ARISTARCHUS

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.
    Implies dSun=400 x dMoon, hence aSun=400 x aMoon,
    Sun is really much bigger than Earth.
    Note that Aristarchus' methods work regardless of whether Earth goes around the Sun or Sun goes around the Earth.



WELL, SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE : IF THE TRUE SUN-EARTH-MOON ANGLE AT QUARTER MOON IS 87,85 DEGREES THEN THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN WOULD BE 10 400 000 KM, NOT 150 000 000 KM.
HERE IS WHY :
tg 87 = 19,08113669 * 400 000 km (distance to the moon) = 7 632 454 km
tg 87,85 = 26,63669041 * 400 000 = 10 654 676 km (not 150 000 000 km)

Isn't that so?

Some other guys have problems with mathematics, also :

1 + 1 = 3^2 :



Some other guys had problems with mathematics, too :

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.)

--- NOW, THE TWENTIETH PART OF THIS (0,4) = 0,02
--- THE FORTIETH PART OF THIS (0,4) = 0,01

Check this out :



0,4 : 0,005 = *80* (not 40, and certainly not 20), isn't that so?


Einstein 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.“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!

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.

Citation needed. Where did that angle come from?

    Implies dSun=400 x dMoon, hence aSun=400 x aMoon,
    Sun is really much bigger than Earth.
    Note that Aristarchus' methods work regardless of whether Earth goes around the Sun or Sun goes around the Earth.



WELL, SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE : IF THE TRUE SUN-EARTH-MOON ANGLE AT QUARTER MOON IS 87,85 DEGREES THEN THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN WOULD BE 10 400 000 KM, NOT 150 000 000 KM.
HERE IS WHY :
tg 87 = 19,08113669 * 400 000 km (distance to the moon) = 7 632 454 km
tg 87,85 = 26,63669041 * 400 000 = 10 654 676 km (not 150 000 000 km)

Isn't that so?

If the true sun-earth-moon angle were 87.85° at quarter, then that looks right. But how did you determine that angle?

The moon-sun-earth angle is about 0.15°, so the geocentric elongation of the half moon (angular distance from the sun as it would be from the center of the earth, angle A in the left drawing) would be expected to be 89.85° using those generally accepted distances.

Also, don't forget that there is about 2° of parallax at the distance of the moon from opposite sides of earth, so it's 1° of parallax with the moon on the horizon compared to the moon at zenith (i.e. angle A in the right drawing can change by up to that much). The phase will change by that much, too, so the definition of the exact moment of first quarter is based on the geocentric position, I think. When viewed from most places on earth it would be slightly more or slightly less than exactly half illuminated at the moment it's half illuminated when viewed from directly on the line between moon and geocenter.

Welcome back!

[Edit:] Shrink image to width=800.

<This looks like a discussion about 9/11 and MMX>

Maybe that post should be split and each part in its own thread. I don't see the relevance to Aristarchus or the elongation angle of the half moon. Or how they are relevant to each other, but I didn't look at the video.

Welcome back!

Thanks, it's my pleasure to hear from you, again!

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 05:59:17 AM

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.

Citation needed. Where did that angle come from?
...If the true sun-earth-moon angle were 87.85° at quarter, then that looks right. But how did you determine that angle?

It came from here : http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A161/lecture4.html

The moon-sun-earth angle is about 0.15°, so the geocentric elongation of the half moon (angular distance from the sun as it would be from the center of the earth, angle A in the left drawing) would be expected to be 89.85° using those generally accepted distances.

Having in mind that the diameter of the sun is (according to generally accepted distances) 1 400 000 km, and that the distance to the moon is only some 385 000 km, then we would practically expect an absence of the moon-sun-earth angle since there should practically be two right angles and therefore no triangle at all, and instead we would have some kind of a rectangle...

It reminds me to this passage :

An "angle of parallax” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31" (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it represents only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are fine as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

Also, don't forget that there is about 2° of parallax at the distance of the moon from opposite sides of earth, so it's 1° of parallax with the moon on the horizon compared to the moon at zenith (i.e. angle A in the right drawing can change by up to that much). The phase will change by that much, too, so the definition of the exact moment of first quarter is based on the geocentric position, I think. When viewed from most places on earth it would be slightly more or slightly less than exactly half illuminated at the moment it's half illuminated when viewed from directly on the line between moon and geocenter.

If the moon is at zenith (while conducting this kind of a measurement) then why should we bother about 2° of parallax at the distance of the moon from opposite sides of earth?

ISN'T THAT VERY STRANGE THAT THE RESULT OF ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY???
IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL)...

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 06:25:45 AM

Maybe that post should be split and each part in its own thread. I don't see the relevance to Aristarchus or the elongation angle of the half moon. Or how they are relevant to each other, but I didn't look at the video.

It's about intellectual honesty which vanished into thin air from this world?
The question is this : how to knock down three buildings with two airplanes?
Below this video you can find even much more interesting comments (than what can be seen in the video) about the true nature of today's (and not only today's) world...

    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.
Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.

Yes, that is correct, it is hard to measure. That is why his measurement was so inaccurate. But yes, the qualitative conclusion is correct. The sun is much farther than the moon and much larger.

WELL, SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE : IF THE TRUE SUN-EARTH-MOON ANGLE AT QUARTER MOON IS 87,85 DEGREES

Yes, that is a big if. Where did you get that number from?
From what I can find it indicates it is somewhere between 89.5 and 90.

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.

You really do love repeating this lie don't you?
But what does it have to do with the topic?

The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

See how it says less than?
That means that it isn't between the 2 values you claim. Instead it means the value is somewhere between 0 and 1/20 of what was expected, and probably between 0 and 1/40. It did not detect a drift. It detected no drift within experimental error.
But like a good scientist they don't report that as 0, they report it as less than the limit of detection.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
As they did not detect any drift within experimental error, they achieved a null result. More precise measurements have significantly lowered that limit.

Check this out :

You mean even more dishonesty from you?
Yes, the ether proponents didn't want to give it up. They already had so many ridiculous requirements. It has to be a solid, more stiff than steel, yet act as a fluid with 0 viscosity. Even before these experiments the ether was already so ridiculous it wasn't funny.

But your dishonesty is worse. Again, you have a clear text saying LESS THAN!
This indicates it is somewhere between 0 and that value.
You also ignore that there were multiple experiments carried out.
Notice how one is 1881 and one is 1887?

You also aren't focussing on the papers themselves but other people citing those papers (which can often introduce slight errors, especially when numbers need to be doubled).
No where in the original paper does it state the sift of 0.005.

