HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

I thought that the topic, YOUR topic, was "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)".

You have made no sensible rebuttals to the arguments against your claims hence I assume that you now admit the Lunar Landings were not a hoax and that Rockets can really fly in a vacuum

So now maybe, instead of turning this into a general fishing expedition, it might be a good idea to make a new thread that is really about geocentrism.

But since you've raised it:

R.Sungenis: Of course, since we see that Mr. MacAndrew didn’t get past page 263 in his reading of GWW, he is prone to make his own straw man to beat up. If he read toward the end of Volume 1, and into Volume 2, he would have found out why I say these things. (But in MacAndrew’s world it is better to jump to conclusions and name‐call your opponent than read his notes). 

We know that the Planck aether reacts with EM activity because we see fringe shifts in all the interferometer experiments, particularly the 1887 and 1925 Michelson experiments (something that neither SRT or GRT can answer, since the fringe shifts discredit both SRT and GRT). Fringe shifts mean that something is interacting with the light beams. In fact, the very reason the light beams move at 3 x 10^8 m/s is because that is the only speed allowed in the Planck medium (unless the Planck medium is altered in some way, as it is when it has more tension). 

As for gravity and the Planck aether, since the density of the Planck aether is so great (10^94g/cm^3) it can:

(1) penetrate all baryonic matter. But since it cannot replace baryonic  matter,  the baryonic/Planck combination (as occurs, for example, in a typical planet) will create a huge vacuum against the pure Planck aether in space. This vacuum will attempt to compensate by pulling in any object that has less of a baryonic/Planck combination (less because it is smaller than the planet), and this is what we understand as gravity.

(2) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the gravity speed problem (Einstein limited gravity to c because of the demands of his SRT, but that slow speed for gravity simply doesn’t work). In a Planck aether universe, the speed of gravity is practically unlimited. Since the Planck aether is so dense, it can carry longitudinal waves or compression waves over the entire universe in a split second (about 10^‐11 seconds).

(3) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the “action‐at‐a‐distance” problem of Newton’s physics, as well as the problem of “entanglement.”  Newton had the problem that his theory of gravity required non‐locality, that is, gravity had to act upon objects instantaneously that were huge distances apart. This problem is solved by the instantaneous speed of gravity allowed by a Planck aether. In “entanglement” an electron in one place has a coupling with an electron in a different place. This instantaneous communication between electrons is allowed by the Planck aether. 

That sounds like total guesswork about nothing more than a hypothesis.

You might not bother to but others might read the following. Whatever you might claim, I'd suggest Dr. Alec MacAndrew's understanding of physics leaves that of Robert Sungenis for dead!

Geocentrism Debunked: Aether, Springs, and Light: Physics Blunders in Galileo Was Wrong
1 Introduction
I sometimes browse Mr Robert Sungenis’s Facebook page here, the one called Ask Robert Sungenis about Geocentrism, because the spectacle of a man virtually devoid of education in science giving absurd answers to earnest scientific questions posed by his undiscerning admirers can be very funny.

As it is on the Facebook page here^[1], where Sungenis answered a question about the propagation of light in a “rotating universe”. There is much wrong with his reply, which we’ll get to later, but one very elementary mistake jumped out at me. His reply depends on the existence of a speculative medium, the “geocentric aether”, which he invented and which he believes is needed for the propagation of light. He claimed, among other things, that the speed of light depends on the tension in the aether (don’t worry, we’ll come back later to these claims about how light travels) and he provided an analogy for how he thinks this works.

<< Read the rest to see how laughably wrong Robert Sungenis is in simple physics. >>

Only someone who had no understanding of physics could be fooled by the ideas put forward by Robert Sungenis.
Those interested might like to read Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org

For a start a Geocentric Solar System is completely impossible even under simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation - but you never understood them anyway, did you?
If you disagree, please calculate the centripetal acceleration needed hold the moon in an orbit where it rotates about the earth once in about 24.8 hours.
Then explain what mechanism supplies that necessary centripetal acceleration.

