The distortion of science

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

I do wish that you'd note that.

Arago showed that a light beam (pointed toward or away from Earth's supposed orbit) had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
It always showed the Earth at rest in the ether.

Or that there is no aether!

Then, Fresnel came up with the experiment that bears his name.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2054512#msg2054512 (Fresnel formula hoax)

Or that there is no aether!
You might read François Arago: A 19th Century French Humanist and Pioneer in Astrophysics By James Lequeux, p103.

Then, Fizeau.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2053484#msg2053484 (Fizeau experiment hoax)

Or that there is no aether! See above book.

However, Hoek put an end to the debate regarding the stellar aberration.
Mascart did the same thing.
Hoek and Mascart experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450

"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.

To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."

Or that there is no aether!

Mascart Experiment
E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214
Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work

<< We know about polarizers >>  Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.

Not necessarily! It could also indicate that there is no aether!

Look, Sandokhan, It's a total waste space to post experiment after experiment to show that there is no motion through the aether.
You simply refuse to accept that there is another option and that is no Luminiferous aether.
And the result of all these experiments taken together with stellar aberration admits of no other interpretation.

How long does it take the light to go around the stationary ring?

You are trolling the upper forums.

We are debating here the Sagnac effect, which involves ROTATION.

Here is the reference most used by the RE:

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel the same inertial distance at the same speed, so they will arrive at the end point simultaneously.

Wikipedia:

In other words, when the interferometer is at rest with respect to the earth, the light travels at a constant speed. However, when the interferometer system is spun, one beam of light will slow with respect to the other beam of light. This arrangement is also called a Sagnac interferometer.


The Sagnac interferometer is a ROTATING interferometer, not a stationary one.

Your hypothesis falls flat because binary stars do not exhibit any effects due to the velocity of the component stars.

What ?!

Dr. Tom van Flandern:

B.S. Mathematics, Xavier University

Yale University, scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO)

PhD Astronomy, Yale University

Chief of the Research Branch, U.S. Naval Observatory

Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office

"DeSitter noted that stellar aberration was the same for both components of distant binary stars, even though the relative velocity of each with respect to the observer was quite different.  Therefore velocity in some special frame (we might now say velocity in the local gravity field relative to the distant gravity field) rather than relative velocity between source and observer determines aberration. Both of these experiments were blows to SR’s contention that all motion was relative."

Binary pulsars involve faster than light gravitational speeds.

https://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm

How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow?

Indeed, the orbit of binary pulsar P5R1913+16 is observed to slowly decay at a rate close to that predicted by GR from the emission of gravitational radiation.

We could have seen the essence of this result at the outset.  Binary pulsars decay as they radiate away angular momentum, presumably in the form of gravitational radiation.  However, a finite speed of propagation of gravitational force must add angular momentum to orbits.  This is because the retarded position of any source of gravity must lie in the same direction relative to its true position as the tangential motion of the target body.  Therefore, any delay in gravity will always pull the target in a direction that will increase its instantaneous orbital speed - the opposite of the effect of gravitational radiation.

In a binary pulsar, where both masses are comparable, both stars may emit gravitational radiation.  But each would do so as a consequence of its acceleration induced by the other, not as a consequence of its own gravity.  Moreover, as we noted earlier, gravitational waves in the sense of gravitational radiation cause orbiting bodies to lose angular momentum; whereas gravitational aberration that must accompany any finite speed of propagation of gravity from a source to a target would cause orbits to gain angular momentum.

Or that there is no aether!

Let's put your word to the test.


RUDERFER EXPERIMENT

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

In 1960, Martin Ruderfer performed one of the most fascinating and fantastic experiments of the 20th century, and proved the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether theory, using the spinning Mossbauer effect.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'.


Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit
time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely
canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.




Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."

"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."

Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:




The original arm length for LISA: 5,000,000 km (L)

Earth - Sun radius: 150,000,000 km (R)

ORBITAL SAGNAC/ROTATIONAL SAGNAC =~ R/L = 30







This fact is true for each and every satellite orbiting above the surface of the Earth, especially the GPS satellites.

This immediately proves the existence of ether: the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled, the orbital Sagnac effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites.


This is the main reason why relativists are abandoning Einstein's STR in favor of MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

So sorry to take so long, but there are more things to do than put quote miners in their rightful place.

Being a notorious liar (JackBlack) is perfectly consistent with being an ardent follower of one another notorious liar (Einstein).

No, Mr Cikljamas, neither JackBlack nor Einstein is another notorious liar.
That would be you for failing to investigate the Dayton Miller experiment in enough detail etc, etc.

And you keep your head perpetually buried in the sand to hide from all the more recent evidence, though Bradley, the MMX and MGPX should be enough.  

Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:

    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

Yes, "and the result decidedly negative" and "if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity."
And NO luminiferous aether and a constant velocity of light fit that perfectly well, which might be why Michelson accept Einstein's relativity.

Should i remind you once again to this example of human dishonesty :

No, but you will still falsely accuse Einstein!

