ARISTARCHUS

Why is a scientist from 140 years ago with very little technology compared to today being used to support a stationary flat earth?  The OP like many FE proponents  compares scientists hundreds if not thousands of years apart then infers their calculations of the suns size and distance or the earth size and shape are equally accurate today.

From the arguments I've seen these scientists at the turn if the 20th century were mostly engaged in essentially thought experiments regarding relativity and frames of reference.  None of these scientists say the Earth is flat or stationary so why pretend their experiments support FEH? 

Sooo...your point is that two ancient guys with shady equipment came up with practically useless results?
And then mmx produced NEAR null results?
Come on.
What is the point?

Haven't i been clear enough in my first response to you :

Here are Michelson’s own words:

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

So, from these Michelson's words it is obvious that Michelson puts the upper limit for the orbital speed of the earth (on the basis of a relative speed between the hypothetical orbital speed of the earth and stationary aether) to one forth of 30 km/s = 7,5 km/s

However, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887 these words (which meaning quite differs from what i have cited above) :

    The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
    —?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

So, from these Michelson's words it is obvious that Michelson puts the upper limit for the orbital speed of the earth to one sixth of the earth's supposed velocity = 5 km/s

And since it is more than clear that the average fringe was MUCH LESS than 0,01 (which is in accordance with so often referred 0,005 finge), then we have all the reasons to rightly put (as many other authors in their books) the upper limit for the result of MMX experiment to 3 km/s.

Since 461 m/s (rotational speed of aether at the equator) is one-sixth of this upper limit (3 km/s) it is more than reasonable to conclude that what Michelson actually detected with his famous interferometer was the real speed at which aether slips past the motionless earth.

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
MGPX 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 MGPX! Or to be more precise : A motionless Earth must be used as the only reasonable
explanation to explain both MMX and MGPX

So, the point is this :

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved.

These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:

“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Adolf Bakersaid "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

As "preposterous" as the measurements of *Arago*, *Trouton* and *Noble*, *Airy*, *Thorndyke* and *Kennedy*, *Theodore de Coudres* and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.

Giancoli put it this way : "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".

That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.

ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT admitted 150 years ago :

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist HENDRIK LORENTZ (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary HENRI POINCARE confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - NICOLAS COPERNICUS

Why is a scientist from 140 years ago with very little technology compared to today being used to support a stationary flat earth?  The OP like many FE proponents  compares scientists hundreds if not thousands of years apart then infers their calculations of the suns size and distance or the earth size and shape are equally accurate today.

From the arguments I've seen these scientists at the turn if the 20th century were mostly engaged in essentially thought experiments regarding relativity and frames of reference.  None of these scientists say the Earth is flat or stationary so why pretend their experiments support FEH?

1. THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT!!!

See this video :



 Jamie Courtereille commented :

Problem with your curving the lines. If your lines are straight and then you curve them, you are shortening the distance.
The longer the line the greater the curve, more so if you are attempting to place a false fact that the distances do not line up.
If New York to Cape town is not lining up but the first 4 are, the problem is not on a Flat Earth or a curve Earth.
The problem is that most maps do not have land masses accurately sized to real measurements.
The maps most people use have the US as some gigantic land mass and Africa as some small continent that never line up accurately.?

I RESPONDED TO JAMIE WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS :

A Which comparison makes more sense to you :
FLAT MAP X-1 :

FLAT MAP X-2 :


B Why don't you respond to my question, i repeat :
SHALL WE EVER SEE ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT? :
The distances between the equator and the north pole cannot be the same for a globe and a flat earth. Just think of half a ball. To draw the distance between the top and the bottom of the half ball, you would have to draw along the curve of the ball. Now, if you flatten the half ball, you will get the same distance between the center of the circle and the outside edge. However, the size of the bottom of the half ball has to expand out to a larger circle. So, either your distance around the equator is wrong or your distance between the equator and the north pole is wrong or your flat earth model is wrong. Take your pick.

Since the known distance from the north/south pole to the equator is 10,000 km (5400 nm)...and since the known circumference of the earth is 40,000 km (21600 nm)...then it follows that the earth cannot be a flat disk since the radius of a disk of 40,000 km is 6369 km...not 10,000 km...So, the only way around this simple argument is providing any evidence to the contrary regarding the circumference of the equator or the distance from the poles to the equator or both. There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = 10 000 km. Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?

Now, if the earth were a flat disc (on which the distance from the NP to the Equator would be 10000 km, as it is the case in our reality), then the circumference of such a disc (at the equator) would be 62800 km, not 40000 km!!! This number (62800 km) is absolutely preposterous (and in every conceivable aspect beyond the wildest imagination of an utter lunatic), so that only a complete idiot would give any attention to such ludicrous fanciful value. So, since the KNOWN distance from the North Pole to the Equator is out of question, and since the KNOWN value for the circumference of the Equator is out of question, also, your flat earth dreams end up right here, once and for all.

2. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth
round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and
eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there
are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they
support geocentricity-

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected
the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth!
Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the
Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within
2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted
to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a
telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not
have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle
so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary
earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it
was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated
a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table
between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the
target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this
completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason
that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with
similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

3. Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" Geocentrism is the only proven fact of science, yet scientific community runs from it like the plague because it cuts through their worldview.. . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

All major encyclopedias and historical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, and the direction of science.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over.

When De revolutionibus by Copernicus (1473-1543) was published in May of 1543, it used a text of the protestant theologian Andreas Osiander as an introduction, in which he explained that heliocentrism was a proposal of an astronomical model to facilitate the calculations of celestial motions, but he did not want to draw any realistic conclusions in the field of natural philosophy. In Bellarmine’s letter, the distinction is clear between the astronomer-mathematician who does calculations on one side and, on the other side, the natural philospher who qualitatively describes the real in light of a theologically inspired metaphysics:

«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».

BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338

Galileo recanted his heliocentric belief :

Entertaining story about the measuring the distance to the sun (an excerpt from the book "Kings dethroned" written by Gerrard Hickson) :

Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.”

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.

And herein lies the Copernican theory’s big problem. 

Suppose a prominent star such as Aldebaran has bigness such that twenty Aldebarans, arranged side by side, would equal the diameter
of the Moon, as seen in Figure 1. 

As the Moon and Sun are approximately equal in apparent diameter, the apparent diameter of Aldebaran is approximately a twentieth that of
the Sun.  Supposing Aldebaran and the Sun to be similar sorts of bodies, of similar physical size, the distance to Aldebaran would be twenty solar distances(twenty Astronomical Units, or 20 A.U.). But were Aldebaran more distant, geometry would indicate its physical size to necessarily be larger:

A distance to Aldebaran of 40 A.U.would mean an Aldebaran twice the Sun’s diameter; a distance of 100 A.U. would mean a physical size
for Aldebaran of five solar diameters.

Copernicus’s fixed stars at “immense height” solved the annual parallax problem, but at the cost of stars of physical size far in excess of even the Sun.

Tycho Brahe made this cost ever so clear.  Tycho was the leading astronomer of his era. While other well-known astronomers like Copernicus or Galileo made their observations and published their results and ideas as individuals, Tycho ran a major observatory (“Uraniborg”) and research program on his island of Hven, whose cost to the Danish crown was proportionately comparable to the budget of NASA (Couper, Henbest, and Clarke 2007, 120; Thoren1990, 188). 

