepted Heliocentric model!

You try so vainly to demolish the Heliocentric Globe, but
YOU HAVE NO COHERENT FLAT EARTH THEORY TO PUT IN ITS PLACE.
Making you and your kin a total laughing stock!  ;D So the earth goes rolling on  ;D.

PS Just to show the modern interest in topic, this take a peek at Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 02:26:18 PM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6106
Now as stated above Dayton Miller's work from Sandokhan's generous reference claimed a motion of the whole Heliocentric Solar System of some 10 km/s - Hardly stationary!

You haven't done your homework at all.

Just as usual.


"But we must pause at this juncture to critique Miller’s thinking process, for
he, being a Copernican, is basing his interpretation of data on his belief that
the Earth is moving at least 30 km/sec through space. Interestingly enough, it
is precisely because of this presupposition that Miller runs into some
unexplained difficulty, since his observations begin to conflict with his
mathematical calculations. The one anomaly in all past interferometer
experiments that Miller discovered was the experimenters assumed they knew the
precise velocity of the Earth through the ether in combination with the solar
system’s supposed motion toward the constellation of Hercules, but did they
really know? The geocentrist, of course, would answer that they did not know.
In any case, Miller’s 1925 experiment took into account this “anomaly” and he
made his calculations accordingly. Since he assumed the Earth was moving 30
km/sec, he combined this with the four positions (February, April, August,
September) that he examined of the Earth’s orbit around the sun and then used
Pythagorean geometry to determine the speed of the Earth toward the
constellation Draco, which came to 208 km/sec.[2] In other words, 208 km/sec is
what Miller believed to be the Earth’s absolute speed through the ether. Of
course, being a heliocentrist, Miller is assuming that the ether is motionless
and that the Earth is moving through it. In any case, Miller’s 1933 paper
reveals that his Pythagorean calculations do not match what he observed in the
fringe shifts. As we will recall, his experimental fringe shifts showed a
maximum of 10 km/sec, but this figure is less than his computed value by a
factor of twenty! Miller did not have an answer for this problem, and it is
left as an open-ended question in his 1933 paper. The answer, of course, is
that Miller’s Pythagorean calculations were based on a faulty premise (i.e.,
that the Earth was moving). If that factor were eliminated, his calculations
would be in accord with his observations. The same can be said of recent
experiments performed by Stefan Marinov, in the late 1970s, using
coupled-mirror interferometry.

Miller configured the four interferometer readings in the form of a
parallelogram (February, April, August, September), which assumes the Earth is
in orbit around the sun. The diagonal of each of the four parallelogram points
represents the apex of that period, while the long side represents the motion,
which is coincident with the center of orbit; the short side of the
parallelogram represents Earth velocity of 30 km/sec. Hence, knowing the
direction of the three sides of the triangle, and the magnitude of one side,
allows one to calculate the magnitude of the other sides, which for Miller was
208 km/sec toward Dorado."


As for the Consoli-Constanzo paper, they make a terrible blunder right from the start:

it becomes convenient to normalize the experimental values of A¯2 to the classical prediction for an Earth’s velocity of 30 km/s

They make the very same mistake evidenced above: they ASSUME that the 30 km/s velocity is true and proceed accordingly with further calculations based on a faulty hypothesis.


Now, I'm hardly competent to judge the reliability of Dayton Miller's results and they have been queried as in:

Learn to research a subject before posting nonsense.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61637.msg1615011#msg1615011

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61637.msg1615013#msg1615013

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61637.msg1615015#msg1615015



For example, there is THE EXPERIMENTS OF DAYTON C. MILLER 1925-1926 AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY from Maurice, seriously questioning relativity and gravitation, but not casting any doubt on the accepted Heliocentric model!

ALLAIS EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”



The difference between 4400 & 2800 (and between 366,6 & 233,3) = 46 %
Yes, we have been over this before. You are confusing linear motion with rotational motion.
The dominant factor effecting the apparent motion of the moon is Earth's rotation. In both cases, it is the same.

Since the difference between the speeds in above two different scenarios is 46 %, then we have to assume that the same directly proportional difference would be noticeable
No, we don't.
This is because you are completely ignoring the rotation which produces ~0.5 degrees per minute.