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

No, because there was no "example of human dishonesty".
It was no more than a deficiency in the way Dayton Miller processed his data and there was a plethora of data before and after Dayton Miller that showed a null result!
Read, learn and inwardly digest: An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s  Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result, Thomas J. Roberts

“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.”

I'll not comment on the quote from ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT because I cannot find where and when he said it.

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And why should we believe Lincoln Barnett? He said "Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another."
That is a blatant lie!
The reality is that Michelson detected no motion of the Earth using the speed of two light beams against one another - and that is quite different.

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Once again you use deceptively edited quotes to bolster your deception! Let's look at all of what Albert A. Michelson wrote:Please explain why you excised the vital little bits:
        "of the phenomena of aberration which has been hitherto been accepted, and" then "through the ether the latter remaining at rest".

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)
“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.  The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple; worm ignorant people take for a king…its exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysics rather than scientists.” Nikola Tesla

So you try to use Nikola Tesla to prop up your pathetic model! Look what he wrote:

NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US

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

How do like them apples?

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.

True but then along came Michelson, Gale and Pearson and performed a similar measurement with a much larger apparatus and achieved far higher resolution.
They show that the earth did rotate.

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

That is total unadulterated rubbish! Michelson, himself, was a relativist and look at: The Propagation of Light in Rotating Systems L. Silberstein

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.

I said enough about stellar aberration in my previous post.

This means the maximum aberration you should ever get is atan(v/c).
Now, your own references indicate that you get an aberration of ~20 arc seconds.
The tan of 20 arc seconds gives us 0.00009696273=v/c.
That means v=0.00009696273*c=~0.00009696273*300000000=29088.8209577 m/s=~29 km/s.

Happy now?

So you have stellar aberration giving a minimum velocity of roughly 29 km/s, and MM giving a maximum velocity of less than 5 km/s.

This is an impossibility. 29 km/s is not less than 5 km/s.
This means the aether model is wrong.


(As a side note, this is also one way to calculate the distance to the sun. Assuming Earth orbits the sun, with a period matching the year, in a roughly circular orbit, then with the velocity obtained from stellar aberration we can calculate the circumference of Earth's orbit and thus the radius (distance to the sun).)

1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :

It was chiefly therefore Curiosity that tempted me (being then at Kew, where the Instrument was fixed) to prepare for observing the Star on December 17th, when having adjusted the Instrument as usual, I perceived that it passed a little more Southerly this Day than when it was observed before. James Bradley, 1727

Bradley’s interpretation, based on the Newtonian corpuscular concept of light, accounted quite well for the basic phenomenon of stellar aberration, but it requires us to believe that the velocity of light is remarkably constant from all sources in all circumstances. Indeed, commenting on the concordance between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons, Bradley wrote :

 These different Methods of finding the Velocity of Light thus agreeing, we may reasonably conclude, not only that these Phaenomena are owing to the Causes to which they have been ascribed; but also, that Light is propagated (in the same Medium) with the same Velocity after it hath been reflected as before; for this will be the Consequence, if we allow that the Light of the Sun is propagated with the same Velocity, before it is reflected, as the Light of the fixt Stars. And I imagine this will scarce be questioned, if it can be made appear that the Velocity of the Light of all the fixt Stars is equal, and that their Light moves or is propagated through equal Spaces in equal Times, at all Distances from them: both which points (as I apprehend) are sufficiently proved from the apparent alteration of the Declination of Stars of different Lustre; for that is not sensibly different in such Stars as seem near together, though they appear of very different Magnitudes. And whatever their Situations are, I find the same Velocity of Light from my Observations of small Stars of the fifth or sixth, as from those of the second and third Magnitude, which in all Probability are placed at very different Distances from us.

Now, let's see what "concordance" (between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons) are we talking about here :

As i have proven in my reply #138 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2121710#msg2121710 :



Ole Roemer's estimation for the speed of light (133 672 km/s) is in accordance with 88 223 522 km (the distance to the sun according to Ole Roemer's contemporaries Wendelin (1635) and Horrocks (1639) : 14000 earth's radii).

This estimation (88 000 000 km) for the distance to the sun delivers 18 km/s for the alleged speed of the earth.
However, if this alleged earth's orbital speed were true and 133 000 km/s (Roemer's estimation for the speed of light) were also true, then these two numbers (earth's orbital speed (18km/s) and Roemer's speed of light (133 000 km/s)) wouldn't match Bradley's 20,6'' stellar aberration.

So, what we have to do now (after Bradley discovered 20,6'' stellar aberration) in order to achieve (artificially produce) above mentioned alleged "concordance" (between the speed of light inferred from aberration and from Roemer’s method based on the Sun’s light reflected from Jupiter’s moons)?

First solution :

If we want to preserve Wendelin's and Horrocks estimation for the distance to the sun (88 000 000 km) then in order to achieve concordance between earth's orbital speed and the speed of light (so to preserve Bradley's 20,6'' aberration), we have to increase the value for the speed of light from 133 000 km/s to 180 000 km/s, but it means that we have to decrease Roemers 11 minutes for almost full 3 minutes (instead of 660 sec, we would have to say that Roemer was off for 171 seconds), which is too much.