With access to the biggest and best available instruments, and with the most skilled assistants, Tycho could achieve incredible accuracy in his work: Modern analysis of his work shows that he could define any star's position within a circle of diameter less than a minute of arc (1/60 degree; 1/30 the apparent diameter of the Moon); for certain sorts of measurements, such as the altitude of the North Celestial Pole, he could exceed this accuracy by better than an order of magnitude (Maeyama 2002, 118-9). 

Owen Gingerich often illustrates Tycho's incomparable contribution to the astronomy of his time by means the 1666 Historia Coelestis of Albertus Curtius, which as Gingerich notes contains a few tens of pages of pre-Brahean observations, hundreds of pages of Tychonic material, and again a few tens of pages of post-Brahean observations to 1630. 

He argues that “only twice in the history of astronomy has there been such an enormous flood of new data that just changed the scenes—the flood from Tycho Brahe and the flood from the today’s digital revolution.” (Gingerich 2009, 10:00 mark and following) 

Gingerich has noted that Tycho's quest for better observational accuracy “places him far more securely in the mainstream of modern astronomy than Copernicus himself [Gingerich 1973, 87]”.

Tycho obtained precise measurements of the apparent diameters of the fixed stars, determining that a typical first-magnitude star has an apparent diameter of two minutes of arc—one fifteenth the diameter of the Moon or Sun. 

In a geocentric universe, fixed stars could lie just beyond Saturn (Figure 2)—a distance of just over 12.5 A.U.  Thus Tycho determined that the physical diameter of the typical first-magnitude star was about 80% that of the Sun—one of the larger bodies in a celestial
assemblage whose smallest member was the Moon and whose largest was the Sun (see Table 1).

But in a Copernican universe, in order for annual parallax to be no more than a minute of arc (just falling under Tycho’s circle of general accuracy, and thus just evading detection),the distance to the fixed stars would have to be almost 7,000 A.U.

Copernicus’s Saturn-to-stars “gap of the largest size” would be over 700 times the Sun-to-distance. And the stars themselves, rather than falling within the size range of the other heavenly bodies, would have to be hundreds of times the diameter of the Sun (see Table 2).

What’s more, said Tycho, what if the parallax turns out to be smaller than that minute of arc? Then the fixed stars would have to be
still larger.  Such immense stars at such immense distances were absurd. (see Blair 1990, 364; Moesgaard 1972, 51 Brahe 1601, 167)

But according to Christoph Rothmann (~1555~1600), the German Copernican against whom Tycho leveled this argument, this was not absurd at all. The Creator need not make Creation conform to our notions of reasonableness (Moesgaard 1972, 52).  Said Rothmann —

But as far as I am concerned ... why should it seem untrue for the distance from the Sun to Saturn to be contained so many times between Saturn and the remoteness of the fixed Stars? or what is so absurd about a Star of the third Magnitude having size equal to the whole annual orb?  What of this is contrary to divine will, or is impossible by divine Nature, or is inadmissible by infinite Nature?  These things must be entirely demonstrated by you, if you will wish to infer from here anything of the absurd.  These things which common men see as absurd at first glance are not easily charged with absurdity, for in fact divine Sapience and Majesty is far greater than they understand.  Grant the Vastness of the Universe and the Sizes of the stars to be as great as you like —these will still bear no proportion to the infinite Creator.  It reckons that the greater the King, so much more greater and larger the palace befitting his Majesty.  So how great a palace do you reckon is fitting to GOD? [Brahe 1601, 186; Graney 2012]

Rothmann was not the first Copernican to invoke “palace of God” imagery in regards to the enormous stars demanded by the Copernican theory.

Thomas Digges (1546-1595) of England — one of only perhaps fifteen identifiable Copernicans in Tycho’s time, one of even fewer to write publicly on the theory, and the first to write on it in a vernacular language (Danielson 2006, 232; Wernham 1968, 461) — described the stars in supernatural terms (see Figure 3).

Indeed, Copernicus himself had spoken of the stars in such terms: “So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most excellent Almighty [Copernicus 1543, 133].” However, Tycho was most unreceptive to the use of God to solve the problem of the bigness of stars.

He asks where in nature — where all things are well-ordered in all ways of time, measure, and weight, and there is nothing empty, nothing irrational, nothing disproportionate or inharmonious —do we see the Will of God acting in an irregular or disorderly manner?  It is true, Tycho says, that a finite world can bear no proportion to an infinite Creator, but nature does show proportion and symmetry within itself — and as an example he cites the human body illustrated in the work of the artist Albrecht Dürer. 

There is nothing proportional or harmonious or rational, says Tycho, in the Copernican theory’s so distant stars that so dwarf the Sun(Brahe 1601, 191-2).Despite Tycho’s exhortations, Copernicans continued to connect the bigness of stars to the power of God. Several decades after the German Copernican Rothmann spoke of gigantic stars using the language of the “palace of God”, and well after the advent of the telescope (Figure 4), the Dutch Copernican Philips Lansbergen (1561–1632) could be found using the same language in his 1629 Considerations on the Diurnal and Annual Rotation of the Earth, as well as on the True Image of the Visible Heaven; Wherein the Wonderful Works of God are Displayed.

In this widely read and influential book (the first in Europe whose purpose was popularizing the Copernican theory among a non-mathematical audience), Lansbergen accepts the immense sizes of the stars, as to him these show the divine nature of the heavens. 
He determines the heavens to be threefold, owing to a reference in 2 Corinthians 12:2 to a “third heaven”.  The first heaven, says Lansbergen, is that of the planets. The second is that of the fixed stars.  It is immense compared to the planetary heaven; each star is indeed the size of Earth’s orbit (as Tycho had said must be the case if Copernicus was right).  The light of those stars illuminates the whole of the second heaven, which is therefore full of immense splendor. The purpose of this immense size and splendor is to indicate God’s infinity to humankind.  The heavens, Lansbergen says, echoing the words of Digges and Rothmann before him, are like a fore-court in front of God’s palace. The third heaven, that of God, is to the second heaven of the stars as that second heaven is to the first heaven of the planets (Vermij 2007, 124-5).

Thus when Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598- 1671) in his 1651 Almagestum Novum reprised Tycho’s argument on the bigness of the fixed stars — now using precise telescopic measurements of their diameters and maximum annual parallax (see Figure 4), but obtaining essentially the same result: that in a geocentric cosmos the sizes of stars were consistent with the Sun, Earth, and planets, while in a heliocentric cosmos they dwarfed the Sun (Graney 2010b) — he also reprised Tycho’s complaint about how Copernicans answered the star bigness problem.

Since nothing is beyond the power of God the Copernican answer was beyond refute in one sense, but, like Tycho, Riccioli rejected that answer to the star bigness problem, stating that “even if this falsehood cannot be refuted, nevertheless it cannot satisfy the more prudent men” (Graney 2012).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Just to be clear, you chopped out the context of the actual quote which is, well, not how one should quote something. So if you're going to copy/paste a couple of feet of text, at least get it correct and truthful.  Here's is the full quote:

"The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest."

All these observations (all these attempts to establish the real distance to the sun) are practically useless.

Almost, they establish that the sun is very far away, many times the distance to the moon, just not exactly how far.

Your 9/11 crap has no place in this thread.

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:

Stop repeating the same lie.
They observed no shift within experimental uncertainty. That means the results they obtained were consistent with no aether drift. That is a null result.

Again, the key part from your quote (now with the relevant parts removed):

less than ... less than

No where does it give a lower limit. All that was provided was an upper limit.
That does not mean a shift is detected. It means no shift was detected within experimental uncertainty.

In order to say it detected a shift between x and y, you need to have an upper and lower limit.