In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM ».
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.

I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!

[1] Ask Robert Sungenis About Geocentrism: This post has been removed or could not be loaded. - I wonder why Robert Sungenis removed it ?

The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.

The bottom line is this :

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

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

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.

Enter Albert Einstein . To save the world from having to
reconnect itself with the Middle Ages, Einstein set his mind to finding an
explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment . Most people don’t
realize, and even less would admit it, but Relativity was created for one
main reason: so that mankind would not be forced to admit that Earth
was standing still in space. As his contemporary, Max von Laue stated:

Thus, a new epoch in physics created a new mechanics... it
began, we might say, with the question as to what effect the
motion of the Earth has on physical processes which take place
on the Earth... we can assign to the dividing line between
epochs a precise date: It was on September 26, 1905, that
Albert Einstein’s investigation entitled “On the
Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion” appeared in the Annalen
der Physik.

In fact, Einstein would be called “a new Copernicus.”
Unbeknownst to the world, however, Einstein’s explanation would not
only require a total revamping of science, it would necessitate the
acceptance of what The Times of London called “an affront to common
sense,” forcing his fellow man to accept principles and postulates that
heretofore would have been considered completely absurd. Einstein
would require men to believe that matter shrunk in length and increased
in mass when it moved, that clocks slowed down, that two people could
age at different rates, that space was curved, that time and space would
meld into one, and many other strange concepts. But in the end, as we
will see unfold before us in a most ironic drama, what Einstein’s Special
Relativity took away with the left hand, his General Relativity restored
ten years later with the right hand.

So no, GC and HC are not equally correct.
HC works with the current laws of physics and has explanation for things.
GC relies upon pure magic, with no actual explanations.

1. “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint  practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach
 
“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor  revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...” Physicist, Julian Barbour

"We 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

“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*

2. Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time.
How can it do so when so many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.)
are  impeding  its  rotation?Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate
by 6 minutes in the last few years. 

Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally? Geocentrism has a much better
explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that
a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at
the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the
claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism
can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since
all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

*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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Case closed!

Get use to this :

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

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

 ”Not true,” the theorists will object, “such out-dated reasoning in
a space knowing place cuts no ice with us. Relativity has no
difficulty with that kind of supposed contradiction.” I dare to
differ. Their Einsteinian panacea, foreshadowed by the
prevarications of Fresnel's “We cannot decide,” Lorentz's “We
cannot measure,” and Poincaré's “We cannot observe" is mere
eyewash.

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

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

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

Quote from: cikljamas on April 28, 2019, 08:46:16 AM

3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :

GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

Quote from: Macarios on March 23, 2018, 06:35:43 PM

If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

Quote from: Macarios on March 23, 2018, 06:35:43 PM

If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

Now if you change his number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get even worse (for you) result (greater discrepancy = smaller number for HC scenario) than i got in the following calculation :

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :

3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)

CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h

CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851

THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123

So, what do you have to say on this???

Nothing!

No wonder!!!

Quote from: cikljamas on April 29, 2019, 03:54:46 AM

P.S. Rabinoz, Jack, you are such a great comedians, but you are no match to this guy :

Still nothing of value, I see. 

Well, since you are keeping your head in the send, then obviously you can't see shit.

1. Have you ever seen this before :

Quote from: cikljamas on November 23, 2018, 05:31:13 PM

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.

But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.

1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :

If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity. 

2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :

This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.

3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :

This is utter nonsense, and here is why :

A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could   
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.

PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)

B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.

PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.

C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).

PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.

ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).

ACCOMPANYING POST : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2126528#msg2126528

2. Have you ever seen this :

The original experiment of Michelson and Morley was performed in 1887 in order to confirm the theory that says earth exists in an unseen sea of pre-matter called the aether, and that the daily rotation of the earth around itself and the constant travel of the earth around Sol, our sun, would expose any instrument on the earth's surface to what was called an "aether wind". The concept is that the aether, conceived as the medium that allows light waves to travel from one point in the cosmos to another, would influence the measurement of the length of a path of light, depending on whether the path is in line with the expected "wind" or is oriented perpendicular to it.