Second solution :

If we accept Cassini's estimation (138 880 000 km), then we have to increase Roemer's estimation for the speed of light more than twice (from 133 672 km/s to 270 650 km/s), but in this case we will have to decrease Roemer's 11 minutes for 24 seconds less than in the first case, and that sounds somewhat better.

If (in a due time) it turns out that the speed of light is greater we will simply accommodate it by widening earth's orbit and decreasing Roemer's 11 minutes to a greater extent or the other way around : we will narrowing earth's orbit and decrease Roemer's 11 minutes to a lesser extent.

So, for example :

If it turned out that the speed of light is 250 000 km/s then earth's orbital speed would be 25 km/s (the distance to the sun would be 125 500 000 km), and Roemer's time would be 502 seconds.

If it turned out that the speed of light is 300 000 km/s then earth's orbital speed will be 30 km/s (the distance to the sun would be 150 000 000 km), and Roemer's time would be 500 seconds.

30 000 m / 300 000 000 m = 0,0001 (ctg) = 0,005729 * 3600  = 20,6''

25 000 m / 250 000 000 m = 0,0001 (ctg) = 0,005729 * 3600  = 20,6''

etc...

REVERSE ENGINEERING AT IT'S BEST !!!

Now, it's time to recall the following excerpt from Gerrard Hickson's book "Kings dethroned" :


"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 (SEE THE DIAGRAM BELOW) 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....." ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE IN MIND THAT IN THE 17th CENTURY OLE ROEMER HAD NOT CONCEIVED THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LIGHT TOOK NEARLY 8 1/2 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM THE SUN TO THE EARTH, SINCE THE TRUTH IS THAT HE CONCEIVED THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LIGHT TOOK FULL 11 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM THE SUN TO THE EARTH!!!

THE QUESTION : WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE WHO DETERMINED THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN?

THE ANSWER : THE SAME GUY WHO FIRST MEASURED THE EXACT SPEED OF LIGHT!!!

FOR WHOM THE BELLS RING???



2. The speed of the Earth / the speed of light = the angle of stellar aberration / the size of a radian,
where a radian is the angle in a circle / 2 π = 360 * 3600 / 6.28318531 = 206264.806, or
the speed of the Earth / the speed of light = the angle in seconds of arc / 206264.806

     Using the 20 arc-seconds observed by Bradley (the total change in stellar positions was 40 arc-seconds, but half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are on the other side of our orbit) in this equation, we find that the orbital velocity of the Earth is approximately one ten-thousandth of the speed of light. Given our present knowledge of the speed of light (186,400 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), the Earth's orbital velocity is hence measured as 18 1/2 miles or 30 kilometers per second.

If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable
extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we
have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the
picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux
took for granted.

If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican
truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash
with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.

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

3. 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.



Bradley analysis – dashed lines above  :  The middle telescope is tilted to see
the aberrated starlight.  When light moves through the telescope from A to D
the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D .  This determines the aberration
angle of tilt ,  arc tan( BD/AD).
Airy analysis – solid lines above:   With water added (left telescope), the light
travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c.
So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and
the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ).   Nice theory, but fails to
predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE
in the tilting required! 
The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the
‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of
air.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model,
where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection
occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in
space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest. 

GC ALFA analysis :  There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is
motionless.  The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B,
but there’s no sideways motion.  So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s
test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!

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.

4.
As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

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

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

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.

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

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

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

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

5.
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.

Case closed!

Let's put your word to the test.

Or we ignore absolute everything you say until you admit you were completely wrong regarding the Sagnac effect or you can back up your claims on it?
Remember, you are currently at the step of showing you understand how to figure out how long it takes light to propagate around a stationary loop.

Can you do that?

Until you do, anything else you say is just a pathetic distraction to avoid your complete failure.

1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :

It seems that is all you are capable of doing, distorting science.

Stop just providing a bunch of quote. Provide a rational argument yourself.

Your own reference agreed with the aberration I provided, which shows that Earth must be moving very quickly.

Again: Stellar aberration shows conclusively that if any aether exists Earth must be moving at a very high speed w.r.t. the aether. ~30 km/s.
MMX shows that if any aether exists Earth must be moving very slowly or not at all w.r.t. the aether, probably less than some speed, certainly less than some other. One of them is 5 km/s, and that is just based upon those old experiments.
But regardless, we have a contradiction here.

Earth can't be moving at 30 km/s while not even moving at 5 km/s.

It is a complete contradiction and a massive paradox anyone hoping to claim aether is real needs to deal with.

Until you deal with this paradox, honestly, by actually dealing with it, any other claim of yours regarding aether is just another lie. This is because this paradox and your constant refusal to respond to it shows that you know the aether model is garbage and thus any claim based upon the aether model is garbage.