So, from these Michelson's words it is obvious that Michelson puts the upper limit for the orbital speed of the earth to one sixth of the earth's supposed velocity

No it isn't.
It is obvious from these words Michelson thinks there are issues with the aether model.
One of the questions of the aether model was if the aether gets dragged with Earth, or if it stationary with Earth flying through it.
That is why he says this:

if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

No where does ihe doubt Earth's actual orbital speed. All he doubts is how the aether behaves.

Since 461 m/s (rotational speed of aether at the equator) is one-sixth of this upper limit (3 km/s) it is more than reasonable to conclude that what Michelson actually detected with his famous interferometer was the real speed at which aether slips past the motionless earth.

Not in the slightest as that ignores all the other evidence of Earth's motion, including stellar aberration, which instead shows the aether to be non-existent.
It is completely unreasonable to assume he detected any measurement, and focusing on one experiment while ignoring all the others is completely unreasonable.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp

STOP JUST REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT!
This does not represent a problem at all for the HC camp. It shows a massive problem with the aether camp.
These results are exactly what you would expect for relativity. Translation (orbit) is not detected, rotation is.

But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified

No. HC must have both motions. That doesn't mean interferometers will be able to record both motions.
As such, interferometers not recording one doesn't present a problem at all.

The facts speak for themselves.

That is correct, they do. So stop lying about them.
The facts clearly show the model model is wrong and Earth is obritting the sun.

On a purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain

Yes there is. From a purely scientific point of view you don't just focus on a single experiment while ignoring everything else that shows you are wrong.
As other experiments and observations show your model to be wrong it is unreasonable and completely unscientific to use it as an explanation.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth.

Except that isn't what the experiments where doing.
Instead they were measuring the velocity of the aether relative to Earth. It wasn't an attempt to measure the actual velocity of Earth. If you wanted it to be that, then you need the aether as the absolute and stationary reference frame and thus Earth must rotate according to your nonsense.

There are other experiments to measure the motion of Earth, which rely upon redshift, and guess what? They measure the motion of Earth.

all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever.

Because they weren't looking for absolute motion of Earth, they were looking for movement of Earth relative to the non-existent aether.
Also, I notice you leave off the experiment which did show rotation. Why is that?

You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica)

That is not the final authority on scientific matters. There is no final authority for that.

but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours.

That's right. instead you will find the correct period of 1 sideral day, roughly 23 hours 56 minutes.
This is proven by gyroscopes, foucault's pendula, laser ring gyroscopes, observations of the stars and geostationary satellites.
Also, you wont find proof, but evidence, as proof is only for math and formal logic. Science deals with evidence and disproofs as it relies upon limited information.

What you wont find anywhere, is any proof or evidence of Earth being stationary. It is that insanity which is asserted purely through dogma.

Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:

Which you seem to have completely ignored.

Here is the key part:

The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge

What he is saying is that in the past, without all the other evidence of Earth's motion, a position of ignorance, the results would be interpreted differently.
Instead of realising it meant no aether, ignorant people would have assumed it meant Earth didn't move.
But we don't come from that position of ignorance. We come from a position which knows of stellar parallax and the other aether based experiments which when taken together means that aether model is wrong.

You are doing exactly what he thinks it is dangerous to do.
You firmly believe Earth is stationary, with absolutely no rational justification; so you ignore loads of information and experiments just to pretend a single experiment backs you up.

Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

And what is in those "...". Often dishonest people will remove important parts of quotes to completely misrepresent what they say. At other times you provide full quotes, and just emphasise the point you want to make, regardless of how honest your emphasis is. Are you that afraid of the full quote?
The quote is also misreferenced. The paper itself starts on page 120. The quote you are focusing on is on page 128.

And yes, it does seem you are blatantly misrepresenting the quote. The sentence doesn't even finish there.
Lets take a look at the full quote shall we? (emphasis mine):

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

So yet you have blatantly lied/misrepresented science.
He isn't saying that his conclusion contradicts a moving Earth. His conclusion contradicts the idea of Earth moving through a stationary aether.

Going to stop lying about these people?

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma

No. In other words, the fact that Earth orbits the sun, with the sun moving through the galaxy, which in turn moves through the universe, is fact based upon evidence and experimentation; and those who don't like it and instead adhere to dogmatic beliefs that Earth is stationary will happily lie about science to pretend their beliefs are justified.

I wont bother with the rest of your spam.

Now stop repeating the same refuted crap.
Deal with what has been said or I will give you the sandy treatment and demand you restrict yourself to just a single point, and only focus on the first point you make, completely ignoring the rest of your post until you address it, as you are making it abundantly clear that you cannot handle multiple points at once.

Holy crap.
The amount of verbal diarhea challenges that of Sando.

Lets start with the executive summary before delving into pg and pg of appendices.

The premise of your 100000pg essay has already been rejected.
There is NO reason to be using 400yr old data as proof that 1000yr old sata is irrelevant.

Thanks for coming out.

Holy crap.

1. INTRODUCTION :
NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :


2. DIRECTIONAL GYRO EXPERIMENT PROVES IMMOBILITY OF THE EARTH :
THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK :


3. INTERFEROMETER EXPERIMENT PRESENTED AT THE END OF THIS VIDEO PROVES
THE EXISTENCE OF AETHER :
Einstein then declared that an aether was "not necessary", and since Einstein's theories gained widespread acceptance, any further investigation into the subject of the aether was relegated to the fringes of science. Many attempts have been made to explain why the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus of Michelson and Morley was improper for showing the aether wind, but no one has repeated the experiment in a different setting, such as in a satellite orbiting the earth. Now recently Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in the last part of a following video :
AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :


4. FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - i am waiting :
This is one very telling comment which i have posted below this video :


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)

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?
 

Entertaining story about the measuring the distance to the sun (an excerpt from the book "Kings dethroned" written by Gerrard Hickson) :

Kings Dethroned was written and published almost 100 years ago, and, even then, was recognized as mostly balderdash; newer information merely confirms this.

This book is currently available in the "forgotten books" collection. There is a reason it is in that category.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/KingsDethroned_10031911

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves.

Here's the tie-in with Aristarchus [topic]. As we have been discussing over the last few pages, this technique is highly sensitive to even small errors in difficult-to-measure angles (even with the benefit of early twentieth century instruments). So, yeah... it was of no value.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.[/i]

By the time the book was written, the length of the astronomical unit was pretty well known from analysis of reliable and carefully-made observations. Vastly improved instrumentation and completely independent techniques, like radar and interplanetary spacecraft, developed since the time of its initial publication have verified the length of the AU is close to the value that Mr. Hickson rails about. He's just wrong. Period.

And herein lies the Copernican theory’s big problem. 

Suppose a prominent star such as Aldebaran has bigness such that twenty Aldebarans, arranged side by side, would equal the diameter of the Moon, as seen in Figure 1. 

As the Moon and Sun are approximately equal in apparent diameter, the apparent diameter of Aldebaran is approximately a twentieth that of the Sun.  Supposing Aldebaran and the Sun to be similar sorts of bodies, of similar physical size, the distance to Aldebaran would be twenty solar distances(twenty Astronomical Units, or 20 A.U.). But were Aldebaran more distant, geometry would indicate its physical size to necessarily be larger:

A distance to Aldebaran of 40 A.U.would mean an Aldebaran twice the Sun’s diameter; a distance of 100 A.U. would mean a physical size for Aldebaran of five solar diameters.