The experiment did not find the expected result but rather than looking for a reason the aether wind might not be measurable in this way, the idea of there being an aether in the first place was questioned. Einstein then declared that an aether was "not necessary", and since Einstein's theories gained widespread acceptance, any further investigation into the subject of the aether was relegated to the fringes of science.

Many attempts have been made to explain why the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus of Michelson and Morley was improper for showing the aether wind, but no one has repeated the experiment in a different setting.

Now recently Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video that was uploaded on YouTube:



In Einstein's own words ..

“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

“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.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

3. Have you ever seen this :


---First of all, it is inconsistent with the aberration of fixed stars (as we know, during a year the stars describe a small ellipse on the background of the sky. This effect cannot occur if the aether is fully dragged by the Earth).

---Secondly, the experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson and Gale in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation).

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

---It appears rather amazing that the "correct relativistic interpretation" of the Sagnac effect took eight years. A seemingly obvious reason is that Sagnac's experiment was not very much discussed in the scientific literature, even in France after the discovery of 1913. Conscious of this situation, in 1919, Sagnac published five papers on his work in the Comptes rendus. The paradox is that his ideas were nevertheless borne by a French group of strong antirelativists. In 1919, Sagnac was even rewarded with the Pierson–Perrin Prize for his achievements on this topic (first for the experiment, seen as a rebuttal of the relativity principle, the constancy of light, and also for having proven the reality of absolute space and time).

Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. (two years after Sagnac had conducted his famous, decisive experiment). Isn't that interesting???

4. Have you ever seen this :

Louis Essen, PhD (1908-1997) was a prominent English physicist who is mostly known for his invention of the atomic clock in 1955.  In 1988, he wrote that he rejected relativity theory because:

1) "Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors," 
2) "Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists,"
3) "Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand close scrutiny."

One example of such dubious experimental evidence usually passed off as evidence in support of relativistic time dilation is the famous Hafele-Keating  (H & K) experiment of 1972, where four atomic clocks were flown around the world in commercial airliners, first westward, then eastward. Their result  allegedly supported Larmor time dilation. Such was relativist propaganda anyway.

This experiment has since been cited by over one thousand physics text books, professional journal articles, encyclopedia and Wikipedia articles, papers, etc, as scientific proof of Poincare-Lorentz relativity theory, or more commonly, “Einstein's theory of relativity” although he was still in high school when Larmor developed this idea. And for their alleged contribution to modern science, Hafele and Keating were nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics.
   
However, Irish engineer Alphonsus G. (Al) Kelly, PhD obtained H&K's original experimental data from the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC.  This he meticulously and competently analyzed. He also researched the type of atomic clocks they used and discussed his findings in a 1995 paper and in a12-page appendix to his Challenging Modern Physics (2005) wherein he concluded:

1. Atomic clocks are very sensitive, certainly when it comes to measuring a few nanoseconds (billionths of a second). The atomic clocks used in this experiment were not of sufficient stability to support the conclusions drawn.  Dr. Louis Essen (1908-1997), the British physicist who invented the atomic clock in 1955, similarly commented on this experiment that, “the clocks were not sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted.”
2.The clocks suffered considerable alterations in performance.
3.These alterations were greater than the net effect forecast by the experimenters.
4.The experimenters made undisclosed alterations to the raw data. This was tanamount to fabricating new data that would add up to the predicted values. That is to say, published data were fraudulent and bore no relation to the actual experimental results, with intention to add up to the predictions that were published before the experiment was conducted.

Thus this experiment may have been the biggest hoax in modern science history, and took place under the supervision of a U.S. government agency.