Now either deal with it, or admit you are completely wrong and stop talking about the aether.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 08, 2018, 09:13:25 AM

1. STELLAR ABERRATION - REVERSE ENGINEERING - THE DISTORTION OF SCIENCE AT IT'S BEST :

It seems that is all you are capable of doing, distorting science.

Stop just providing a bunch of quote. Provide a rational argument yourself.

Your own reference agreed with the aberration I provided, which shows that Earth must be moving very quickly.

Again: Stellar aberration shows conclusively that if any aether exists Earth must be moving at a very high speed w.r.t. the aether. ~30 km/s.
MMX shows that if any aether exists Earth must be moving very slowly or not at all w.r.t. the aether, probably less than some speed, certainly less than some other. One of them is 5 km/s, and that is just based upon those old experiments.
But regardless, we have a contradiction here.

Earth can't be moving at 30 km/s while not even moving at 5 km/s.

It is a complete contradiction and a massive paradox anyone hoping to claim aether is real needs to deal with.

Until you deal with this paradox, honestly, by actually dealing with it, any other claim of yours regarding aether is just another lie. This is because this paradox and your constant refusal to respond to it shows that you know the aether model is garbage and thus any claim based upon the aether model is garbage.

Now either deal with it, or admit you are completely wrong and stop talking about the aether.

1. You are an utter idiot!

2. You've got no idea what causes stellar aberration.

3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2), not artificial one (like yours)) in my previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted since the total change in stellar positions is 40 arc-seconds, half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are allegedly on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are allegedly on the other side of our orbit. However, when holding on to your galactic conjectures, you are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way, so, in March when we were to moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.

4. MMX shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth.

5. Airy's failure shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth, also.

6. MGPX proved beyond reasonable doubt that the aether rotates once per day around the motionless earth.

7. Sagnac experiment proved that aether exists.

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

9. An open-loop Sagnac effect principally 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, however 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 such principally possible (but practically refuted) interpretation, an open-loop Sagnac effect must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

10. I have cited you Miller and Michelson so that you can't claim any more that they didn't measure any fringe shifts while conducting their experiments. It is almost irrelevant whether they detected any aether drift since their experiments were designed for measuring relative motion between earth and aether due to earth's alleged orbital motion, however since they were persistently reading aether drift (though much slower than expected), such results of their experiments (as well as many other interferometer experiments) additionally corroborate an existence of aether.

11. How come you haven't commented what has been revealed in number 1 - EXCLUSIVE PROOF OF A REVERSE ENGINEERING AND MASSIVE MANIPULATION AND FABRICATION WITH ASTRONOMICAL DATA (see my previous post)

12.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 22, 2018, 04:25:44 AM

An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :

I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.

Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.

H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should  be  taken  to  indicate  that  the  spontaneous  orientation  of  gyroscopes  and  the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).

"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.

"[W]e have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

"[Redshifts] 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" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time

"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature

"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006

"[Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss, 2009

"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck, 2011

"[R]ed shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe

"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe

"To date, there has been no general way of determining [that] we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008

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."

13. 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

Clearly the earth rotates relative to the sun.

1. You are an utter idiot!

Good job showing you have no argument and need to result to baseless insults.

3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2)

Your paradox relies upon the existence of aether (and baselessly asserted properties of it). This paradox shows aether can't exist, rendering your paradox infantile garbage.

Until you can show how to resolve the paradox of Earth needing to move and be stationary, you have nothing.
Trying to bring up other pathetic distractions wont help your case.
Insulting me just shows you have no case.

I know you were hoping I would be too ignorant to understand aberration and you could thus pretend the argument from aberration is false. But I showed that wasn't the case.
So now you are left with no option out other than pathetic insults and distractions.

Deal with the paradox or admit aether is BS before moving on.

1. You are an utter idiot!

But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo .

2. You've got no idea what causes stellar aberration.

Incorrect! I have a very good idea what causes stellar aberration.
By the way, as far as I know Bradley never attempted to estimate the velocity of light:

• James Bradley determined that  light must travel 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit - he did not determine the velocity of light.

3. I have proven (on the basis of real massive paradox (see number 2), not artificial one (like yours)) in my previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted since the total change in stellar positions is 40 arc-seconds, half of that is when the star goes one way, when we are allegedly on one side of our orbit, and half is when the star goes the other way, when we are allegedly on the other side of our orbit. However, when holding on to your galactic conjectures, you are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way, so, in March when we were to moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.

No, we "are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration" because there is no "steady 20”.5 stellar aberration"!
And from what I can see this is just another of your strawmen arguments! Stellar aberration varies from -20”.5 to +20”.5.

So no, you have NOT "proven in your previous post that heliocentric explanation for stellar aberration is totally refuted".

"The aberration of starlight, according to post-Copernican doctrine, " DO NOT "depend"  SIMPLY "on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light."

The  aberration of starlight depends on the change in direction of the earth's orbital velocity and not on any absolute velocity.
If the earth were directed towards, for example, Orion at one time it will be directed 180° away from Orion six months later.
And it is this change in velocity that causes stellar aberration.
There would be no possible way to determine any "aberration" due to any constant velocity of the earth.