Suppose the apparent size of Aldebaran is 1.5 arcminutes? "Supposing Aldebaran and the Sun to be similar sorts of bodies, of similar physical size..."  Supposition is not the same thing as knowledge. Supposition is guessing.

The actual apparent size of Aldebaran is about 20 milliarcseconds, a mere 0.02% of the "supposed" size, above. The calculations based on a grossly incorrect supposition are, well grossly incorrect. But what's being off by a factor of 5,000 or so among friends?

By the way, Aldebaran is almost 50 times the diameter of the sun. In astronomy, sizes and distances can be, well, astronomical (an informal term in English meaning "enormously huge"). Why would that be a problem? Just because you have difficulty grasping the distances and sizes involved doesn't mean that astronomy has a problem.

Isnt your overly complicated bullet example of coroilis efffect?

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 19, 2018, 12:56:40 PM

Holy crap.

1. INTRODUCTION :
NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

AFTER you respond to:

By the way, I'm still waiting to see how you debunk these two videos.

THE FLAT EARTH - BELOW THE EQUATOR, odiupicku

, Flat Earth All Around You odiupicku

You were wrong about the shape of the earth yet at the time you were so certain of it! So debunk your old videos and admit that YOU can easily be wrong.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 19, 2018, 12:56:40 PM

Holy crap.

I might look at your videos AFTER you debunk your old FLAT EARTH videos! Show us exactly where you were wrong there and admit that you might be just as wrong here.

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

No you're not! If you want to do that start a thread on the heliocentric vs geocentric solar system!
And when you do raise ONE point in each post.

But before you succeed in demolishing the heliocentric solar system you will have to demolish the work of some of these - commonly rated the top 10 scientists ever:

• Nikola Tesla (1856-1943 AD)
• Albert Einstein (1879-1955 AD)
• Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727 AD)
• Louis Pasteur (1822-1895 AD)
• Marie Curie Sklodowska (1867-1934 AD)
• Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931 AD)
• Michael Faraday (1791-1867 AD)
• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 AD)
• Archimedes (287-212 BC)
• Aristotle (384-322 BC)

How many of those to whom the question was relevant (Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Archimedes and Aristotle) though the earth stationary?
Only Archimedes and Aristotle! And it is Sir Isaac Newton's "Laws" that you will have to debunk first - good luck on your fruitless quest!

And yes, even Nikola Tesla was a very strong heliocentrist!

cikljamas (odiupicku) says :
<< All meaningless without the details of the original questions so best ignored >>
Any objections?

Yes, it's totally irrelevant to the topic, which happens to be ARISTARCHUS and his estimate of the distance to the sun.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss all this other stuff! Stop your usual fishing expeditions.

Rabinoz, if you had anything meaningful to say on my thought-experiment nobody could stop you to spout it out, isn't that so? It can be one single meaningful sentence, however if you are clueless then it is better to ignore it, i agree...

Same with a directional gyro slam dunk experiment...

Same with the interferometer experiment which has proved the existence of aether...

Same with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX, Sagnac and other interferometry experiments...

Some other experiments that established the existence of aether :

Aether tests:

Foucault pendulum 1851 - Rotation caused by Earth's aether vortex

Global Positioning System 1993+ E-W delays caused by Earth's aether vortex

Atmospheric circulation - pattern contradicts rotation model

Stellar Aberration 1727 transverse aether flow

Fresnel 1818-30, Fizeau 1851 aether drag by water

Faraday Rotor (Homopolar) Generator 1831Faraday found there is an induced current if a conductor and a magnet are joined together and rotated, having no relative motion to each other, but only to the aether.

Geometrical Parallax 1838 each star has a specific aether vortex

Airy 1871 Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow

Gyro Drop 1977 Observations of a falling gyroscope reveal a slight enhancement of inertia - the aether - by the gravitational field. A rotating mass will fall more rapidly - with greater acceleration than an equivalent non-rotating mass. Classical physics cannot explain this.

Aspden Effect 1995 This experiment involved a gyroscope whose wheel was highly magnetic. The energy required to spin up to maximum speed was 1000 joules. For up to 60 seconds after the gyroscope stopped rotating, it would take ten times less energy to return it to the original velocity - only 100 joules. Aspdenâs gyroscopes would retain their hidden aether energy for a full 60 seconds.

Marinov Plasma Tube 1996A cylindrical magnet is cut along an axial plane and one half is turned upside-down (the magnetic forces themselves do the rotation). Around this magnet is a trough filled with mercury in which a copper ring floats. A current from the battery causes the ring to rotate. Working either as a motor or a generator, there is no opposing torque to the direction of rotation. As long as power is drawn from it, it will power itself. Demonstrates the torsional energy of the ether.

Casimir Effect 1997 Two mirrors facing each other in empty space are mutually attracted to each other by the vacuum electro-magnetic field. The Casimir effect is due to aether resonance in the intervening space between objects.

As for MMX : to the scientists, the so called "null result" implied two possibilities:

1) Either there wasn’t anything called Ether

2) or the Earth must be dragging a layer or blob of Ether around it in which case there wouldn’t be any Ether wind to detect.

Apparently evidence from other observations (aberration of star light, Fizeau exp, Sagnac effect etc) has disproved the possibility of Ether drag, so the scientific community is left with the first possibility. Thus scientists have interpreted the null result in MM experiment as disproof of existence of Ether medium.

But relativists are extremely good at (or more correctly, extremely vulnerable to) misinterpreting experimental data and claiming every observation as highly supportive of their stupid religion of relativity even when the observation in fact proves the opposite. And Michelson’s experiment is not an exception to their distorted thinking.

As for the coriolis effect :

Geocentricity detractors often appeal to the coriolis effect. It is, like the rest of the appeals, vain. The observations would be the same geocentrically or heliocentrically. Dr. Bouw covers it in detail in his books and explains how the coriolis *effect* becomes an actual coriolis *force* under a geocentric setup (and centrifugal force becomes centrifugal effect).

Here are some more quotes on the matter from some esteemed scientists:

The Coriolis effect arises, *equally*, whether the Earth rotates or the cosmos rotates. - Rick DeLano

"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.

As mentioned before, you could center the world and have the universe spin around it.
But the math would be mind bogglingly unmecessarily diffiuclt.
Easier to zero-zero a more relatively stationary object.

Aether can move a pendulum now? And it moves it with respect to latitude?
Interesting.

So...

Why does the pendulum have to be moving for the aether to act on it? Does the aether know what motion is?

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

False and irrelevant, address what has already been said before trying to change the topic, otherwise it shows you are just trying to run away from defeat.

3. INTERFEROMETER EXPERIMENT PRESENTED AT THE END OF THIS VIDEO PROVES
THE EXISTENCE OF AETHER :

No it doesn't.
Interferometer results are consistent with relativity.

4. FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - i am waiting :

And you can keep waiting, or go back and read the posts where it has already been debunked.
It is of no relevance to Aristarchus, the distance between the sun and Earth, or the aether.

Are you capable of sticking to the topic, rather than running off on tangents?
Are you capable of rationally defending your position rather than continually asserting the same refuted garbage?

If you can't, this is not the place for you.

Rabinoz, if you had anything meaningful to say on my thought-experiment nobody could stop you to spout it out, isn't that so? It can be one single meaningful sentence, however if you are clueless then it is better to ignore it, i agree...

What is anyone going to make of this?

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."

There's not enough there to make sense and I fail to see why I should dig into the archives. You don't even have the decency to post any link to your thought experiments.
And in the end thought experiments are not proof of anything at all. They are no more than an assistance in devising real experiments to test hypotheses.

Same with a directional gyro slam dunk experiment...