Canadian science researcher, Walter Babin (b.  1934) has a website where he publishes the General Science Journal, wherein he has published his knowledgeable and persuasive paper "An Analysis of the Theoretical Foundations of Special Relativity," among others, as well as thousands of papers by hundreds of other authors, mostly dissident scientists.

Like many competent scientists and science researchers of integrity before him, Babin discusses Einstein's mathematical and other errors and persuasively concludes that the special theory of relativity is null and invalid.


Einstein's theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy, and represents the worst of science : how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists? jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

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."

5. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :

You forgot number 4.

4. Let’s consider  aether doesn’t exist.


Why did you omit this?

Because aether exists.



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

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

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

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

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

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.

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, according to Einstein : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!

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.

If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley :

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Miller’s work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having “proved the ether did not exist”.

While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no “outsider”. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.

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

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

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

Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years. Michelson and a few others of the period took Miller's work seriously, but Einstein and his followers appeared to view Miller only as a threat, something to be "explained away" as expeditiously as possible. Einstein in fact was catapulted into the public eye following the end of World War II. Nuclear physics was then viewed as heroic, and Einstein fast became a cultural icon whose work could not be criticized. Into this situation came the Shankland team, with the apparent mission to nail the lid down on Miller's coffin. In this effort, they nearly succeeded.

6. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :

Quote from: cikljamas on April 16, 2019, 03:06:52 PM

However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.

And that will be no different to doing so in the HC model.
You will still get a difference of 1 day.

In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Ask Alpha2Omega if you don't believe me!

To read before bed (a gift from above) :

As one can see, the shell game of modem science continued and Lorentz
became its premier magician, all in an effort to avoid having to admit to
the audience the possibility that the Earth was standing still in space.

The issue was further obfuscated when physicists began creating
different responses to explain the “contraction” solution. At one point
Lorentz held:

“Yes, it is as real as anything we can observe,” to which
Sir Arthur Eddington retorted, “We say it contracts; but length is not a
property of the rod; it is a relation between the rod and the observer .”
 
At another time Eddington said:

“The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true .”

In one of his more sober moments, however, he added:

“...it was like the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s
adventures in Wonderland.”

Albert Michelson didn’t buy it either. To him the Lorentz solution was artificial,
mainly because the so-called contraction was independent of the elastic property
inherent in the interferometer itself, as in, for example, the resilience of a
tennis ball returning to its original shape after it is struck.

He writes of Lorentz’s proposal:

“Such a conclusion seems so improbable that one is inclined to return to
the hypothesis of Fresnel and try to reconcile in some other way
the ‘negative result’ [of the Michelson-Morley experiment].”
Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, New York, MacMillian
Company and Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 33-34, emphasis his.

At other points Lorentz admitted he was uncertain. In 1904 he stated:

It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward
with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account
for all well-established facts, it leads to some consequences
that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these
is that the result of Michelson’ s experiment must remain negative...

The experiments of which I have spoken are not the only
reason for which a new examination of the problems connected
with the motion of the Earth is desirable... in order to explain
Michelson’ s negative result, the introduction of a new
hypothesis has been required... Surely this course of inventing
special hypotheses for each new experimental result is
somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were
possible to show by means of certain fundamental
assumptions ...

Notice that Lorentz is concerned with “problems connected with
the motion of the Earth,” which tells us that the fear of being forced to
accept the “unthinkable” immobile Earth was the basis upon which his
ad hoc solution was determined. Reading between the lines we know that
Lorentz was concerned with the fact that, if he could not come up with a
convincing explanation to Michelson-Morley, he and the rest of the
world would be in for a great embarrassment. Undaunted, Lorentz put
the contraction theory of Fitzgerald into a mathematical formula and the
equation eventually became world famous. Known as the “Lorentz
Transformation,” it is still employed by many scientists today for almost
any problem having to do with dismissing the possibility that Earth is
motionless in space .