And again, you ignore the key point: LESS THAN!
He is giving an estimate of how accurately the instrument can measure the shift.
A reading of 0, doesn't actually mean 0, it means it is below the limit of detection of the instrument.
So even if the reading was actually 1/80th, if the instrument couldn't reasonably measure below 1/40th, then it would be dishonest to claim it is 1/80th.

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX

There was no fractional ether drift. There was no drift within experiment uncertainty.

artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

No, but they would all be limited to the experiment uncertainty of the instruments, and guess what? With more precise instruments the drift has gotten smaller and smaller, showing that it is quite likely just experimental uncertainty. It has not remained at a constant value of 1/40th like you pretend.

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!

No, it presents quite a problem for the ether camp, not the HC camp.

It works perfectly fine with relatively. This is because linear motion and rotational motion are fundamentally different. With rotational motion, parts of the apparatus move relative to other parts. With linear motion, it does not.
Relativity explains the observed phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the aether camp can't explain why MM gets a null result, but stellar aberration does not. In short, aether is wrong.

The facts speak for themselves.

Yes, they do. So why do you keep lying about them?
Collectively the speak for themselves, the aether model is wrong, and Earth orbits the sun and rotates. Linear motion is relative, there is no way to measure absolute linear motion. However as rotation involves motion relative to itself, it can be measured.

On a purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain both MMX and MGX!

Because science doesn't ignore other things, like why the stars would circle Earth (not even orbit, just circle), and why Earth wouldn't orbit the much larger sun, especially as all the other planets appear to.
From a purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason for Earth to be stationary.

It came from here : http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A161/lecture4.html

Then I suggest emailing him to tell him he is wrong with his number. It is clear, as he indicates it should result in 400 times, that he simply mistyped.

Having in mind that the diameter of the sun is (according to generally accepted distances) 1 400 000 km, and that the distance to the moon is only some 385 000 km, then we would practically expect an absence of the moon-sun-earth angle since there should practically be two right angles and therefore no triangle at all, and instead we would have some kind of a rectangle...

No. We wouldn't have a rectangle. We would have a triangle which is extremely large. For practical purposes it would be hard to measure the angle but it is still there.

It reminds me to this passage :

Where you dislike measurements showing you are wrong and dismiss them without any valid reason by simply attempting to ridicule them?

If the moon is at zenith (while conducting this kind of a measurement) then why should we bother about 2° of parallax at the distance of the moon from opposite sides of earth?

Why would you conduct the experiment while the moon is at the zenith? You would want it roughly 45 degrees away from that (if they both pass directly overhead). Remember, it isn't just the moon you are measuring, you are measuring the moon and the sun. If the moon is at zenith, where is the sun? Right on the horizon. Does that sound like a smart time to measure it when we know about refraction? No.

It also requires you to be at a location where the moon passes directly overhead.

ISN'T THAT VERY STRANGE THAT THE RESULT OF ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY???
IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL)...

No, it isn't strange.
Especially when you note that it is translated, rather than the direct text, and the difficulties in measuring it.

It's about intellectual honesty which vanished into thin air from this world?

And you are a wonderful example of that.

The question is this : how to knock down three buildings with two airplanes?

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

ISN'T THAT VERY STRANGE THAT THE RESULT OF ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY???
IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL)...

Tycho Brahe, the most prominent and accomplished astronomer of his era, made measurements of the apparent sizes of the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets. From these he showed that within a geocentric cosmos these bodies were of comparable sizes, with the Sun being the largest body and the Moon the smallest. He further showed that within a heliocentric cosmos, the stars had to be absurdly large - with the smallest star dwarfing even the Sun. Various Copernicans responded to this issue of observation and geometry by appealing to the power of God: They argued that giant stars were not absurd because even such giant objects were nothing compared to an infinite God, and that in fact the Copernican stars pointed out the power of God to humankind. Tycho rejected this argument.

Tycho Brahe was able, even without a telescope, to measure angles as small as 0,005° (which is equal to 0,3'), but even no stars with this small annual parallax were found. (Cassini was able to measure angles about 0,001°, but also he found no parallax...)

The stars, to the naked eye, present diameters varying from a quarter of a minute of space, or less, to as much as two minutes.  The telescope was not then invented which shows that this is an optical delusion, and that they are points of immeasurably small diameter.  It was certain to Tycho Brahé, that if the earth did move, the whole motion of the earth in its orbit did not alter the place of the stars by two minutes, and that consequently they must be so distant, that to have two minutes of apparent diameter, they must be spheres as great a radius at least as the distance from the sun to the earth.  This latter distance Tycho Brahé supposed to be 1150 times the semi-diameter of the earth, and the sun about 180 times as great as the earth. 

It followed then, for any thing a real Copernican could show to the contrary, that some of the fixed stars must be 1520 millions of times as great as the earth, or nine millions of times as great as they supposed the sun to be...

So, according to Tycho Brahe (who was able to measure angles as small as 0,005° (which is equal to 0,3'), the sun is at the same distance as Aristarchus had figured out long before him (almost 2000 years before Tycho Brahe) on the basis of his own ancient measurements, as well : 1150 * 6400 = 7 360 000 km

SO, IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL) THAT ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THIS AMAZING CONCORDANCE BETWEEN ARISTARCHUS' AND TYCHO'S FIGURES.

Tycho Brahe

As I have told Sandy, if you want to go with appeals to authority then you lose, as the authorities all accept Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

I also noticed you completely ignored all the problems with your claims being exposed. Going to admit that MM didn't detect an ether drift? Going to admit that both that and Sagnac are consistent with relativity? Going to admit Geocentrism makes no sense with all the other evidence, and that even the aether model itself makes no sense based upon stellar aberration?

From these he showed that within a geocentric cosmos these bodies were of comparable sizes

If he really claims that, then he is an idiot. You cannot tell how large an object is based simply on its apparent size.
The further away, the larger the object will be.

He further showed that within a heliocentric cosmos, the stars had to be absurdly large

And how did he measure the sizes of the stars, given that most things resolve them as a single point?

Tycho Brahe was able, even without a telescope, to measure angles as small as 0,005°

Bullshit. Without a telescope you cannot resolve an angle that small, so just how did he magically manage to do that?
More importantly, what did he then use as a reference for trying to measure parallax?

