Einstein and Flat Earth theory

I do not have to prove aether exists because it is irrelevant to Michelson and Morley's experiment which was to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.

Perhaps, then, you can explain how Michelson and Morley's experiment proved the Earth to be stationary.  My understanding of this experiment is that it relies on the notion of the aether, and Earth's movement with respect to that substance.

Quote from: 17 November on July 24, 2007, 01:11:09 PM

I do not have to prove aether exists because it is irrelevant to Michelson and Morley's experiment which was to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.

Perhaps, then, you can explain how Michelson and Morley's experiment proved the Earth to be stationary.  My understanding of this experiment is that it relies on the notion of the aether, and Earth's movement with respect to that substance.

Actually the Bible proved the Earth does not move long before he did.

Actually the Bible proved the Earth does not move long before he did.

Proved is the wrong word.

Quote from: beast

If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.

Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen (according to your understanding of the word and your view of the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion and therefore so much of history and the modern World) than you would care to know.

Incidentally, attitudes such as the one above were anticipated as an even more well informed (that is to say more insidious than the naive remarks which beast made) attack on the authenticity of the Protocols by a Jewish writer than the wikipedia article which was posted by "beast" in the article above:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html

That is not to say that the beast's focus is on his accusation of racism rather than the biographical history and science which dominate the latter part of Lord Byron's article such as the following statement:

Quote from: LordByron

ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

The michelson-morley disporved aether, which has no connection with heliocentrism.

Quote from: Dionysius on December 20, 2006, 02:31:38 AM

Quote from: beast

If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.

Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen (according to your understanding of the word and your view of the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion and therefore so much of history and the modern World) than you would care to know.

Incidentally, attitudes such as the one above were anticipated as an even more well informed (that is to say more insidious than the naive remarks which beast made) attack on the authenticity of the Protocols by a Jewish writer than the wikipedia article which was posted by "beast" in the article above:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html

That is not to say that the beast's focus is on his accusation of racism rather than the biographical history and science which dominate the latter part of Lord Byron's article such as the following statement:

Quote from: LordByron

ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

The michelson-morley disporved aether, which has no connection with heliocentrism.

Didn't they perform their experiment under the assumption that the Earth was moving?  I could be thinking of a different experiment, but I thought the tested the speed of light going in the same direction as the Earth's movement and away from it to observe the Aether?  The speed was the same so they said the Aether didn't exist.  However, what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?  If that were the case, this experiment didn't prove or disprove anything.

Doesn't matter.  Both FET and RET has evidence proving the earth is moving.

what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?

Indeed, the conclusion reached by the experimenters is that, "If the aether exists, then the Earth is stationary to it within one part in such-and-such."  Galilean relativity had been accepted long ago, so no physicist worth his salt would say "stationary [in the absolute sense]," but only, "[relative to such-and-such other object]".  The "[]" mean: maybe it's implicit what it's relative to.

However, geocentrism was disproved by Galileo when he observed that Venus had a full complement of phases and is sometimes closer than, and sometimes farther than, the sun.  This is not possible if Venus revolves around the Earth, rather than the sun, but is perfectly predicted by the heliocentric model.  Therefore we are left to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Given this, and since the Michelson-Morley experiment equivalently requires that the sun is stationary with respect to the aether, we are forced to conclude that there is no aether.

Quote from: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 09:06:42 AM

what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?

Indeed, the conclusion reached by the experimenters is that, "If the aether exists, then the Earth is stationary to it within one part in such-and-such."  Galilean relativity had been accepted long ago, so no physicist worth his salt would say "stationary [in the absolute sense]," but only, "[relative to such-and-such other object]".  The "[]" mean: maybe it's implicit what it's relative to.

However, geocentrism was disproved by Galileo when he observed that Venus had a full complement of phases and is sometimes closer than, and sometimes farther than, the sun.  This is not possible if Venus revolves around the Earth, rather than the sun, but is perfectly predicted by the heliocentric model.  Therefore we are left to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Given this, and since the Michelson-Morley experiment equivalently requires that the sun is stationary with respect to the aether, we are forced to conclude that there is no aether.

Ah, good explanation!

/signed