Have  you forgotten this?

<<--  As pictured on the left: Stars at the ecliptic poles appear to move in circles, stars exactly in the ecliptic plane move in lines, and stars at intermediate angles move in ellipses. Shown here are the apparent motions of stars with the ecliptic latitudes corresponding to these cases, and with ecliptic longitude of 270°. The direction of aberration of a star at the northern ecliptic pole differs at different times of the year

Stellar aberration is not a constant angle but varies with an annual period.
Absolute uniform linear motion cannot be measured but changing motion, such as orbital or rotational motion can be measured.

So, Mr Cikljamas, you have no case.

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And why should we believe Lincoln Barnett?
            He said "Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another."
That is a blatant lie!
             The reality is that Michelson detected no motion of the Earth using . . . . . . . . .  - and that is quite different.

And Lincoln Barnett is wrong!
Stellar aberration, especially when binary stars are are considered,  provides ample that the earth orbits the sun at about 30 km/s.
And the MGP experiment, especially when considered with recent similar but far higher precision measurements verify the earth's rotation.

See: 

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

And note that it starts with:

Quote

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

The resolution is quite impressive.

Quote

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

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

And the result is:

Quote

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

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

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

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.

Stop ignoring all the evidence, old and more recent, that refutes your claims!

Quote from: cikljamas on December 08, 2018, 03:06:19 PM

1. You are an utter idiot!

But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo .

http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/James_Nickel.pdf



“I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one. . . . Humans are caught—in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too—in a net of good and evil. . . . There is no other story. A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions: Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well—or ill?”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden



In his later years —to his credit— Albert confessed his sins.
In 1948 he wrote :
“In  the course of my long life I have received from my fellow-men far more recognition than I deserve, and I confess that my sense of shame has always outweighed my pleasure therein."

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2018, 05:52:53 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on December 08, 2018, 03:06:19 PM

1. You are an utter idiot!

But cikljamas is smarter than every astronomer since Tycho Brahe and most scientists from and including Galileo .

<< Ignored until you deal with Bradley's Stellar Aberration properly! >>

The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.

But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.

I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion.

You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration! 

Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.

You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration! 

Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruđer 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!!! 111 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. 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.

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

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of
Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As
already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger
aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and
irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying
the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric
theory of an earth at rest. 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.

SO, BOŠKOVIĆ PROPOSED THIS METHOD OF VERIFICATION IN THE YEAR 1760. (LONG BEFORE ARAGO, FIZEAU, FRESNEL, HOEK, AND AIRY CAME TO THE SCENE) DURING HIS VISITATION TO LONDON.
WHY IS THIS HYSTORICAL FACT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE TODAY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PURPOSE OF AIRY'S FAILURE EXPERIMENT IS
TOTALLY DECEPTIVE. ALL MODERN ASTRONOMICAL TEXT-BOOKS CLAIM THAT AIRY'S FAILURE EXPERIMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
VERIFY IF AETHER IS COMPLETELY DRAGGED WITH THE EARTH. HOWEVER, SUCH HYPOTHESIS WAS PUT
FORWARD ONLY 85 YEARS LATER (AFTER BOŠKOVIĆ' VISITATION TO LONDON in 1760.) by George Stokes (1845) who assumed that the aether is completely dragged within and in the vicinity of matter, partially dragged at larger distances, and stays at rest in free space!!!

In 1810, François Arago realised that variations in the refractive index of a substance predicted by the corpuscular theory would provide a useful method for measuring the velocity of light. Arago attempted to measure the extent to which corpuscles of light would be refracted by a glass prism at the front of a telescope. He expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction due to the variety of different velocities of the stars and the motion of the earth at different times of the day and year. Contrary to this expectation he found that there was no difference in refraction between stars, between times of day or between seasons. All Arago observed was ordinary stellar aberration.

Then came Fizeau.

"But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected. The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth. Rather, the only effect on the speed of light Fizeau found was that which was induced by the water’s refractive index. This was quite a dilemma. On the one hand, it showed that light was affected by a medium (i.e., water), but on the other hand, the light was not being affected by the medium of ether, that is, its speed was not increased or decreased as it went through the ether."

Then Hoek.

"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.

To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."

SO, THE EXPERIMENTS THAT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY FIZEAU AND HOEK ADDITIONALLY PROVED THAT LIGHT PROPAGATES 1/3 SLOWER WHEN MOVING THROUGH WATER. IF THAT IS THE FACT, THEN WE CAN EVEN FORGET ALL DISPUTES REGARDING AETHER THEORY, SINCE WE ARE SOLELY INTERESTED NOW TO ESTABLISH WHETHER GEORGE B. AIRY IS GOING TO TIP HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE (SO TO STILL BE ABLE TO SEE GAMMA DRACONIS AFTER TIPPING HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE), OR NOT? IF HE WOULD HAVE TO TIP HIS TELESCOPE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE THEN IT WOULD BE PROVEN THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING THROUGH SPACE IN IT'S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN, IF NOT THEN THE EARTH IS AT REST, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AETHER EXISTS OR NOT. WHY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AETHER EXISTS OR NOT? BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY SCIENTIFICALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT THAT LIGHT TRAVELS THROUGH WATER AT 2/3 OF IT'S VELOCITY THROUGH AIR.