Even if all that is true, how about you quote what distance that works out to be rather than just stating an angle?
That works out to be a star which is roughly 1.7 trillion km away. Even the nearest star (other than Sol which massive parallax is observed for) is much further.
So that shows nothing.

The stars, to the naked eye, present diameters varying from a quarter of a minute of space, or less, to as much as two minutes.  The telescope was not then invented which shows that this is an optical delusion, and that they are points of immeasurably small diameter.

i.e. THEY WERE WRONG!
So who cares?
Or is this you admitting the prior claim about the stars needing to be massive was pure garbage based upon horribly inaccurate measures of the angular size of stars?

on the basis of his own ancient measurements, as well : 1150 * 6400 = 7 360 000 km

What measurements?

SO, IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL) THAT ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THIS AMAZING CONCORDANCE BETWEEN ARISTARCHUS' AND TYCHO'S FIGURES.

Did they know of the old numbers? If so, it isn't all that surprising that they may have simply quoted that if they had large uncertainties.

The real question is if that number was correct, why change it? Why would people now claim it is 150 000 000 km? What purpose is there to doing so? Nothing.
So your options are it was an inaccurate measurement before, the sun or Earth (or both) magically moved), or someone is lying for no apparent reason.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 15, 2018, 10:08:41 AM

Welcome back!

Thanks, it's my pleasure to hear from you, again!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 15, 2018, 10:08:41 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 05:59:17 AM

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.

Citation needed. Where did that angle come from?
...If the true sun-earth-moon angle were 87.85° at quarter, then that looks right. But how did you determine that angle?

It came from here : http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A161/lecture4.html

Thanks. That looks like a typo and should be 89.85 instead of 87.85. He had probably been thinking 87, referring to Aristarchus' value while typing and just flubbed it.

How can I tell? tan(89.85°) = 392, which is as close to the 400:1 ratio he says is implied by that angle as you can get with that precision.

As you noted, "true Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85°" is not consistent with statement that followed: "[this] implies d_Sun=400 x d_Moon, so one of them is incorrect.

Good job sussing that out! I disagree with your conclusion that 87.85° is the correct angle, so the ratio of distances is wrong, because there is no discussion of where that angle came from - it's just presented - and 400 is clearly supposed to be its tangent, but isn't, and there's a plausible cause for a simple error when writing the text. I still commend you for finding the inconsistency, though.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 15, 2018, 10:08:41 AM

The moon-sun-earth angle is about 0.15°, so the geocentric elongation of the half moon (angular distance from the sun as it would be from the center of the earth, angle A in the left drawing) would be expected to be 89.85° using those generally accepted distances.

Having in mind that the diameter of the sun is (according to generally accepted distances) 1 400 000 km, and that the distance to the moon is only some 385 000 km, then we would practically expect an absence of the moon-sun-earth angle since there should practically be two right angles and therefore no triangle at all, and instead we would have some kind of a rectangle...

Well, 0.15° is a pretty small angle, and 89.85° is pretty close to a right angle. If the sun were at a distance that approaches infinity, that 0.15° would approach 0° and 89.85° would approach 90° but there would be no rectangle. You'd still have a (very long and skinny) right triangle with one side equal to d_Moon and the hypotenuse and other side approaching infinitely long.

If the moon is at zenith (while conducting this kind of a measurement) then why should we bother about 2° of parallax at the distance of the moon from opposite sides of earth?

I bring it up because I wasn't sure where your 87.85° angle came from, and I was looking at potential sources of error on the order of a couple of degrees.

ISN'T THAT VERY STRANGE THAT THE RESULT OF ARISTARCHUS' MEASUREMENT COULD BE SO OFF (FOR THE WHOLE 3°) THE REALITY???
IT DOESN'T SEEM REALISTICALLY TO ME (AT ALL)...

I think it's actually quite good. Don't forget that Aristarchus had no instruments to help him determine when the moon was exactly at half phase. Since the moon and sun had to both be in the sky at the same time in order to measure the angles between them, the contrast between the lit and unlit halves of the moon aren't as good as they are at night, either, which makes determining when the terminator is exactly straight, without the benefit of telescopic magnification, difficult. Further, a telescope can have both the object and a reticle in focus at the same time, which also helps. I suspect it's very difficult to determine when the moon is within 3° of exactly half using only your naked eye and perhaps a straightedge. Precisely measuring the angle between moon and sun was probably no easy task with the tools he had, either. It's probably easiest just before the sun begins to set, when the sun's brightness is diminished, but then you have the additional effect of refraction, which could reduce the angle between them by up to about one half of a degree. All in all, it's remarkable that it's as good as it is.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 15, 2018, 10:13:00 AM

Maybe that post should be split and each part in its own thread. I don't see the relevance to Aristarchus or the elongation angle of the half moon. Or how they are relevant to each other, but I didn't look at the video.

It's about intellectual honesty which vanished into thin air from this world?

I don't think the inconsistency you discovered is anything other than a typing error. Mistakes have always happened and will continue to happen as long as humans are human. Going completely overboard and imagining great malfeasance because of a simple mistake is becoming way too common in today's world, however.

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.
    Implies dSun=400 x dMoon, hence aSun=400 x aMoon,
    Sun is really much bigger than Earth.
    Note that Aristarchus' methods work regardless of whether Earth goes around the Sun or Sun goes around the Earth.



WELL, SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE : IF THE TRUE SUN-EARTH-MOON ANGLE AT QUARTER MOON IS 87,85 DEGREES THEN THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN WOULD BE 10 400 000 KM, NOT 150 000 000 KM.
HERE IS WHY :
tg 87 = 19,08113669 * 400 000 km (distance to the moon) = 7 632 454 km
tg 87,85 = 26,63669041 * 400 000 = 10 654 676 km (not 150 000 000 km)

Isn't that so?

Well YOU have a problem,  we don't.

The correct angle should be about 89° 51' (89.85°) not 87.85°. Then the earth-sun distance/earth-moon = 1/cos(89.85°) = 382, not precise but close
.
This explains Aristarchus's method fairly fully: Aristarchus (310 - 230 B.C.)

The method is a poorly conditioned one because:

• "it is hard to determine the exact centers of the Sun and the Moon and"
• "it is hard to know exactly when the Moon is half full."

Aristarchus's method is interesting historically and his values were accepted until the 17th century.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 06:25:45 AM

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.

You really do love repeating this lie don't you?