As Arthur Miller explains it, hoping to give it some respectability: “Lorentz (1886)
used Huygens’ principle and Fresnel’s hypothesis to deduce the velocity of light that
traversed a medium of refractive index N that was at rest where the source could have
been either on the Earth or in the ether [which] explained Arago’s experiment and an
equivalent one by George Biddell Airy. Lorentz continued (1886), by noting that from
the viewpoint of the geocentric system we could say that ‘the waves are entrained by
the ether’ according to the amount -v/N 2 . For consistency with the nomenclature of the
time Lorentz defined v r as the velocity of the ‘relative ray’ and c/N as the velocity of
the ‘absolute ray.’ For example, in order to view the light from a fixed star, a telescope,
or a system of aligned slits, at rest on the Earth had to be oriented in the direction of the
relative ray because the relative ray was the direction in which energy was
transported. . ..On the other hand, an observer at rest in the ether measured the velocity
of the light that was propagating through the medium at rest on the moving Earth to be
c' = M r + v. ..Lorentz noted that the ether-fixed observer could interpret [c' = u T + v] as
the ‘entrainment of the light waves by the ponderable matter” {Albert Einstein 's Special
Theory of Relativity, pp. 19-20).

Of course, even Einstein could see through this hodgepodge of ad hoc explanations,
politely calling them “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena,”
in his 1905 Annalen der Physik article. In the end, Lorentz was forced to admit:
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays
were the absolute rays” {ibid., p. 20).
Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 120.


Other confusing statements include Wolfgang Pauli’s:

“It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of
a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods
moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle
observable” (Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-
13);

and Herman Minkowski’s:

“This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be
looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind,
but simply as a gift from above, - as an accompanying circumstance of
the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity :
A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory > of
Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W.
Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p.
81).

7. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :

And this quote:

"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

Here again, you have taken it right out of context. For a start Edwin Hubble did not write, "Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe".
He wrote, "Such a condition would imply that we occupy . . . . " and the "Such a condition" obviously was "a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions" and not "Redshifts".
:

Quote

The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

And note he that did not simply say, "This hypothesis cannot be disproved" but said "The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."

The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome?!?!?!?!
Really? And because it is unwelcome we are going to reject it!
But the question is this :
1. Why such hypothesis is unwelcome?
2. How can you justify rejecting such hypothesis on the basis that it is unwelcome hypothesis? Science should be ideologically neutral/indifferent/unbiassed discipline, shouldn't it? Since modern science is ideologically determined it is no longer science!

You might read, Misquoting Hubble by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on September 26, 2018
And this might be relevant too, Geocentric gobbledegook: A review of The Earth is not Moving by Marshall Hall, Fair Education Foundation, Cornelia, Georgia, 1991 by Danny Faulkner

You might read this :


As for your HC holly grail (Stupidity known as Theory of Relativity, so called : An affront to common sense) :

Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?[/quote]
Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference![/quote]

1. If, with General Relativity, Einstein had attempted to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of Physics ought to be the same in inertial and non-inertial, or revolving, frames of reference, why should inertial frames be unable to optically measure their translation, but non-inertial frames be able to measure their rotation?  The question is all the more poignant as Newton's Law of Gravitation was easily deduced from Kepler's Laws of Planetarian Translation, but remained disconnected from planetarian rotation. Yet, the circular-Galilean or elliptico-Keplerian motion of the planets must be considered to be just as much a form of angular motion as planetary rotation is.

Because Relativity, in its restricted form, had largely discarded the problem of rotation from consideration of the null effect of the MM-type experiments, it could appear to be consistent with both electromagnetic detectability of rotation and undetectability of translation, and thus appear to withstand not only  this  contradiction  but  also  its  ambivalence  with  regard  to  the  detectability  or undetectability of rotation!

The ensuing confusion amongst physicists was so deep, that the results of the MGP experiment could advantageously be seen to confirm Einstein's Relativity with respect to rotational motion, irrespective of the outcome of the experiment (!) - and just as well appeared to confirm the adequacy of Michelson's method to detect the rotary deflection predicted by aether theory.  While Relativity was satisfied with the negative result with respect to translation, it was nearly indifferent to the results obtained with respect to rotation.