There is no "directional gyro slam dunk experiment"!

Aircraft directional gyros do not provide evidence for/against the flat earth or for/against the earth's rotation because they contain an inbuilt erecting mechanism!So great long videos like this are a total waste of your time and our time! Read THIS:

Attitude indicator, Operation
The heart of the AI is a gyroscope (gyro) that spins at high speed, from either an electric motor, or through the action of a stream of air pushing on rotor vanes placed along its periphery. The stream of air is provided by a vacuum system, driven by a vacuum pump, or a venturi. Air passing through the narrowest portion of a venturi has lower air pressure through Bernoulli's Principle. The gyro is mounted in a double gimbal, which allows the aircraft to pitch and roll as the gyro stays vertically upright. A self-erecting mechanism, actuated by gravity, counteracts any precession due to bearing friction. It may take a few minutes for the erecting mechanism to bring the gyros to a vertical upright position after the aircraft engine is first powered up.

Attitude indicators have mechanisms that keep the instrument level with respect to the direction of gravity. The instrument may develop small errors, in pitch or bank during extended periods of acceleration, deceleration, turns, or due to the earth curving underneath the plane on long trips. To start with, they often have slightly more weight in the bottom, so that when the aircraft is resting on the ground they will hang level and therefore they will be level when started. But once they are started, that pendulous weight in the bottom will not pull them level if they are out of level, but instead its pull will cause the gyro to precess. In order to let the gyro very slowly orient itself to the direction of gravity while in operation, the typical vacuum powered gyro has small pendulums on the rotor casing that partially cover air holes. When the gyro is out of level with respect to the direction of gravity, the pendulums will swing in the direction of gravity and either uncover or cover the holes, such that air is allowed or prevented from jetting out of the holes, and thereby applying a small force to orient the gyro towards the direction of gravity. Electric powered gyros may have different mechanisms to achieve a similar effect.

And read Sperry's own description in: Sperry Attitude. Gyro.

Search YouTube for "Wolfie6020 artificial horizon". Here are a couple of the videos:And Wolfie6020 knows quite a bit about these things - because he flies a Bombadier Global express!

Please learn just a little about these things before you try to proclaim yourself smarter than Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Albert Michelson and Albert Einstein!

I'll waste time on the rest of your stuff AFTER you respond to:

By the way, I'm still waiting to see how you debunk these two videos.

THE FLAT EARTH - BELOW THE EQUATOR, odiupicku

, Flat Earth All Around You odiupicku

You were wrong about the shape of the earth yet at the time you were so certain of it! So debunk your old videos and admit that YOU can easily be wrong.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 19, 2018, 03:46:55 PM

Same with a directional gyro slam dunk experiment...

There is no "directional gyro slam dunk experiment"!
Aircraft directional gyros do not provide evidence for/against the flat earth or for/against the earth's rotation because they contain an inbuilt erecting mechanism!

LOL...Look how ignorant you are :

In the pinned comment (that has been written more than a year ago) below this video you can read these words :
This experiment proves that Artificial Horizon a.k.a. Attitude Indicator can't be used as "Flat earth Proof" (which argument has been brought forward so many times by the flat earth community - AND BY ME MYSELF - as one of the strongest indications in favor of the flatness of the earth. Now you can see for yourself that we were wrong and why we were wrong. However, I knew even before this video has been released (on the basis of other round-earth irrefutable arguments) that the earth is spherically shaped. This is the last piece of the puzzle in favor of the roundness of the earth, i have been asking and even begging several guys in last few weeks to perform this very experiment and all of them turned me down. For example, i asked this guy to do this for the sake of truth and he refused to do it : ...Now, Wolfie6020 did it for all of us without the need for begging him. So, we should all be very grateful to him for a great job that he has done (experimentally proving to all of us what is the final solution regarding the last piece of the puzzle). Btw, one another gyro instrument Heading Indicator a.k.a. Directional Gyro can be used in order to prove that the earth is stationary. GYRO-SLUM DUNK : That's all folks

Well, that wasn't all, because some time after that i challenged Wolfie6020 to perform one another test with one totally different experiment, that is to say : to replicate Directional Gyro Slam Dunk experiment in order to verify/falsify (prove or disprove to him and to his audience) by his own hand (and before our own eyes) whether the earth is in motion or not.

There is no erecting mechanism inbuilt in directional gyro instruments, stop embarrassing yourself!!!

Here you can see how Wolfie6020 refused (three times in a row) my challenge :

A whole new ballgame - 0 : https://s8.postimg.cc/qxhozoset/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 1 : https://s8.postimg.cc/n6mtldjc5/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_1.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 2 : https://s8.postimg.cc/f14rn9d3p/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_2.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 3 : https://s8.postimg.cc/3os65hrk5/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_3.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 4 : https://s8.postimg.cc/6blgrt7j9/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_4.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 5 : https://s8.postimg.cc/deyunr06d/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_5.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 6 : https://s8.postimg.cc/719rkj5l1/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_6.jpg
A whole new ballgame - 7 : https://s8.postimg.cc/ho863i879/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_7.jpg
A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME - 8 : https://s15.postimg.cc/oh6lj51gb/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALL_GAME_-_8.jpg

EDIT :
Below one other (old) video of mine (THE FLAT EARTH - ANTARCTICA) in my recent response to the pinned comment (which had been written and pinned a week ago) i said this :

Mark you are absolutely right, this video is still available only due to the sentimental and artistic reasons. However, I've uploaded much better videos in the last year and a half than before that time, but when flat earthers couldn't handle the truth they started to unsubscribe from my channel, which is a tantamount to putting their heads in an ostrich hole. Such activity (unsubscribing) has led to the decreasing the number of views of my high quality videos. I am still a geocentrist, however the flat-earth theory is an utter nonsense, and i provided more than enough evidence for both claims (1.the earth is motionless/ 2. the earth is spherically shaped) in my high quality videos which flat-earthers are still sabotaging because they are notorious cowards. That is what happened! Few days ago one other guy asked me similar question :
Big Flatso Minxy
Glad you clarified. You are still the only person I know of who has done this (Tiger Dan did this too but then vanished). I think going shape agnostic would be better. I have been wrong enough times to never say never. I can't figure how water sticks to a ball even if it's static.?
--- My answer to him :
ODIUPICKU :
Big Flatso Minxy Although it is pretty counterintuitive notion (gravity on the round earth) it doesn't mean that it can't work on the spherical earth. However, we don't need to know how gravity works so to be able to ascertain whether the earth is spherically shaped or not. In the same way we don't need a non-existing *authentic* picture of the earth from space (that would be taken from a needed (far enough) distance) so to be able to figure out the real shape of the earth. I have done my homework regarding earth's shape and her motionless (from the scratch and putting every argument through it's paces) and i've presented the final results of my meticulous investigation in many videos which i uploaded in last year and a half. No one ( *not even one single flat-earther* ) has attempted to refute any of my numerous arguments. How come? *Could it be because my arguments are absolutely irrefutable???*

LOL...Look how ignorant you are :

Are you capable of sticking to one topic rather than trying to run away to avoid admitting you were wrong?
All your other crap has already been refuted.
Stick to Aristarchus and MMX.

Are you going to admit that your claims about MMX are pure garbage and that the only honest and reasonable and scientific conclusion from all these different experiments is that the aether doesn't exist?

Quote from: cikljamas on November 20, 2018, 03:38:46 AM

LOL...Look how ignorant you are :

Are you capable of sticking to one topic rather than trying to run away to avoid admitting you were wrong?
All your other crap has already been refuted.
Stick to Aristarchus and MMX.