1. The earth doesn't move. THAT IS THE FACT

2. Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

A. The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.

B. The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.

C. Oliver Lodge conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.

D. In the Hammar experiment, conducted by Gustaf Wilhelm Hammar in 1935, a common path interferometer was used. Massive lead blocks were installed on both sides of only one leg of the interferometer. This arrangement should cause different amounts of aether drag and therefore produce a positive result. However, the result was again negative.

E. It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope.

F. If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable
extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we
have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the
picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux
took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great
Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way
galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of
about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is
not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way
itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the
local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are
theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of
light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our
spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put
through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical
theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all
the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican
truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash
with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic
conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5
stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by
the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around
the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed
would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would
become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-
Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the
earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio
changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does
not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment,
paraded and promoted as a truth.

 ”Not true,” the theorists will object, “such out-dated reasoning in
a space knowing place cuts no ice with us. Relativity has no
difficulty with that kind of supposed contradiction.” I dare to
differ. Their Einsteinian panacea, foreshadowed by the
prevarications of Fresnel's “We cannot decide,” Lorentz's “We
cannot measure,” and Poincaré's “We cannot observe" is mere
eyewash. Consider: according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

This will be judged to be patently “unthinkable” or worse.
Bradley's unobservable and by Airy's failure emasculated “stellar
aberration” remains indispensable for holding on to a Big Bang
and a universe expanding into space or expanding space.
Manifestly, such a post- Copernican cosmos could not differ
much physically from the pre- Copernican one. To say that this is
a difference of motion only is nonsense. It allows me to agree
with Stephen W. Hawking: “You cannot disprove a theory by
finding even a single observation that disagrees with the
predictions of the theory.” Conclusion: Einstein's cure-all cures
nothing! Assuredly, I do not claim that the foregoing proves my
modified Tychonian hypothesis. Experimentally, however, it
undoubtedly has the soundest credentials. More than three
centuries of efforts to disprove it have already come to naught.
The pseudo-heliocentric universe popularized for the benefit of
the man-in-the-street has, in fact, not a leg to stand on.

3.
*3.* The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations." *This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.* As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...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. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 06:25:45 AM

The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

See how it says less than?
That means that it isn't between the 2 values you claim. Instead it means the value is somewhere between 0 and 1/20 of what was expected, and probably between 0 and 1/40. It did not detect a drift. It detected no drift within experimental error.
But like a good scientist they don't report that as 0, they report it as less than the limit of detection.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
As they did not detect any drift within experimental error, they achieved a null result. More precise measurements have significantly lowered that limit.

What are you talking about? Oh, it's you Jack, since we are already used to hear from you absolutely idiotic claims, we shouldn't be surprised when we here just one another (after/among many) utterly stupid claim (like this one above) given the fact that it comes from your mouth, should we? So, i won't even bother to answer such idiotic claim...However, you doubt about authenticity of this number (regarding the amount of a fringe shift in MMX), don't you? Would you be contented if i provided for you one another corroboration of the authenticity of this number from one another scientific source? Here we go :
 


Now, we have one question for you :



Feel free to answer it...

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2018, 01:16:04 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 15, 2018, 06:25:45 AM

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.

You really do love repeating this lie don't you?

1. The earth doesn't move. THAT IS THE FACT

Incorrect for numerous reasons one being that the GINGERinodeep underground ring-laser installed in Italy is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" is installed in Italy and is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.
See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser

And note that it starts with:

Quote

1. Introduction
Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.

The resolution is quite impressive.

Quote

The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10⁻⁹ (about 15 × 10⁻¹⁴ rad/s with 4 hours integration time).

That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa

And the result is:

Quote

Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10⁻⁵ radians/sec

which is  guess what  a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.

The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10⁻⁵ radians/sec.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

A. The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.

B. The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.

C. Oliver Lodge conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.

D. In the Hammar experiment, conducted by Gustaf Wilhelm Hammar in 1935, a common path interferometer was used. Massive lead blocks were installed on both sides of only one leg of the interferometer. This arrangement should cause different amounts of aether drag and therefore produce a positive result. However, the result was again negative.

E. It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope.

All the above can be explained by Einstein's Relativity.

F. If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences.

No we do not because we do not accept the "Copernican viewpoint" with it's circular orbits and stationary sun.
But you insist on stressing the "Copernican viewpoint". That bears little relationship to even the current solar system let alone the Universe as a whole..
Even Kepler's elliptical orbits are only an approximation that applies only to a two-body system.

Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun-centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of
about 250 km/sec around the center of this system.

We accept a sun-centred solar system and that is all and have no problem with our sun being just an average sized star among the billions of other stars in even our own galaxy - the milky way.

And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood.

Sure, why not? It's exactly as that very smart cookie, Nikola Tesla, wrote:

NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But this is not all. The whole`solar system is urged towards the remote constellation Hercules at a speed which some estimate at some twenty miles per second and owing to this there should be similar annual changes in the flux of energy, which may reach the appalling figure of over one hundred billion foot pounds. All these varying and purely mechanical effects are rendered more complex through the inclination of the orbital planes and many other permanent or casual mass actions.

I've run out of time to discuss all of your massive quote.

But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept—as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed
would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio
changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment,
paraded and promoted as a truth.

I haven't time to go into detail but: Why would it change? Bradley's 20”.496 is simply due to a difference in velocities and any velocity of the solar system as a whole does not contribute to this.

”Not true,” the theorists will object, “such out-dated reasoning in a space knowing place cuts no ice with us. Relativity has no difficulty with that kind of supposed contradiction.”
I dare to differ. Their Einsteinian panacea, foreshadowed by the prevarications of Fresnel's “We cannot decide,” Lorentz's “We cannot measure,” and Poincaré's “We cannot observe" is mere eyewash. Consider: according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at rest with respect to sun and stars moving around.
Starting from an earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

But only constant linear motion is relative acceleration and rotational motion (which involves acceleration) is not relative.

This will be judged to be patently “unthinkable” or worse. Bradley's unobservable and by Airy's failure emasculated “stellar aberration” remains indispensable for holding on to a Big Bang
and a universe expanding into space or expanding space. Manifestly, such a post-Copernican cosmos could not differ much physically from the pre-Copernican one. To say that this is
a difference of motion only is nonsense. It allows me to agree with Stephen W. Hawking: “You cannot disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the
predictions of the theory.”

Incorrect for the above reason.
Mach's Principle was that all motion is relative and that inertial effects (ie due to acceleration) could be just  as well explained by the object's acceleration or bit the "rest of the universe" accelerating.