This  ambiguous situation was reflected in the ranks of relativists. Those who believed that the positive result from the MGP experiment was significant, like Silberstein, would argue that all it proved was that "the earth rotates in its axis", and those who believed that the result was non-significant, like A. Compton, would conclude that the earth's rotation had no effect on the speed of light and that the MGP experiment had definitely disproved the aether-drag hypothesis and confirmed Relativity. The latter view has today become the accepted one, and most discussions of the speed of light tests ignore the MGP experiment and feel justified in doing so. 

Jaffe, in his book, "Michelson and the speed of light", gives the matter one paragraph in which he does not even report the findings.
However, at the time, in 1925, the lines were not yet drawn in the sand, and the perplexed and ambivalent state of physicists and relativists alike was translated by the famous New York Times headline of January 9, 1925 - "Michelson Proves Einstein Theory - Ether-Drift is Confirmed - Rays found to travel at different speeds when sent in opposite directions"!!

The paradox could not have been greater.

A. Compton was ultimately correct - if the results of the MGP experiment are, or were, to be considered significant, they could never be seen as proving Einstein's theory.  What was consistent with Mach's principle was the complete inability of an observer to detect either his rotation or his translation by optical reference to a fixed aether.  Hence, for A. Compton, the MGP experiment presented a non-significant phase difference and therefore confirmed Relativity because there was no aether-drag that could or should be invoked. 

With the triumph of this view, a new set of rules had insidiously crept into the game.  Relativity now required a null result in both the MM and the MGP experiments, and the door was closed on the matter of the aether.
-----------------------------
-----------------
-----------


So, once again, just for you Rabinoz :

The problem is that the 'aether' that Einstein increasingly appeared to have in mind, rather than becoming, as promised, a 'non-material, non-mechanical  and  gravitational  aether', became instead a pure metaphysical fiction; a disembodied physical reality endowed solely with a mathematical existence. Instead of discovering a dynamic aether comprised of non-mechanical and electrogravitic properties, Relativity  ended  up with a pure geometric form set in an imaginary four-dimensional Space-time.   

And this fiction succeeded in the minds of physicists because it became metaphysically endowed with mechanical properties, courtesy of the dictatorship of the absolute speed of light. Hence, the curvature of space  remains a  function of matter, and when the matter required to explain this curvature is found to be 'missing', recourse is taken to  the expedient explanation  that  it  is missing no  longer but has miraculously been 'born-again' as black or invisible (ie undetectable) mass... 

It is here that Relativity ceased being a scientific theory, to become an academic doctrine bandied about with the same arbitrarinessas any other religious vision of the world.  A platonic metaphysics of the form. It is physical nonsense to speak of a pure Space devoid of matter and  energy.  Such a pure Space is not an aether, but a meta-aether, a metaphysical aether, like the Ur-Aether of Lenard. And whether we call it the void of Spacetime and write it in four dimensions, or call it meta-aether and retain Euclidean Space as pure  container, it remains a metaphysical abstraction.

8. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :

We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this  is  to  have  a  laboratory  scale model  of  the  tides.  Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water:  'just like' the water in the
ocean basin.  Galileo asks:  “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?”  If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides.  This motion is the
alternate  acceleration  and  deceleration  of  the  water.    But  how  is  this  alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?

In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole. 
We  shall assign  speeds  to  the Earth’s motions:    its orbital  speed around  the Sun, Vo,
and  its  speed  of  axial  daily  rotation Vd.   Now  consider  a point on  the  surface of  the
Earth  at noon  time.   What  is  the  speed of  that point  in  space  at noon?    It  is Vo+Vd. 
What  about  at  midnight  when  the  same  point  has  moved  around  with  the  spinning
Earth?  What is the speed of that point in space?  It is Vo-Vd.  So, your maximum speed
is at noon  time and  the minimum speed  is at midnight.   And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd  to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours  that means  that  every  point  on Earth  is  alternately  accelerated  and  decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on.   And Galileo’s conclusion  is  that  in  the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!