Are you going to admit that your claims about MMX are pure garbage and that the only honest and reasonable and scientific conclusion from all these different experiments is that the aether doesn't exist?

1. Why should i stick to Aristarchus and MMX? Shouldn't i stick to Aristarchus ONLY? If your majesty allowed me to stick to MMX (and not ONLY to Aristarchus) why wouldn't your majesty be so generous to tolerate a few more digressions apart from MMX digression???

2. Two months after publication of the first paper, Sagnac would conclude his second and final paper on the matter with these words-
"The result of this methodology demonstrates that, in the surrounding space [of the apparatus], light is propagated with a velocity Vo
which is independent of the movement of the parts of the system, light source (...) and the optical circuit."

This is the central theme of Sagnac: that the propagation of light appears to be independent of the state of rotation of his self-contained apparatus, exactly because one can differentially measure its advance or retardation as a function of the speed of rotation of the apparatus.

What is the consequence of the Sagnac experiment for the MGP experiment?  To begin with, Sagnac's apparatus was rotating (with the control fringe pattern being obtained first with the apparatus 'at rest'), whereas the MGP setup was a stationary one. 

This fact is intimately linked to the nature of the measurements in question: the Sagnac experiment detects the rotation of the revolving interferometer (relative to the 'rest state'), whereas the MGP experiment, with its interferometer fixed to the local revolving frame, detected the rotation of the earth. 

Because of the resolution limits, the Sagnac experiment could never have hoped to detect the rotation of the earth, anymore than the MM experiment could have detected the rotation of its own apparatus. 

What the Sagnac experiment did, however, unequivocally demonstrate was that there was a precedent for the optical detection of rotary
motion.

But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades. 

An open-loop Sagnac effect (dt= 2A?/c2) is today well established for the paths of electromagnetic signals around the planet: employing the GPS satellite relay system, delays have been measured by clocks on the order of fractions of microseconds in the W-E transmission with respect to the E-W transmission. 

So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

Why?

Because an open-loop Sagnac effect can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

3. Long live the king JackBlack!!!

1. Why should i stick to Aristarchus and MMX? Shouldn't i stick to Aristarchus ONLY? If your majesty allowed me to stick to MMX (and not ONLY to Aristarchus) why wouldn't your majesty be so generous to tolerate a few more digressions apart from MMX digression???

Because you started off the thread on Aristarchus and MMX. If you like we can stick to Aristarchus and only deal with that and then move on to MMX.
If you like you can include interferometer experiments in general, but don't go running off to planes or bullets or GPS or the like. Stick to the simple experiments.

2. Two months after publication of the first paper, Sagnac would conclude his second and final paper on the matter with these words

I don't really care what particular people say in particular papers, especially when they are so old.

But relativists, including Einstein, largely discarded this fact for nearly three decades.

Again, I don't care what particular people do or don't do.
Einstein also rejected a key part of quantum mechanics because he didn't like uncertainty.

The simple fact is scientists (or "relativists" like you call them) fully accept the difference between inertial and non-inertial motion.

In inertial reference frames the speed of light is constant. In non-inertial frames, the speed of light can vary in certain directions.
The Michelson-Morley experiments were trying to measure the motion as an inertial frame. Sagnac was trying to measure the motion of an inertial reference frame.

So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity.
The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.

Since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead it must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

There is no logical process in that at all. You are just jumping from one thing to the next without any logical connection.
Firstly, as above, relativity is an option which explains it.
Secondly, even if there was no orbital motion, that doesn't magically mean there is no rotation.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, interferometry experiments have been carried out which are precise enough to measure the motion of the aether around Earth in the same manner as they would detect the orbital motion. Guess what? It isn't observed. That rules out aether being the explanation and leaves only relativity.

Rab already provided a citation for that. A simpler citation is DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011
This shows that any motion of aether must be less than ~ 3 nm/s or ~ 10 um/hr. That is much slower than expected from Earth's rotation.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 19, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 19, 2018, 03:46:55 PM

Same with a directional gyro slam dunk experiment...

There is no "directional gyro slam dunk experiment"!
Aircraft directional gyros do not provide evidence for/against the flat earth or for/against the earth's rotation because they contain an inbuilt erecting mechanism!

LOL...Look how ignorant you are :

In the pinned comment

I might be ignorant of many things but in that case just unobservant and hurried because of shortage of time etc, etc.

Btw, one another gyro instrument Heading Indicator a.k.a. Directional Gyro can be used in order to prove that the earth is stationary. GYRO-SLUM DUNK:

That's all folks

Nope! That's NOT all folks the earth's rotation and orbiting the sun has far more evidence than you can ever mount against it.

Well, that wasn't all, because some time after that i challenged Wolfie6020 to perform one another test with one totally different experiment, that is to say : to replicate Directional Gyro Slam Dunk experiment in order to verify/falsify (prove or disprove to him and to his audience) by his own hand (and before our own eyes) whether the earth is in motion or not.
There is no erecting mechanism inbuilt in directional gyro instruments, stop embarrassing yourself!!!

Sure, slightly embarrassed because of my misreading your video but that's all! Don't get too cocky!

Here you can see how Wolfie6020 refused (three times in a row) my challenge :
A whole new ballgame - 0 : https://s8.postimg.cc/qxhozoset/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME.jpg

And why should Wolfie6020 be at your beck-and-call.
He has more to do than waste time on a one-man-band trying to prove himself better that: Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Albert Michelson and Albert Einstein!

EDIT :
Below one other (old) video of mine (THE FLAT EARTH - ANTARCTICA) in my recent response to the pinned comment (which had been written and pinned a week ago) i said this :

Yes but my whole point was and still is that you so vehemently claimed that the earth was flat back there and you were wrong and
now you just as vehemently claim that the earth is stationary now and could just as easily be wrong.

You seem to ignore such strong evidence for the rotation of the earth as gyro-theodolites and marine-gyro-compasses. Here is a short excerpt about the gyro-theodolite:

A common instrument for precise direction underground is the Gyro-Theodolite. This is more or less a gyro-compass + theodolite, though is far more precise than a marine gyro-compass.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There are numerous other references to this topic, such as: Optimization of the Breakthrough Accuracy in Tunneling Surveys.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PS A gyroscope can easily give false reading readings especially when using mechanical bearings.

And here is an extract from a post of precise gyroscopes:

An adequate gyro must have a drift rate far less than that 15°/hour and in addition absolutely no friction in the bearings and gimbals.
The older mechanical marine Gyro Compasses used air bearings and a servo-follower system to remove any friction in the gimbals.
More modern gyros use ring-lasers relying on the Sagnac effect. Here is an older version of such a gyro that will certainly measure the earth's rotation.
Honeywell, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope

This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).

Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement,  after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The earth rotates and this rotation is used in Gyro Compasses and Gyro Theodolites to find true north. Get used to it - you will never disprove it.

And your might learn a little about the marine gyro-compass in History of Sperry Marine, Sperry Gyroscope Company and Sperry Marine, Gyro Compass Specifications.
And if you wonder why marine gyro-compasses are so different from aircraft direction-indicators read:

Gyro Compass, Steaming (Course, Speed and Latitude Error)

A gyro will always settle on the meridian, however when it is on a ship/vessel the gyro compass will be subjected to the movement of the earth AND the movement of the vessel. Imagine a ship steaming Northward. As it moves around the curvature of the earth the gyro, attempting to remain directed to a fixed point in space, will start to tilt upwards. The direction in which the compass settles, is therefore, different to the direction of the True North and depends on ship’s course, speed and latitude of the observer.