In fact, we can ignore all the proportional BS and figure out what the apparent angular velocity would be.
On the near approach, with a relative velocity of 2800 km/hr, that is 46.7 km/min, and a distance of roughly 397500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.00673 degrees per minute.
On the far approach, with a relative velocity of 4400 km/hr, that is 73.3 km/min, and a distance of roughly 402500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.01043 degrees per minute.
Notice how these roughly match the ratio, with their ratio being 1.55?

But notice how this is just a minor contributor to the 0.5 degrees per minute?

So no, this small change in angular rate will have a small effect on the apparent angular rate of the moon. The dominant effect will remain Earth's rotation which will cause the same 0.5 degrees per minute. (closer to 0.42 degrees per minute)

Over a 5 minute period, the moon will appear to move between 1.202 and 1.218 degrees. A very small difference, nothing like what you are claiming.

So how about you start with an honest analysis rather than completely ignoring the main source of the motion?


If such scenarios really existed, the difference of 46 % (regarding westward displacement of moon's angular diameter) would be quite substantial and very noticeable even with the naked eyes.
No it wouldn't, as this is a small residual, not the main part of its motion.

According to you modern science is not able to detect such (alleged) discrepancy
No. According to me, your eyes wouldn't be able to. Try again.

even if the direction of earth's rotation wouldn't make any difference regarding the core of my ZIGZAG argument (which is : there would be unavoidable change in the direction of moon's apparent motion)
The problem is the direction of Earth's rotation is the key contributor to the motion. That means it will make a very big difference to the core of your zig-zag argument, mainly making it a pile of bullshit rather than any rational argument. It means there will be no reversal of direction.


According to you it doesn't matter weather the earth rotates to the RIGHT or to the LEFT? In both cases the moon would appear to move in one single direction? Then, you have to be able to sanely answer to this question :
What matters is if Earth rotates CW or CCW. If it rotates CW, the moon will appear to go CCW. If it rotates CCW, the moon will appear to go CW.

What doesn't matter is the tiny amount of translation.

Why the moon appears to move to the RIGHT all day long (throughout one single polar day)?

Because the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), isn't that so?

Well, the earth turns to the LEFT (with respect to the moon), only first half of one polar day, during the second part of one polar day the earth turns to the RIGHT (with respect to the moon)
No, it doesn't.
Earth continues to turn the same direction. The little piece of Earth you are on translates left or right.

The effect of the translation is different to the effect of turning.

so why the moon still appears to move to the RIGHT (westward) if now the earth turns to the RIGHT in relation to the moon?
Because it doesn't. Earth still TURNS to the left, even if the little patch you are on is translating to the right.


So, literally "one forth of 30km/s" could be interpreted as an upper bound
One only show part of it?
It says quite explicitly LESS THAN ONE FORTH. By definition, that is an upper bound.

But, as always, in this case you are reasoning illogically, also.
Nope. That would be you.

Because what really matters here (regarding the result of MMX) is the fact that alleged orbital speed of the earth CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN "one forth of 30km/s".
No, it isn't Earth's orbital speed. It is Earth's speed relative to the non-existent aether.

Regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore.
No, in modern physics, aether plays no role.

DO YOU KNOW WHY IS THIS SO?
Because if aether exists the earth is at rest!
Only according to some experiments. Other experiments, like those based upon the Sagnac effect and aberration show the exact opposite, that Earth CANNOT be at rest.
They are mutually contradictory. You need an aether that is both at rest and moving relative to Earth. That is physically impossible.

CASE CLOSED!
Yes, case closed. Aether doesn't exist.

Now how about you stop trying to hide the failings of your zig-zag BS?