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :

”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”

In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.” His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.

Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

[pathetic distractions removed]

I notice that no where in there do you address the massive paradox you have to deal with, nor did you admit the ather model was wrong.

Again, if the aether model of light propagation is true then stellar aberration demands a speed of Earth w.r.t. the aether of roughly 30 km/s, while the MM experiment demands it must be less than 5 km/s.

This is a direct contradiction.
Both statements cannot be true at once.

Now quit with the pathetic distractions and instead deal with this massive paradox.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 09, 2018, 04:15:03 AM

You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration! 

Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruđer 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!!! 111 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. 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.

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

I could not care less who Ruđer Bošković was. I don't doubt he's all you say he is but we do not rely on just the results of James Bradley or George Airy but on all the more recent data on stellar aberration.

I meant what I said in:

The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.

But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.

I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion.

You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration! 

Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 09, 2018, 03:39:12 AM

[pathetic distractions removed]

[pathetic distractions removed]

No, you are wrong.
Stop lying.

Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :

Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon: EIFFEL TOWER PROOF, odiupicku

No! That is quite irrelevant to the topic! If you want to discuss lunar missions make a new thread!
Most of that video is just baseless conjecture from someone who seems to have no idea about physics or perspective and where is this "earth's rotation from the moon"?
And Martin D Metdubbelss had the same opinion as I do! 

4 hours ago
the pic on 5:55 is probably not a genuine NASA picture 

In the meantime, I won't waste my time until you give the NASA source of this "photo".And here is a link to a high-resolution version: The Lunar Registry, Moon Rover and Earth (Photo) and I refuse to respond any further to that video in this thread.

I meant what I said in:

The way the Stellar Aberration varies over the year and with latitude provide solid evidence that the orbits earth the sun with an orbital velocity of about 30 km/s.

But as "icing on the cake" the Stellar Aberration from binary stars is further evidence (as if it's needed) that Stellar Aberration is due the the orbital motion of the earth and not the motion of the stars.

I do hope that you read this carefully: Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion.

You're getting nothing out of me until you face up to you deal with Stellar Aberration! 

Either give a valid geocentric explanation that explains all observed phenomena or run away and hide your head - your choice.

Look, Mr Cikljamas, stick to the one topic and sort that out first.

Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :



EDIT : I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :

1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

<<  Totally irrelevant to the current topic, which seems be the earth's motion and even irrelevant to "The distortion of science ". >>

Have you totally lost the ability to read? Remember this?

No! That is quite irrelevant to the topic! If you want to discuss lunar missions make a new thread!
Most of that video is just baseless conjecture from someone who seems to have no idea about physics or perspective and where is this "earth's rotation from the moon"?
And Martin D Metdubbelss had the same opinion as I do! 

Quote from: Martin D Metdubbelss

4 hours ago
the pic on 5:55 is probably not a genuine NASA picture 

In the meantime, I won't waste my time until you give the NASA source of this "photo".

And here is a link to a high-resolution version: The Lunar Registry, Moon Rover and Earth (Photo) and I refuse to respond any further to that video in this thread.
Look, Mr Cikljamas, stick to the one topic and sort that out first.

If you want a thread on lunar missions start a new one!

I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :

1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)

Airy's failure experiment was no more a failure than the MGX,  both returned a NULL result in detecting earth's motion through the luminiferous aether. Though even there the expected results depended on what aether theory was subscribed to.

2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)

No it isn't necessary at all. How many times does that have be hammered home?
Stellar aberration and stellar parallax are not affected by any uniform motion of the solar system.

Stellar aberration depends on the changing velocity  and stellar parallax depends the changing position of the earth as it orbits the sun.

3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

I do not agree.
Your "geocentric parallax" would show no "stellar aberration" for Polaris but in reality Polaris has the same a magnitude aberration as any other star.
Unless you can prove otherwise your "geocentric parallax" would seem be zero for stars near the celestial poles and a maximum at the equator.
But this is not observed.
My explanations are too simplistic, so I've added this:

---

Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion
. . . . . . .
Sungenis thinks that the eccentricity of the form of stellar aberration (varying between a circle at one extreme and a straight line at the other) depends on where on Earth the observation is made:

If one observes the stars at a 45º celestial latitude, he will see each of the stars form ellipses over a year’s period. The eccentricity of the ellipse will increase the greater one’s distance from the North Pole. If one observes from the equatorial plane, one will see the stars form an acute hyperbola or even a horizontal line (GWW1, 11th ed., p. 150f.)