It is so funny how deniers of the Globe and of the earth's rotation come up with all these "slam-dunk", "irrefutable" and "undebunkable" proofs that end up proving nothing but a waste of time!
All these, "Flat Earth & NASA Hoax Debunk SLAMDUNK", "THE EARTH IS AT REST - DIRECTIONAL GYRO SLAM DUNK", "Flat Earth Slam Dunk 3: Auckland Flights", "Flat Earth - Irrefutable 2 - Centrifugal Force" etc.
Many of those are just as much supposedly against the rotating earth as against the flat-earth.
And all coming to nothing.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 20, 2018, 12:40:31 PM

So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity.
The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

2. As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX,  and other interferometry experiments...Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Bošković (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Bošković even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.

3. Regarding the proposition of a rotating aether around a rotating Earth, it is refuted by directional gyro experiments, by an absence of a counter-momentum when making loop maneuvers (aviation), and it also can be tested (very easily) with the method which i have proposed earlier in this thread (improved (facilitated) version of an experiment with moving platforms and vertically firing bullets).

With this proposition (No 3) you reminded me to one incredibly interesting story which you have never heard of :

The foregoing treatise illustrates in itself the difficulties facing Bošković in his efforts to reconcile the latest scientific achievements with the latest scientific achievements with the teaching about the immobility of the Earth.

The problem plagued him also because he sought to develop the most acceptable solution, i.e., one that would oppose neither the ruling prohibition of the teaching about the motion of the Earth nor the increasingly large body of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, the Church and the Index forbade him to accept the motion of the Earth; on the other, the latest scientific results, Newtonian physics in particular, could not be reconciled with the immobility of the Earth. The system proposed by Tycho Brahe did offer some hope and a way out, however, and Bošković advocated it initially.

Indeed, Brahe's system admitted equally of Newtonism and of Peripatetic natural philosophy. It was an inversion of the Copernican system and was mathematically structured along the same lines. Brahe's system implied an immovable Earth, hence its agreement with Peripatetic natural philosophy based on the same implication. On the other hand it also lent itself to the application of Newtonian physics because it only involved the inversion of the Sun and the Moon as compared with the Copernican system. These advantages of Brahe's system underlay its almost undivided acceptance in the Jesuit and Franciscan schools of thought during the first half of the 18th century.

The system was related more often to Aristotelian than to Newtonian natural philosophy. This is precisely why Bošković thought that it held some hope for resolving his own dilemma.

In later years Bošković changed his views with regard to the immobility of the Earth. Regardless of this fact, and even regardless of the lifting of the ban on teaching based on the motion of the Earth, he was convinced, almost until his death, that the system developed by Tycho Brahe could be used to advantage while accepting the latest scientific achievements as well.

In a popular review of astronomy for sailors, written towards the end of his life and included in the fifth volume of the Opera pertinentia ad opticam et astronomiam, published in 1786 in Bassano, he admittedly no longer advocated Brahe's system, but nevertheless voiced the following thought :

"Tycho's system, albeit much more complicated, explains all phenomena equally well as that of Copernicus, and all the reasons derived by Galileo from astronomical phenomena fail to prove the worth of Copernicus's system as against Tycho's. Yet, the arguments deriving from the successive propagation of light and from the physical causes of motion,available to us today and found to comply increasingly with the phenomena, necessarily imply the diurnal and annual motion of the Earth unless one accepts the assumption which I developed thirty years ago and which provides the obvious although infinitely improbable possibility that the opposite might be true."

Bošković refers here to his assumption presented in De cometis (On Comets), published in Rome in 1746. In a note to De iride et aurora boreali (On the Rainbow and the Aurora Borealis) By C. Noceti, his professor at the Collegium Romanum, Bošković expressed the conviction that he had found a way "whereby we shall be permitted to use, while retaining the idea of the immobility of the Earth, everything used by those who hold that it moves."

All these endeavours were focused on reconciling Newtonian physics with the immobility of the Earth. Bošković's concern with the matter is apparent in many of his works; thus, in De maris aestu (On the Tides), published in 1747, he discussed the possible application of Newtonian mechanics to the question of the immobility of the Earth.

The latter hypothesis, stated for the first time in De cometis (1746), may be summed up as follows : Bošković imagined the existence of a stellar space containing all earthly and celestial bodies reached by our senses. This is, therefore, the space within which all observations and experiments are carried out. This space is governed by Newtonian physical laws, thus the Earth revolves about the Sun, while all other motions of the Earth resulting out of Newtonian mechanics are also possible. This space, however, is not Newton's absolute, infinite and immovable space, of which Bošković tells us nothing. Bošković's stellar space moves in relation to absolute space and, obviously, provides for an infinite number of possible combinations. The motion of the earth in this absolute space, therefore, would vary depending on the motion of stellar space in relation to absolute space. However, if this stellar space moves within absolute space, and if its motion is always opposite to the motion of the Earth in stellar space, i.e., to its daily revolution round the equatorial axis, yearly motion about the Sun and all other minor motions, the Earth would be immovable in absolute space.

Of course, the case is infinitely improbable but, as Bošković hypothesized, if the Creator wanted the Earth to be immovable, the requirement would certainly be met. This would comply with the holy writings and permit, without any danger, the acceptance of Newton's physics in its entirety. "Indeed, the Earth will be absolutely and really immovable in relation to absolute space, and will only move relatively and apparently in relation to this movable space."

The solution reconciled Newton's physics with the immobility of the Earth, albeit not in relative, stellar space to which such physics applies but in absolute space. It also permitted Bošković to discuss only relative space, governed by Newtonian physics, in which the Earth moves. On the other hand, the interpretation also raised new issues regarding absolute and relative space, as will be discussed later.

Therefore, although Bošković wanted to freely expound Newtonian mechanics, he also tried not to reject the immobility of the Earth, i.e., the official view of the Church and, accordingly, of the Collegium Romanum. Although Bošković's endeavours were obvious, his views were not regarded favourably by the Collegium. This applies in particular to his Theoria. The severity of the conflict is best explained by the events which took place in 1754. 

Who was Ruđer Bošković : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html

>>>With his theory of forces R. Bošković was a forerunner of modern physics for almost two centuries. It was described in his most important book Theoria Philosophiae naturalis (Vienna 1758, Venice 1763, London 1922, American edition in 1966).

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize for physics in 1932) wrote the following:

"Among scientists from the 18th century Boskovic occupies outstanding place as a theologian, philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. His "Theoria philosophiae naturalis" announced hypotheses which were confirmed only in the course of last fifty years. "<<<

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

Your opinion on relativity is irrelevant.
Unless you can actually disprove it, it remains as not only a viable option, but the only option which makes sense.

2. As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment

Yes, variations of that have completely refuted the idea of any motion of Earth w.r.t. any aether.
But that rules out all the aether options, leaving only relativity.

Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure

Not in the slightest. Airy's failure was a complete failure which showed nothing. However, the basis of it, stellar aberration, showed that if the aether exists, it needs to be in motion w.r.t. Earth, at a very high speed which should have been detected by MM.

This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

No, it was termed a failure, as it is a complete failure, unlike MM which was deemed a null result.

With the aether model of light, you would likely expect the exact same thing regardless of if Earth moved and the aether was at rest or if the aether moved and Earth was at rest, or both were moving. This is because you need water to interact with the light, dragging it to slow it down. But if it is going to slow it down, there is no reason it shouldn't also be able to pull it sideways.