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Now as stated above Dayton Miller's work from Sandokhan's generous reference claimed a motion of the whole Heliocentric Solar System of some 10 km/s - Hardly stationary!
You haven't done your homework at all. Just as usual.
"But we must pause at this juncture to critique Miller’s thinking process, for
he, being a Copernican,
Incorrect! Dayton Miller certainly accepted the current Heliocentric Globe, but calling that being a Copernican is totally inaccurate. Very few people actually accepted the Copernican system with its circular orbits, etc.
It might be closer calling him Keplerian, but even Kepler's Solar System is only a rough approximation.
Quote from: sandokhan
is basing his interpretation of data on his belief that the Earth is moving at least 30 km/sec through space. Interestingly enough, it
is precisely because of this presupposition that Miller runs into some unexplained difficulty, since his observations begin to conflict with his mathematical calculations.
Smart Alec! I didn't refer to Miller because I accepted his results. Nor am I going to support his conclusions.
I only referred to all these researchers because, despite their differences, they all support what is essentially the current heliocentric system.

Quote from: sandokhan
As for the Consoli-Constanzo paper, they make a terrible blunder right from the start:
Likewise!
Quote from: sandokhan
ALLAIS EFFECT:
And I doubt that you will find any evidence that Maurice Allais, even with his very different ideas on gravitation,  thought the earth was flat and stationary.
But, go and argue with someone who cares what you think!
I don't.

By the way don't bother replying till you provide information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
      the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
      If you have no idea, just admit it.

I guess you will just have to finally admit that your wondrous magnetic monopoles and free energy machines are hoaxes
and that you haven't the slightest of "the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth".
Have a nice day.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
You are sadly predictable, closed minded and incorrect.
Am I? lol
Yes!
Quote from: cikljamas
. . . . . . << gobbledegook >> . . . . . .
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.
So?
Quote from: cikljamas
If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c - v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.
Incorrect! The rotating ring is not an inertial frame of reference, so SR does not apply.

If the observer is not on the rotating platform, but in an inertial reference frame (you do know about them?) the the light is always moving at c. The periphery of the ring has a velocity of v, so the light is travelling at c + v and c - v relative to the ring.
And the easy way to look at it is that the detector has moved relative to the location of the source, so the two beams travel different distances, but each at velocity, c. No relativity involved.

Now the Sagnac Ring can be analysed using SR, by placing the observer on the moving ring, but then time dilation must be allowed for.

So, the Sagnac effect is completely consistent with SR. You might read again, Math Pages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect
Quote from: cikljamas
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.
Agreed
Quote from: cikljamas
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.
You claim that, "They reasoned that". I suspect that is really "cikljamas reasoned that"!
Read about Michelson's thoughts on the matter (again and again and AGAIN!): 
Quote
As mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Focault’s pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,
         "We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that
          the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
As Harvey lime wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
From Math Pages, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect
Note that Michelson himself claims that the MGX is
"an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
Not a moving ether! But, of course,
Mr High and Mighty cikljamas, thinks he knows more than Michelson and all the others!

Quote from: cikljamas
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.
Rubbish! The MGX and the numerous modern Sagnac Loop Gyroscopes of the present time measure the rotation of the earth as once per sidereal day!

Quote from: cikljamas
<< Totally irrelevant! Sagnac and Relativity are quite consistent. >>

So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments

And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments


No, Michelson and Morely have not been forgotten and the Sagnac Effect is extremely important in modern navigation instruments.
Just remember that small-minded ignorant people ridicule what they cannot understand,
While Oscar Wilde wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything."
And Einstein wrote,  "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Have fun with your  ;D ;D ;D Preposterous Pepperoni Pizza Planet!  ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 04:16:19 PM by rabinoz »

*

cikljamas

  • 2069
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
On the near approach, with a relative velocity of 2800 km/hr, that is 46.7 km/min, and a distance of roughly 397500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.00673 degrees per minute.
On the far approach, with a relative velocity of 4400 km/hr, that is 73.3 km/min, and a distance of roughly 402500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.01043 degrees per minute.
Notice how these roughly match the ratio, with their ratio being 1.55?

But notice how this is just a minor contributor to the 0.5 degrees per minute?

Notice this :

1,25/0,675 = 1,85
0,01043/0,00673 = 1,55

Something is wrong with your ratio...
But even 1,55 ratio is quite substantial, isn't it?
CAN YOU CONFIRM ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF SUCH RATIO BY ANY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE???