The earth's rotation and orbiting the sun both involve acceleration as does the solar system's orbiting the galaxy centre.
Though depending on the application one or more of these might so slow as to be negligible eg most experiments on earth can ignore the earth's rotation, etc.

Conclusion: Einstein's cure-all cures nothing! Assuredly, I do not claim that the foregoing proves my modified Tychonian hypothesis. Experimentally, however, it undoubtedly has the soundest credentials. More than three centuries of efforts to disprove it have already come to naught. The pseudo-heliocentric universe popularized for the benefit of
the man-in-the-street has, in fact, not a leg to stand on.

If you understood it, you might find that it does.

3.
*3.* The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations."

Well, Michelson ceratinly regarded the result of the MMX as null and went on the perform the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment which Michelson regarded as confirmation of the earth's rotation.

*This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson had a very definite positive result!

* As stated by Michelson-Morley:
"...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. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Sure Miller did regard his experiment as having a positive result and claimed it showed a definite movement of the whole solar system. See in:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dayton Miller most certainly believed in the Heliocentric Globe.
He came to the conclusion that 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:

An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s  Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result, Thomas J. Roberts

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 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".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has been saying for thirty years that the interferometer experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We never said they gave negative results, and they did not in fact give negative results. He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

I cannot answer for Dayton Miller's results but Michelson–Morley type experiments are still taken very seriously and have been repeated many times and quite recently:
Just to show this modern interest in topic look at Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments.

These days ARISTARCHUS could use a better method to find the distance to the sun. The method starts around 6 min into the video. You will see it works.

These days ARISTARCHUS could use a better method to find the distance to the sun. The method starts around 6 min into the video. You will see it works.

Very convincing. lol

I've got much better one :

1. As soon as we determine whether the earth rotates on it's axis or not, the game will be over. MMX experiment in combination with MGP experiment proves that the earth is at rest regarding it's alleged orbital motion. The same thing with Airy's failure experiment. Since there is no orbital motion, there can not be earth's rotational motion as well. But i like to contrive thought experiments which could be easily carried out in reality so that they could corroborate well known fact (among specialists) according which the earth is at rest.

Many of you probably remember this example :

This is one very telling comment which i have posted below the video "FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - I AM WAITING" :



Even before you can even start to think about the problems pointed out in my video i am going to destroy your HC delusions :

cikljamas (odiupicku) says :

"2A scenario = lagging the platform behind the bullet (which is absolutely conterintuitive and impossible to happen in this world)

2B scenario = lagging the bullet behind the platform (which is in accordance with stationary earth scenario)

You see, while attempting to reduce a degree of bullet's lagging behind the platform (towards the front side of a ship - towards the west) we should witness to some quite extraordinary phenomena : all of the sudden the platform should start to lag behind the bullet, because you can't expect to reverse the whole process (by moving towards west - instead of towards east) in such a radical way that the bullet should fall easterly from the moving platform. The bullet should still have to fall
westerly from the platform, but to the lesser degree than when moving our platform eastward. Only, such a radical reversal isn't something that anyone would ever expect to happen in reality as we know it, is it???"

Alpha2Omega (very educated heliocentrist) replied :

"If the experiment were perfectly carried out, the projectile would land slightly west of the launch point on the carriage both times. In one case, it's "ahead" of the launch point since the carriage is going west; in the other it's "behind" the launch point since the carriage is going east."

cikljamas (odiupicku) says :

You have just confirmed trueness of what i had claimed in reply #100.
Now, let's use our testing platform at the equator in an open environment.
Let's put in motion our platform towards west 100 km/h and let the height of our bullet be 3000 m.
How much our platform is going to lag behind the bullet this time (assuming that we are carrying out our exp. during perfectly calm weather - no winds whatsoever)

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75633.msg2059260#msg2059260

2. Since it would be quite difficult to conduct above depicted experiment (due to a whole bunch of reasons), i have come up with one simpler version of this kind of an experiment.

In this version we have only one platform with firmly fastened (vertically aimed muzzles) guns which should fire the bullets up in the air, at very short range (somewhere between few meters and maximally few dozens meters).

Such platform should be placed within a hull of a large boat.

Let's put in motion our large boat eastward.

Now, we put in motion our platform westward (in counter direction of our boat) and wait the moment in which the speed of the platform exactly cancels out (due to the motion in counter direction) the speed of the boat.

Now, in any moment we can decide to fully stop the platform in a very similar manner which we can see when watching the car crash experiments (do you remember slow motion footages of such an experiments?).

So, our platform suddenly comes to the fully stoppage in a fraction of a second.

Now, in that very brief (EXACT) moment in which two motions (in an opposite directions) are exactly canceled out, the bullet from the gun mounted on the moving platform should be fired perfectly vertically (in relation to the line of motion of our platform and our both) in the air.

What will be the outcome of this experiment?

The bullet will fall behind the platform as many meters as it is needed for the boat to move forward in the period of time between the moment of firing the bullet up in the air and the moment of coming the bullet down to the hull of the boat.

On the other hand, if we performed this same experiment within a hull of a stationary boat, the bullet will come down at the same place from which it was fired up in the air.

Any objections?

Any objections?

Many. For one, I thought you said, "i have come up with one simpler version of this kind of an experiment". This still requires boats, bullets, and turrets. That's more than I have.

And isn't this just essentially the same Rowbotham/Dyer vertical air gun wager? Where Rowbotham lost?

1. The earth doesn't move. THAT IS THE FACT

No, that is a blatant lie based upon wilful ignorance. There is absolutely no reason to think Earth is magical and fixed in place.

2. Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

Stellar aberration (i.e. point F from you) requires Earth to be in motion relative to the aether, showing the aether model is wrong.
Nothing more is needed, as the aether model is refuted.

This means that aether cannot be used to determine Earth is stationary, and any attempts to do so are ignorant at best, but more likely to be intentionally dishonest.

3.
*3.* The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result.

That is because it did. You not understanding what it says doesn't magically mean it wasn't a null result.
There was no ether drift detected. The reported limit was that of experimental uncertainty, the limit of detection.

Again, the key part has been emphasised in your text:

"...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.

What are you talking about? Oh, it's you Jack, since we are already used to hear from you absolutely idiotic claims

Wow, basically your first response to me and you are already resorting to insults and projection.
Are you really that upset by how easily your nonsense is refuted?

just one another (after/among many) utterly stupid claim (like this one above)

Sure, an "utterly stupid claim" that saying something is less than x can mean it is 0 and indicates that no drift was detected within experimental error.
Just why is that stupid?