In order to have it be distinguishable, you need the water to interact with the light to slow it down, but not interact with light so it doesn't change its path. It literally makes no sense. That is why it was a failure.

But again, the important takeaway is stellar aberration, which under the aether model requires relative motion of Earth and the aether, which would have been detected by MM. This relative motion was not detected by MM, showing the aether model doesn't work to explain what happens. This means a different model is required. If I recall correctly, the ballistic model works fine for that, but not for Sagnac. As such both the ballistic and aether models of light were refuted. The only remaining model is relativity.

3. Regarding the proposition of a rotating aether around a rotating Earth, it is refuted by directional gyro experiments

No it isn't.
And like I said, we aren't discussing anything other than interferometry and Aristarchus. If you want to move on to directional gyro, you can wait, but with other experiments you will just end up in a completely contradictory position.

The foregoing treatise illustrates in itself the difficulties facing Bošković in his efforts to reconcile the latest scientific achievements with the latest scientific achievements with the teaching about the immobility of the Earth.

Yes, he had difficulty fitting science which showed Earth moved in with religion which demanded it didn't. I don't care. It has nothing to do with the experiments we are discussing and his way out was to just assert that Earth magically stayed fixed.

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize for physics in 1932) wrote the following:

Again, I don't care.

Can you address the issues raised rather than just telling me what various people wrote?

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

Really?
         Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory
         Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real

2. As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX,  and other interferometry experiments...

Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.

No, it hasn't. Please get this straight Airy's experiment was NOT a failure! It was a valid experiment that returned a NULL result and that is quite a different matter.

You might read:
          The wonderful world of Hammar’s experiment by A. Sfarti or at The Wonderful World of Hammar’s Experiment by A. Sfarti

Aether drag hypothesis
Problems of complete aether dragging
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:

• The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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. Consider a bucket on a train about to enter a tunnel, and a drop of water drips from the tunnel entrance into the bucket at the very center. The drop will not hit the center at the bottom of the bucket. The bucket is analogous to the tube of a telescope, the drop is a photon and the train is the earth. If aether is dragged then the droplet would be traveling with the train when it is dropped and would hit the center of bucket at the bottom. The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by:
          So:
  The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of aberration is observed and this contradicts the complete aether drag hypothesis.
  

The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 21, 2018, 06:35:51 AM

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.

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."

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

Don't link to a youtube video. Discuss what has already been posted.
As a reminder, 2 key points:

1 - Stellar aberration - This shows that Earth is in motion w.r.t. any aether that exists.
2 - MMX - This shows Earth is at rest w.r.t. any aether that exists.

By 1&2, Earth is both stationary and in motion w.r.t. any aether that exists.
This is physically impossible.
Thus the aether doesn't exist.

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

Stop just quote mining and copy-pasting crap.
You have cut out large sections of the text to completely distort the meaning.

The only rational conclusion from MMX, when considered with stellar aberration is that the aether doesn't exist.

exist,  the  results  of  MMX  were  considered  “null”

Nope. As it didn't detect any fringe shift, the results were considered null. That is because it is the result of the null hypothesis.

That Relativity theory was  the  direct  result  of  MMX

Is just because it showed that the speed of light was constant in any reference frame.

The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different  than  what  was  assumed  by  Einstein  and  his  colleagues.

No they aren't. Stop lying.
The results of all the results when taken together show that there is no aether.
No drift was measured within experimental accuracy. They detected no drift.


Can you honestly and rationally deal with these points?
If not, go to the preachers forum, not the debate forum.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2018, 04:52:51 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 21, 2018, 06:35:51 AM

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.

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?

No, not on the basis of one experiment.

AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!! odiupicku

Before going into any detail, I might point out some inaccuracies in you video:

• at 7:30 you say (Actually measured only 1-10 km/sec) but that is not how the result was reported. Read THIS again:
  Quote from: rabinoz on May 15, 2017, 04:26:59 AM

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  No! It is incorrect to claim that "It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun."
  It measured less than "one-sixth" and probably less than "one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun".
  And that is quite a different thing.
  
  Yes, let's just read exactly what Michelson said and look at logically.
  

  Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 09:53:52 AM

  “Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v²/V² = 2D × 10^-8.
  The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10⁷ wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe.
  
  The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.
  But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
  (A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)/size]
  

  Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
  Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.
  
  Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferous ether.

  They did NOT measure 1-10 km/sec.
  
  
• At 8:12 There is no "'clock' (or 'twins') paradox"! Only a misunderstanding of Special Relativity.

An Aether Field might change everything if it were proven to exists but one experiment does not automatically do that.
Now your video reports Silverton's findings as though in a refereed paper in Nature and was no such thing.
It was only in "correspondence" in "Nature Magazine August volume 322" - not the same thing at all.
On Silvertooth's experimet you might read: The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong Brian Koberlein

But rather than go through it all again I'll just copy-n-paste my answer last time you tried to present this same experiment at proof of aether.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2017, 07:20:02 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Then at 11:00 in that video we have a reference to this note in Nature E. W. Silvertooth, “Special Relativity,” Nature, vol. J22 (August 1986): p.590.

         

Now at 11:28 in the video we have: “Results: The Field Exists, . . . . . . They said, ‘huh the field is there’ and not only is it there, but it measured precisely the way Michelson and Morley had predicted one hundred years earlier.”
No, the note in Nature does not say that! It actually says: “If present findings are sustained, it may not be necessary to extend the Michelson-Morley into outer space in order to obtain positive, as opposed to null, results in interferometric tests in linear motion”.

Talk about reading words that aren't there.

And even Einstein in 1916 he wrote:

Quote

…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together.

But there is plenty of work going on about the structure of space, even to looking at “quantum foam” - ether?, etc.
Some of these much longer papers do question relativity.
Here is one at random:
         Possible Experiments to test Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory, Victor-Otto de Haan
and
         Quantum Space And The General Theory Of Relativity, The Density Of Space And Its Curvature, The Unification Of Electromagnetism With Gravity, By: John K. Harms

But, it is very interesting that none of your references seem to even suggest that the earth is stationary.

And look at E.W. Silvertooth's ending again:Does that look as though it's written by someone who doubts the reality of GPS satellites and MMX type experiments in outer space?
And those "large errors in the GPS" have been resolved by the correct application of General Relativity - time dilation due to both velocity and gravitational potential!

1. MMX - PARADOX THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GREATER

The is no "Twins Paradox" - get a bit of understanding of relativity before you attempt to disprove it!

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)

So you assume relativity is incorrect?

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.

No, it was not "Einstein" that  "chose as his foundation that the Earth was translating around the sun at 30 km/s". That was known long before Einstein's time and not one of the scientists that you have reference have doubted that including E. W. Silvertooth and Nikola Tesla!

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 MMX did not "measure an aether drift". It just ended with the finding that if there was any aether drift that experiment was unable to detect it.
But there have been dozens more since then that have brought that uncertainty in the upper limit of V_aether from the MMX uncertainty of ∼ 20 km/s down to ∼ 1.5 km/s in 1930 and finally Δc/c of by 2005.
Read: Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments.
These MMX experiments are still current because scientists know that there are "missing pieces of the puzzle" but not of that would give the slightest cause to question the basic Heliocentric Solar System.

[/quote]
I'm not going into all the detail on that.

Now I have to ask: Do you accept Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Universal Gravitation because apart from slight relativistic correct where extreme precision is required,
            they have been proven correct and are the basis of so much of physics and engineering.
And a geocentric solar system is quite impossible under those laws