The problem of the first order :

If the difference of 46 % between two alleged different relative speeds of the moon (Noon scenario vs Midnight scenario) means that in Midnight scenario (earth rotates in the same direction in which the moon allegedly orbits the earth) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,25 degrees per 5 minutes, and in Noon scenario (earth rotates in the opposite direction of the direction of moon's alleged orbital motion) apparent speed of the moon would be 0,675 degrees per 5 minutes.

SO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSLATION OF 2,5 DIAMETERS OF THE MOON PER 5 MINUTES VS TRANSLATION OF ONLY 1 DIAMETER OF THE MOON PER 5 MIN WOULD BE VERY EASILY NOTICED BY NAKED EYES, WOULDN'T IT?

The problem of the second order :

Since earth's rotation is much more decisive than moon's orbital motion then the result within Noon scenario wouldn't be decreased apparent speed of the moon's motion (in the same apparent direction as it would be the case in Midnight scenario), the result would be REVERSED direction of the moon's apparent motion in the sky.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 09:30:40 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

On the near approach, with a relative velocity of 2800 km/hr, that is 46.7 km/min, and a distance of roughly 397500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.00673 degrees per minute.
On the far approach, with a relative velocity of 4400 km/hr, that is 73.3 km/min, and a distance of roughly 402500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.01043 degrees per minute.
Notice how these roughly match the ratio, with their ratio being 1.55?

But notice how this is just a minor contributor to the 0.5 degrees per minute?

Notice this :

1,25/0,675 = 1,85
0,01043/0,00673 = 1,55

Something is wrong with your ratio...
But even 1,55 ratio is quite substantial, isn't it?
CAN YOU CONFIRM ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF SUCH RATIO BY ANY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE???

The problem of the first order :

If the difference of 46 % between two alleged different relative speeds of the moon (Noon scenario vs Midnight scenario) means that in Midnight scenario (earth rotates in the same direction in which the moon allegedly orbits the earth) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,25 degrees per 5 minutes, and in Noon scenario (earth rotates in the opposite direction of the direction of moon's alleged orbital motion) apparent speed of the moon would be 0,675 degrees per 5 minutes.

SO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSLATION OF 2,5 DIAMETERS OF THE MOON PER 5 MINUTES VS TRANSLATION OF ONLY 1 DIAMETER OF THE MOON PER 5 MIN WOULD BE VERY EASILY NOTICED BY NAKED EYES, WOULDN'T IT?

The problem of the second order :

Since earth's rotation is much more decisive than moon's orbital motion then the result within Noon scenario wouldn't be decreased apparent speed of the moon's motion (in the same apparent direction as it would be the case in Midnight scenario), the result would be REVERSED direction of the moon's apparent motion in the sky.


So provided this video made by a software accurately using the heliocentric official model, Where should I see that zigzag motion ?


On the near approach, with a relative velocity of 2800 km/hr, that is 46.7 km/min, and a distance of roughly 397500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.00673 degrees per minute.
On the far approach, with a relative velocity of 4400 km/hr, that is 73.3 km/min, and a distance of roughly 402500 km, this gives us an angular rate of 0.01043 degrees per minute.
Notice how these roughly match the ratio, with their ratio being 1.55?

But notice how this is just a minor contributor to the 0.5 degrees per minute?
Notice this :
1,25/0,675 = 1,85
0,01043/0,00673 = 1,55
Something is wrong with your ratio...
No. Nothing is wrong with my ratio.
Where are you getting the 1.25/0.675 from?

But even 1,55 ratio is quite substantial, isn't it?
Yes, that is substantial, but it isn't what you actually see.
The actual ratio for the 5 minutes using the numbers calculated earlier is:
1.218/1.202=1.01, a very insignificant ratio where the unaided eye would have no chance at telling them apart.

Also note that the exact same ratio appears if you instead model the system with a stationary Earth and just the moon circling around us.

And this is the simple case that is ignoring the eccentricity of the moon's orbit which also has an effect.


CAN YOU CONFIRM ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF SUCH RATIO BY ANY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE???
I don't have to as it is entirely irreverent to the argument.
Can you confirm the lack of existence of such ratio by any documented evidence, or any rational, honest evidence at all?
No.