So, i won't even bother to answer such idiotic claim

You mean you can't answer it, like all the times it has been brought up before by myself and others, so you will just insult me instead.

However, you doubt about authenticity of this number (regarding the amount of a fringe shift in MMX), don't you? Would you be contented if i provided for you one another corroboration of the authenticity of this number from one another scientific source? Here we go :

If you are going to try to provide a measure of authenticity, don't just take a picture, provide a valid citation.
It is also clear you are providing it not from a scientific source but likely a question in a textbook or in a lecture/tutorial.
But notice how you ignore the vast majority of the points?
There were multiple experiments.
If the fringe recorded was 0.005 (or less than that) but the experimental accuracy could only be relied upon to 0.01, what would be the correct way to report it?

1. As soon as we determine whether the earth rotates on it's axis or not, the game will be over.

That depends what "game" you are trying for.

MMX experiment in combination with MGP experiment proves that the earth is at rest regarding it's alleged orbital motion. The same thing with Airy's failure experiment.

Stop lying.
MMX and stellar aberration show the aether model doesn't work, and thus motion relative to the aether cannot be used to determine if Earth is at reset or not.
Airy's failure was a complete failure which provided no useful results, not even a null result.

Since there is no orbital motion, there can not be earth's rotational motion as well.

No, even if Earth wasn't orbiting the sun, that wouldn't mean that Earth couldn't be rotating.

But i like to contrive thought experiments which could be easily carried out in reality so that they could corroborate well known fact (among specialists) according which the earth is at rest.

You mean provide numerous horribly flawed "experiments" which completely ignore how reality work so you can pretend Earth is at rest.

Many of you probably remember this example :

And likewise we have already debunked it, repeatedly, as have plenty of others.
Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic.
If you want to discuss it, go back to one of your old threads and try and defend it there.

Any objections?

Yes, it has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread.

Jack, why are you so desperate?

"...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.

Let's compare this sentence (above) and the following words of yours, that you have written yesterday :

   

Quote

The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

See how it says less than?
That means that it isn't between the 2 values you claim. Instead it means the value is somewhere between 0 and 1/20 of what was expected, and probably between 0 and 1/40. It did not detect a drift. It detected no drift within experimental error.
But like a good scientist they don't report that as 0, they report it as less than the limit of detection.

So, less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth can't be understood (according to you) as some value in between the 2 values i (in fact Michelson) claim?

Less than one-sixth the earth's ALLEGED orbital velocity = Less than 5 km/sec (probably)
Less than one-fourth the earth's ALLEGED orbital velocity = Less than 7,5 km/sec (certainly)

So, it's about putting upper limit on the speed of the earth through the supposed aether, however they detected 0,01 fringe shift which means that they detected something rather than nothing, isn't that so?

According to this table Michelson and Morley observed 0,01 fringe :



So, 0,01 value is equal to 1/40th part of the expected value (0,4) which is equal to 5 km/sec.

For some reason Michelson said that what he had detected with his instrument somehow probably points to some even lower relative speed between the earth and the aether, but since he specified this concrete value as an upper value and since his instrument detected this concrete fringe shift then we have all the reasons to believe that this DETECTED upper value points to some value which is much closer to an accurate value (rotational speed of an aether which rotates around stationary earth) than to an expected value (0,4), but it shouldn't be understood simply as putting upper value without any other possible implications, that is to say : pretending that concrete 0,01 value hasn't been detected.

Why these guys claim 0,005 upper value for MMX (later in the same book in which they displayed this table), i don't know, however this value 0,005 would be very close to the actual rotational speed of an aether around stationary earth.

Regarding my thought experiments you debunked absolutely nothing unless hand waving can be considered as "something" rather than nothing (worthy of anyone's attention) at all....

Imagine this, ether doesn’t exist. What do you think experiments for ether would show if it doesn’t exist?

Quote from: sokarul on November 16, 2018, 07:57:36 AM

These days ARISTARCHUS could use a better method to find the distance to the sun. The method starts around 6 min into the video. You will see it works.

Very convincing. lol

I've got much better one :

1. As soon as we determine whether the earth rotates on it's axis or not, the game will be over. MMX experiment in combination with MGP experiment proves that the earth is at rest regarding it's alleged orbital motion. The same thing with Airy's failure experiment. Since there is no orbital motion, there can not be earth's rotational motion as well. But i like to contrive thought experiments which could be easily carried out in reality so that they could corroborate well known fact (among specialists) according which the earth is at rest.

Many of you probably remember this example :

This is one very telling comment which i have posted below the video "FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - I AM WAITING" :



Even before you can even start to think about the problems pointed out in my video i am going to destroy your HC delusions :

cikljamas (odiupicku) says :

"2A scenario = lagging the platform behind the bullet (which is absolutely conterintuitive and impossible to happen in this world)

2B scenario = lagging the bullet behind the platform (which is in accordance with stationary earth scenario)

You see, while attempting to reduce a degree of bullet's lagging behind the platform (towards the front side of a ship - towards the west) we should witness to some quite extraordinary phenomena : all of the sudden the platform should start to lag behind the bullet, because you can't expect to reverse the whole process (by moving towards west - instead of towards east) in such a radical way that the bullet should fall easterly from the moving platform. The bullet should still have to fall
westerly from the platform, but to the lesser degree than when moving our platform eastward. Only, such a radical reversal isn't something that anyone would ever expect to happen in reality as we know it, is it???"

Alpha2Omega (very educated heliocentrist) replied :

"If the experiment were perfectly carried out, the projectile would land slightly west of the launch point on the carriage both times. In one case, it's "ahead" of the launch point since the carriage is going west; in the other it's "behind" the launch point since the carriage is going east."

cikljamas (odiupicku) says :

You have just confirmed trueness of what i had claimed in reply #100.
Now, let's use our testing platform at the equator in an open environment.
Let's put in motion our platform towards west 100 km/h and let the height of our bullet be 3000 m.
How much our platform is going to lag behind the bullet this time (assuming that we are carrying out our exp. during perfectly calm weather - no winds whatsoever)

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75633.msg2059260#msg2059260

2. Since it would be quite difficult to conduct above depicted experiment (due to a whole bunch of reasons), i have come up with one simpler version of this kind of an experiment.

In this version we have only one platform with firmly fastened (vertically aimed muzzles) guns which should fire the bullets up in the air, at very short range (somewhere between few meters and maximally few dozens meters).

Such platform should be placed within a hull of a large boat.

Let's put in motion our large boat eastward.