This is a grotesque misunderstanding of the phenomenon. In fact, the form of the aberration is a circle for stars at the ecliptic pole, a straight line for stars on the ecliptic plane and an ellipse for stars lying between, where the eccentricity of the ellipse depends on the latitude of the star in ecliptic co-ordinates. The form of the aberration is independent of where on Earth the observation is made – this is a fundamental blunder on Sungenis’s part. And where he gets the idea that any of these motions form a hyperbola is anyone’s guess – that’s wrong too.

---

By the way some have tried to suggest that "relativity" means that a geocentric stationary earth is as equivalent to a heliocentric one.
But this is "Mach's pinciple" and not "General Relativity" and Einstein realised NE had to discard that.

Also I  asked you for the official NASA source of your earth, Lunar Rover, moon photo.
If it does not come soon I might have an unpleasant little gift for you.

Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
ROVER-PICTURE

Your picture should be labelled: "Composite ROVER-PICTURE from Apollo 15 and Earth from Apollo 16"!

Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? .
I am not accusing you of faking any evidence only of using a photo without checking its provenance and I accept that you used it in good faith.
But please if you are going to attack NASA so viciously you must be sure of your evidence.

From what I can see the photo is a composite made by someone "in the media" to "look good" - that's what they do.

But you are an idiot if you think you could ever catch NASA out on simple things that you stick in your videos.
All I saw was guesswork and conjecture from someone who does not understand the issues involved.

For example, the LM is criticised for not "looking good" and most people think "good" for a flying machine is sleek and streamlined.
      But the LM was never designed to fly in the atmosphere but in a near vacuum where the is no air resistance!
Then people say that it doesn't look strong enough and it wasn't strong enough for use in earth's gravity  -  it was designed for ¹/₆g.
      It was, however, drop tested, etc because it had to withstand the launch stresses.
As it was there was a great problem getting the LM mass down so any unnecessary piece was removed - but some don't have the common sense to understand these things.

But NASA, the lunar missions and space travel are near enough to irrelevant to the main issue of geocentric vs heliocentric universe.

Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :

I notice rather than provide any solution to the paradox you try yet another distraction.

Again, stellar aberration shows Earth is moving at roughly 30 km/s relative to the aether. MM shows it isn't. How is this solved in the aether model?

Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :



EDIT : I read that article a week ago, however, i explained why their arguments boil down to nothing in my previous posts. They are challenging dr Sungenis (his geocentric explanation for "stellar aberration"), and i don't think dr Sungenis took appropriate approach to this problem. The appropriate approach is this :

1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

Rather than presenting a rather dubious mish mash of moon YouTube fakery how about you give us some of your evidence. It’s too easy to mess around with video and produce all sorts of fake nonsense.

How about you present some of your hard evidence to support your beliefs of a flat earth that we can examine in detail.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 10, 2018, 04:47:41 PM

3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

Rather than presenting a rather dubious mish mash of moon YouTube fakery how about you give us some of your evidence. It’s too easy to mess around with video and produce all sorts of fake nonsense.

How about you present some of your hard evidence to support your beliefs of a flat earth that we can examine in detail.

Possibly I shamed cikljamas so much with proof that part of his video was based on a composite photo that he won't show his face for a while.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 10, 2018, 04:47:41 PM

Rabinoz, you can listen very interesting analysis of some other aspects of this photo (as well as many other very interesting informations that totally disclose "Apollo dupery" - the greatest hoax of 20th century) here :
ROVER-PICTURE

Your picture should be labelled: "Composite ROVER-PICTURE from Apollo 15 and Earth from Apollo 16"!

Please read: Why do lunar landing deniers post deceptive photos? .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But NASA, the lunar missions and space travel are near enough to irrelevant to the main issue of geocentric vs heliocentric universe.

Not only that but his claim in the following is easily refuted:

3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

There is hope for cikljamas though. He used to be a flat-earther but convinced himself that there really is curvature so.

1. Airy's failure experiment (real purpose and true results)
2. Sun centered universe is what you need to develop before you can hope that your HC explanation for "stellar aberration" could be taken seriously by any informed intelligent person (let alone dealing with everything else that i revealed to you in a few last posts within this thread)
3. "Stellar aberration" is not stellar aberration at all, it is a geocentric parallax.

I know it was addressed to Rab, but it has some implications for our discussion as well.
1 - Airy's failure. The purpose has been variously stated as many things, including testing if Earth was stationary with the aether moving or the aether stationary with Earth moving, or as a more general test of the aether model. But in reality is is nothing more than testing Klinkerfues idea that stellar aberration should change. It relies upon contradictory properties of the aether.
The real important part is stellar aberration itself.
2 - Irrelevant nonsense, only applicable if aether was real. Under relativity it doesn't matter if the sun is the centre of the universe or not. All that matters is that Earth orbits the sun.
3 - Geocentric parallax makes no sense other than between 2 points on Earth, what I think you mean is a claimed real motion of the stars, which is pure insanity. You are suggesting all the stars are in on a massive conspiracy to make it look like Earth orbits the sun, by themselves moving to the positions they would be expected to be viewed in if Earth orbited the sun.
Unless you can provide a rational justification for this isane idea the result remains the same, the phenomenon of stellar aberration shows that Earth orbits the sun at a speed of roughly 30 km/s, and if any aether exists, it must be moving relative to the Earth at roughly 30 km/s.

Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :

I know how about you present some evidence that supports your beliefs. I think that’s a much better idea than all this Moon nonsense.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 10, 2018, 12:12:48 PM

Rabinoz, binary stars you say...hm...i've got a better idea : how about watching earth's rotation from the moon :

I know how about you present some evidence that supports your beliefs. I think that’s a much better idea than all this Moon nonsense.

You mean, something like this :



Or something like this :
The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was
of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have
expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley. We suspect this to be
the case since interviews with Einstein show that he was more concerned
with the results of experiments performed about 10-50 years earlier.
Robert Shankland’s interview with Einstein reveals the details:

Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had
been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of
moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical
aberration, especially Airy’s observations with a water-filled
telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Why would the “Fizeau experiment” and “especially Airy’s
observations with a water-filled telescope,” cause such consternation in
the mind of Einstein? Very simply, Armand Fizeau and George Biddell
Airy’s experiments are two of the foremost evidences of a motionless
Earth ever produced by man. Einstein’s contemporary, Hendrik
Lorentz , stated quite succinctly that these experiments put unbridled fear
into the science establishment. In remarking on those same experiments
Lorentz wrote this astounding admission: “Briefly, everything occurs as
if the Earth were at rest...”

Eventually, it would take the full force of Relativity theory and its attendant
Lorentzian-derived “transformation equations” to make even an attempt at
explaining the amazing results of Fizeau, Airy and various stellar aberration
experiments.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was merely a desperate effort, using more
sophisticated equipment, to overturn Fizeau and Airy’s findings, but as
noted above, it failed to do so.

Einstein’s biographer probably didn’t even know this history
when he wrote that, after the Michelson-Morley experiment, men were
faced with the possibility of “scuttling the whole Copernican theory.”
Unlike Einstein, most such biographers have fixated on the cart but were
rather oblivious to the horse. All in all, we can say this much for
Einstein: although his theories were certainly fantastic to the point of
absurdity, at least he was smart enough to know from whence his
opposition came. In the battle for the cosmos, the unexpected results of
the Fizeau and Airy experiments had already put modern science on trial,
but since they both produced anti-Copernican results, the clarion call to
the courtroom was not being trumpeted to the rest of the world. For the
rest of his career Einstein would do everything in his power to stop it
from sounding. As van der Kamp has stated: “Yes, I think I understand
the sentiment motivating him. If we cannot prove what we a priori
‘know’ to be true [a moving Earth], then we have to find a reason why
such a proof eludes us .” And thus was born the theory of Relativity.

All claims that the Earth is moving  based on stellar aberration are presumptuous,
since from Airy’s experiment it has been proven that the necessity of tilting
a telescope to catch all of a star’s light is due to a fixed Earth in a moving star system,
not a moving Earth in a fixed star system.
 
Interestingly enough, the type of experiment Airy performed was suggested more than a
century earlier in 1766 by Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711-1787), a Jesuit
astronomer, and again by Fresnel in 1818, which may have been the source of Airy’s
idea. In 1746 Boškovic published a study on the elliptical orbits of the planets based
on the Copernican system (De Determinanda Orbita Planeta ope catoptrica, Rome
1749). He published a second edition in 1785 ( Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et
Astronomiam, Bassan, 1785). Perhaps if Boškovic had had the good fortune to
perform an Airy-type experiment, he might have thought twice about adopting the
Copernican system.

When one reads Einstein’s works there appears to be no
ostensible concern that these experiments could “scuttle the whole
Copernican theory,” nevertheless, there is an undercurrent in his writings
that he is indeed cognizant of such implications yet does his best not to
alarm the world.

Relativity theory, by its very nature, is especially susceptible to
anti-Copemican interpretations, since for everything that Relativity
claims for itself in the way of a moving Earth in a fixed universe can
easily be “relativized” for a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. In fact,
stellar aberration was indeed a major concern of Einstein’s for that very
reason, since Relativity theory, in principle, demands equal viability for
both of the aforementioned perspectives. 492 Einstein’s concern was
justified. As we will see, Airy’s experiment threw a wrench into the
reciprocity of Relativity, for it demonstrated that it really does make a
difference whether the Earth is moving or at rest in regards to how light
from a star travels through a telescope mounted on the Earth.
Consequently, Einstein could not “relativize” the results of Airy’s
experiment, since stellar aberration provided a distinstion he could not
readily overcome. Consequently, Einstein would be forced to resort to
the ad hoc “field transformation” equations of Henrick Lorentz to answer
Airy’s results; and although others didn’t voice their opinions too loudly
for fear of being ostracized, everyone knew that Einstein’s efforts were
just mathematical fudge factors. There was one inescapable fact that
Airy’s telescope was revealing: barring any mathematical fudging, Earth
was standing still and the stars were revolving around it, not vice-versa.