Do you understand that the existence or absence of this ratio has no bearing at all on if Earth is rotating or not?
Do you understand that the absence of this ratio will just mean the moon is further away?

The problem of the first order :
It isn't a problem of the first order. You are completely ignoring the main cause of the apparent motion of the moon to pretend there is a problem.

If the difference of 46 % between two alleged different relative speeds of the moon (Noon scenario vs Midnight scenario) means that in Midnight scenario (earth rotates in the same direction in which the moon allegedly orbits the earth) apparent speed of the moon would be 1,25 degrees per 5 minutes, and in Noon scenario (earth rotates in the opposite direction of the direction of moon's alleged orbital motion) apparent speed of the moon would be 0,675 degrees per 5 minutes.
NO IT WOULD NOT!!!
The translation (or relative speeds) component is only causing a small change in the apparent motion.
The 1.25 degrees is caused by Earth's rotation, nothing to do with where you are on Earth or the moon.
The 1.25 degree rotation of Earth will cause everything in the sky to appear to move by -1.25 degrees.

The moon's orbit is the next most significant effect, where it moving 0.04 degrees makes it appear to move 0.04 degrees (in addition to the -1.25 degrees from Earth's rotation). This means the cumulative motion for the moon will be -1.21 degrees

The least significant of the three is your position on Earth away from the axis of rotation, which contributes a pathetic 0.008 degrees.
Instead of doing it this way, you can combine the second and third components.

The orbit and your position on Earth causes an apparent motion of the moon of 0.032 or 0.048 degrees (for our 2 scenarios).
That is where your 46% is hidden. That is where your ratio of 1.5 is hidden (it doesn't quite match due to not enough sig.figs).

This is a very small amount, and a small contributor of the motion of Earth.
Remember, the rotation of Earth contributes 1.25 degrees.
This relative translation causes 0.048 degrees at most. But you use the 0.032 to calculate your 46%, so I will as well. You have a difference of 0.016 degrees, out of 1.202 degrees. That is 1.3%.

SO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSLATION OF 2,5 DIAMETERS OF THE MOON PER 5 MINUTES VS TRANSLATION OF ONLY 1 DIAMETER OF THE MOON PER 5 MIN WOULD BE VERY EASILY NOTICED BY NAKED EYES, WOULDN'T IT?
That may be, but not easily without any kind of reference. The naked unaided eye still wouldn't be able to see that.
But that doesn't even happen.
You have a difference between apparent motion of 2.404 diameters vs 2.436 diameters.
You definitely are not going to notice it.


Since earth's rotation is much more decisive than moon's orbital motion then the result within Noon scenario wouldn't be decreased apparent speed of the moon's motion (in the same apparent direction as it would be the case in Midnight scenario), the result would be REVERSED direction of the moon's apparent motion in the sky.
Again, PURE BULLSHIT!
For this argument to hold you need to rotation (not the translation of the patch of dirt you are standing on, the entirety of the rotation of Earth itself) to change direction. THIS NEVER HAPPENS!!!!

Also notice that this goes directly against your "problem of the first order"
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.

But once again, you are pretending translation and rotation is the same.

Regardless of if it is mid day or mid night, Earth is turning the same direction. When viewed from above the north pole, Earth turns in a CCW (or to the left) direction. That will make everything in the sky appear to move in a CW direction (or to the right).

This doesn't magically change between mid day and mid night.

So no, there will be no magic reversal of the moons apparent direction.

STOP PRETENDING TRANSLATION AND ROTATION ARE THE SAME!!!

How about this, rather than repeatedly asserting the same refuted childish nonsense again and again, you do what I did, and use math to determine what the apparent motion of the moon should be. State any assumptions you make.
For bonus points, also do what I did, derive it for 2 cases, one which describes reality, with a rotating Earth and orbiting moon, and another for a stationary Earth and orbiting moon (with appropriate values for their angular velocity) and see what the difference is.


Or, if you don't want to do that, go back through mine analysis and show what is wrong with it, especially if you can show the 2 cases (stationary or rotating Earth) are not actually the same as the math clearly shows them to be identical in apparent motion of the moon, completely destroying your argument.