Now, we put in motion our platform westward (in counter direction of our boat) and wait the moment in which the speed of the platform exactly cancels out (due to the motion in counter direction) the speed of the boat.

Now, in any moment we can decide to fully stop the platform in a very similar manner which we can see when watching the car crash experiments (do you remember slow motion footages of such an experiments?).

So, our platform suddenly comes to the fully stoppage in a fraction of a second.

Now, in that very brief (EXACT) moment in which two motions (in an opposite directions) are exactly canceled out, the bullet from the gun mounted on the moving platform should be fired perfectly vertically (in relation to the line of motion of our platform and our both) in the air.

What will be the outcome of this experiment?

The bullet will fall behind the platform as many meters as it is needed for the boat to move forward in the period of time between the moment of firing the bullet up in the air and the moment of coming the bullet down to the hull of the boat.

On the other hand, if we performed this same experiment within a hull of a stationary boat, the bullet will come down at the same place from which it was fired up in the air.

Any objections?

That’s a shitty rebuttal.  And then to top it off you introduced a new argument.
From the skimming of the video it’s already been covered here. Just learn the difference between velocity and acceleration.

Jack, why are you so desperate?

I'm not the one rejecting basic English, not to mention so much science.

So, less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth can't be understood (according to you) as some value in between the 2 values i (in fact Michelson) claim?

No, it can't be understood as that.
It is possible (but not probable) to be in between the 2 values, but the claim by Michleson is that it is somewhere between 0 and 1/20 (i.e. less than 1/20, noting that it should be 0 or positive), and probably less than 1/40 (i.e. less than 1/40, again noting it should be 0 or positive).


Saying less than x and probably less than y means some value between 0 and x, and probably between 0 and y. It doesn't mean some value bewteen x and y like you have repeatedly claimed.

All it means is that any shift (if it exists) is below the limit of detection of the instument.
According to this table Michelson and Morley observed 0,01 fringe :
[/quote]
Stop lying.
The directly observed fringe varied with no discernible pattern and no clear shift due to motion. As such, it would be wrong to report a shift as it is due to the inherent error of the experiment.

You also lie about the table. Have you bothered reading the column?
Does it say shift observed? No. Instead, it states UPPER LIMIT.
Do you understand what that means?
Again, it means it is somewhere between 0 and that value.
This shows it is the limit of detection of the instrument, not some actual value.

This is further supported by the multitude of different upper bounds, rather than just one value consistently being reported.

Saying his instrument detected this fringe shift is a blatant lie. There is no concrete value which was detected.
And no, the 5 km/s isn't really close to the alleged rotation of the non-existent aether around a hypothetical stationary Earth. That should be 444 m/s at the equator, getting smaller and smaller as you get further away from the equator. 5 km/s is closer to the orbital velocity.
Those experiments were not sensitive enough to detect such a small shift. So if they did manage to record a shift it would indicate Earth is moving (or the aether is moving relative to Earth), and not simply rotating.

Regarding my thought experiments you debunked absolutely nothing unless hand waving can be considered as "something" rather than nothing (worthy of anyone's attention) at all....

Every single one you have provided has been repeatedly debunked by myself and others. If you want to discuss them, go back to the threads where you repeatedly had your ass handed to you and try to defend them there. Don't try and derail this thread.

Imagine this, ether doesn’t exist. What do you think experiments for ether would show if it doesn’t exist?

Doesn't it?
AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :


1. MMX - PARADOX THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GREATER :



2.  "...Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position....must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."
Edwin Hubble (The Observational Approach to Cosmology 193, pp 40,41,48-49)

3. Since  Einstein  chose  as  his  foundation  that  the  Earth  was  translating around the sun at 30 kms and thus postulated the ether  did  not  exist,  the  results  of  MMX  were  considered  “null”  and  all subsequent theorizing, including Special and General Relativity, was built on the assumption that the Earth was moving. Thus, Einstein  could  safely  develop  his  Special  Relativity  theory  with the accepted premise that space was a vacuum that did not possess any ponderable substance (i.e., ether). That Relativity theory was  the  direct  result  of  MMX  was  admitted  by  Einstein  in  a  speech  honoring  Michelson: 

“I  have  come  among  men  who  for many years have been true comrades with me in my labors. You, my  honored  Dr.  Michelson,  began  with  this  work  when  I  was  only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of  Relativity.  You  uncovered  an  insidious  defect  in  the  ether  theory  of  light,  as  it  then  existed,  and  stimulated  the  ideas  of  H.  A.  Lorentz  and  Fitzgerald,  out  of  which  the  Special  Theory  of  Relativity  developed.  Without  your  work  this  theory  would  today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis.”

The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different  than  what  was  assumed  by  Einstein  and  his  colleagues.  The  fact is, the MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a  drift  that  would  be  expected  if  the  Earth  were  moving  around  the  sun  at  30kms;  rather,  it  measured  a  drift  that  was  less  than  one-twentieth  of  30kms.

4. Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013.  While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe.  However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.

Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:

    "When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun?—?the plane of the earth around the sun?—?the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

Quote from: sokarul on November 16, 2018, 07:57:36 AM

These days ARISTARCHUS could use a better method to find the distance to the sun. The method starts around 6 min into the video. You will see it works.

Very convincing. lol

I've got much better one :

1. As soon as we determine whether the earth rotates on its axis or not, the game will be over.

Sure:

• Foucault's pendulum, 1851: See Comptes Rendus Physique, Volume 18, Issues 9–10, November–December 2017, Pages 520-525, Foucault and the rotation of the Earth, Joël Sommeria
  
  
• Foucault's gyroscope, 1852: [/b]See above reference and you undoubtedly read le francais Histoire gyroscope, Le Gyroscope de Foucault..
  Leon Foucault was unable to keep the device spinning for long periods for a long period nor did he construct a large enough device so in it's original for it was never very convincing.
  But modern versions as used in marine gyro-compasses and in gyro-theodolites are capable of determining true north based on the earth's rotation.
  More in: How many FE'rs are seriously on a quest to prove spherical realists wrong? « Reply #23 on: August 13, 2017, 01:13:02 PM »
  
  
• Michelson-Morley-Pearson's experiment, 1925:
  Quote from: rabinoz on June 18, 2017, 08:21:50 PM

  
  

  Quote from: Kevin Brown

  Reflections on Relativity, 2.7  The Sagnac Effect
  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".
  

  
  
• Modern ring-laser gyroscopes:
  Quote from: rabinoz on July 08, 2018, 08:18:32 PM

  A gyroscope shows the Earth is stationary. « Reply #2 on: July 08, 2018, 02:59:22 PM ».
  In that, I stated, And do you know something? The Gyro-Theodolite PROVES that the earth rotates about an axis through the North and South Pole!
  
  And "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" is installed in Italy and is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.
  See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser
  
  And note that it starts with:

  Quote

  1. Introduction
  Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.

  The resolution is quite impressive.

  Quote

  The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10⁻⁹ (about 15 × 10⁻¹⁴ rad/s with 4 hours integration time).

  
  That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
  But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa
  
  And the result is:

  Quote

  Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10⁻⁵ radians/sec

  which is  guess what  a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.
  
  The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10⁻⁵ radians/sec.
  

The earth rotates! Maybe that's why Galileo (is reputed to have) said "E pur si muove".

And yet it moves . . . . (Italian: E pur si muove . . . . ) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.

- In fact he most likely did not say that or would in all probability have died in custody.

MMX experiment in combination with MGP experiment proves that the earth is at rest regarding it's alleged orbital motion. The same thing with Airy's failure experiment.

Airy's experiment did not "fail"! It returned a null result - that is not a failure. It provided evidence:

• that there is no Aether or
• that the earth is stationary.

And neither Airy nor any of other astronomers of the time considered that a possibility after the success of the heliocentric solar system and the result of Bradley's stellar aberration.
Reflections on Relativity, 2.5  Stellar Aberration

Since there is no orbital motion, there can not be earth's rotational motion as well.

I would claim that both orbital motion (Bradley) and rotational motion (Pendulums and Gyroscopes, both mechanical and Sagnac effect) have been well demonstrated.

But I like to contrive thought experiments which could be easily carried out in reality so that they could corroborate well-known fact (among specialists) according which the earth is at rest.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Any objections?

Certainly there are! Why use any "contrived thought experiments" when there are the results of numerous real experiments?

Quote from: sokarul on November 16, 2018, 01:30:31 PM

Imagine this, ether doesn’t exist. What do you think experiments for ether would show if it doesn’t exist?

Doesn't it?

That's right. It doesn't exist.
Stellar aberration shows that Earth must be moving relative to the hypothetical aether at significant speeds.
MM shows it must be stationary (or only an insignificant speed).
The aether can't be both moving and stationary w.r.t. Earth, as such it can't exist.

Don't just link to crappy youtube videos. Don't just copy and paste crap you don't understand.
Make the argument yourself or explain what is wrong with the arguments already presented to you.

The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different  than  what  was  assumed  by  Einstein  and  his  colleagues.  The  fact is, the MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a  drift  that  would  be  expected  if  the  Earth  were  moving  around  the  sun  at  30kms;  rather,  it  measured  a  drift  that  was  less  than  one-twentieth  of  30kms.

No. The reality is quite different to what you repeatedly assert.
MMX did not measure an ether drift. Instead it put an upper bound on that.
And no, the shift you continually focus on (as an upper limit) is 1/20th of the fringe shift, not 1/20th of the speed.

Planck satellite results of March 2013.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

If you want to move on, admit your massive errors regarding the aether first.

This is one very telling comment which i have posted below the video "FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - I AM WAITING" :

Why bother? Nothing to debunk about the physics experiment! Have you heard of air resistance?

And maybe you could summarise the rest because it takes so long to say nothing that I can't be bothered.

In the meantime, maybe you can debunk these videos that claim to prove that the earth is flat:That one contains outright lies like claiming that "NO DIRECT FLIGHT ROUTES EXIST OVER OPEN WATERS SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR!" When there are commonly flown routes like:
This post might help you debunk your own video: Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) « Reply #16 on: May 05, 2018, 09:47:47 PM »


I'm waiting to see how you debunk those last two videos.

Cik references a guy from 300-400 years ago.
You think science hasnt progressed since then?
Come on.

Aristarchus again.
Distance:
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.
    Implies dSun=400 x dMoon, hence aSun=400 x aMoon,
    Sun is really much bigger than Earth.
    Note that Aristarchus' methods work regardless of whether Earth goes around the Sun or Sun goes around the Earth.



WELL, SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE : IF THE TRUE SUN-EARTH-MOON ANGLE AT QUARTER MOON IS 87,85 DEGREES THEN THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN WOULD BE 10 400 000 KM, NOT 150 000 000 KM.
HERE IS WHY :
tg 87 = 19,08113669 * 400 000 km (distance to the moon) = 7 632 454 km
tg 87,85 = 26,63669041 * 400 000 = 10 654 676 km (not 150 000 000 km)

Isn't that so?

One of the questions I would ask you is why are you so caught up in an ideas or methodologies that have been superceeded?  If you have questions regarding the cosmos and it’s workings why not consult some modern astronomers? If you really want answers, which I’m sure you do, they are there for the taking. This forum is littered with people, like yourself, that simply can’t accept some cosmological concepts  and go out and look for an obscure ‘factoid’ that appears to support their position while at the same time totally ignoring the actual facts that prove their position is incorrect.
It’s not a bad thing to question reality, but it’s illogical to try and disprove accepted cosmological facts by latching on to a ‘factoid’ you yourself have created in an effort to support some position you hold.
The other question I would ask, out of interest, why is it so important for you to believe that the earth is stationary and that your calculation of the sun earth distance, which is counter to accepted knowledge, is correct? Is there any room in your mind to accept that you may be wrong in all the  assumptions you make?
You also quote, or possibly misquote, several ancient astronomers while totally ignoring more modern astronomers whose work would totally disproves your thinking.

Factoid or anti-fact is an unsupported piece of knowledge that someone manufactures to support a belief they hold that runs counter to to true facts which are conveniently ignored.

accepted knowledge

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

Here is an experiment which proves the Earth is stationary:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

accepted knowledge

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

Here is an experiment which proves the Earth is stationary:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

You quoted one of my hero’s, Richard Feynman, a true genius, I’m sure you would agree. It’s also true he would totally disagree with your link, your claim to have produced a perpetual motion machine( hows it going by the way)and pretty much everything you post on this site.
You adopt once more the classic flat earth technique, latch on to one irrelevent topic, bombard people with a deluge of made up anti-facts while at the same time ignoring reality and it’s facts.

Here is an experiment which proves the Earth is stationary:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

If you want to discuss your ignorance of the Sagnac effect, go back and resurrect one of the multitude of threads you have already been repeatedly refuted in.

For now, do you have anything to add which is relevant to the discussion?