 
This  theory  is wrong  in  terms  of  the  later Newtonian  physics,  and Galileo was  also
wrong  in  the eyes of his friends who would not accept his  theory of  the  tides.  One of
the  reasons Galileo’s  theory was not convincing was  that  there were other  theories of
the tides. For example,  Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”. 
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how  this occurred, by some  'magical' action at a
distance.   Another person  to dispute his  theories was  the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans,  trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.

Now what about  the meaning of  the Galileo affair?   There are certain points  that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions:  Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary  set  of  arguments  against  an  established world  view.   Galileo was  not  a
Natural  Philosopher  in  the  systematic  sense  of  say, Aristotle  or  later  on Newton,  or
Descartes.  Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture.  This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.

Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic  system. Galileo’s trial comes  down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without  a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and  institutional order
on  the Catholic  side.  These were value  judgements. A  frame-ups of Galileo aside,  it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position. 

There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.

Rabinoz, read more :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2169133#msg2169133

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.330

8. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :

We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this  is  to  have  a  laboratory  scale model  of  the  tides.  Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water:  'just like' the water in the
ocean basin.  Galileo asks:  “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?”  If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides.  This motion is the
alternate  acceleration  and  deceleration  of  the  water.    But  how  is  this  alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?

In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole. 
We  shall assign  speeds  to  the Earth’s motions:    its orbital  speed around  the Sun, Vo,
and  its  speed  of  axial  daily  rotation Vd.   Now  consider  a point on  the  surface of  the
Earth  at noon  time.   What  is  the  speed of  that point  in  space  at noon?    It  is Vo+Vd. 
What  about  at  midnight  when  the  same  point  has  moved  around  with  the  spinning
Earth?  What is the speed of that point in space?  It is Vo-Vd.  So, your maximum speed
is at noon  time and  the minimum speed  is at midnight.   And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd  to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours  that means  that  every  point  on Earth  is  alternately  accelerated  and  decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on.   And Galileo’s conclusion  is  that  in  the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!


 
This  theory  is wrong  in  terms  of  the  later Newtonian  physics,  and Galileo was  also
wrong  in  the eyes of his friends who would not accept his  theory of  the  tides.  One of
the  reasons Galileo’s  theory was not convincing was  that  there were other  theories of
the tides. For example,  Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”. 
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how  this occurred, by some  'magical' action at a
distance.   Another person  to dispute his  theories was  the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans,  trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.

Now what about  the meaning of  the Galileo affair?   There are certain points  that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions:  Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary  set  of  arguments  against  an  established world  view.   Galileo was  not  a
Natural  Philosopher  in  the  systematic  sense  of  say, Aristotle  or  later  on Newton,  or
Descartes.  Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture.  This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.

Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic  system. Galileo’s trial comes  down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without  a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and  institutional order
on  the Catholic  side.  These were value  judgements. A  frame-ups of Galileo aside,  it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position. 

There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.

This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.

So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?

The bottom line is this :

No, the bottom line is this:
You started a thread claiming rockets can't work in a vacuum.
You have been completely unable to substantiate your claims and plenty of people have refuted them.
Rather than admit you are wrong, you instead decide to spam by bringing up loads of other topics, plenty of which have already been refuted.

If you want to discuss your already refuted arguments regarding the aether, go back to those threads.

Now, can you answer my question:
What force acts on the gas to push it out of the rocket in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Quote from: rabinoz on April 28, 2019, 05:36:50 PM

The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.

Not interested until you face up to your own deception!

In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM ».
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.

I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!

Bye!

Get use to this :

Not interested until you face up to your own deception!

In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM ».
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.

I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!

Bye!

Do all of the frenzied multicoloured geocentric earth posts mean that cikljamas has secretly accepted that rockets work just fine?

This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.

So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?

Wow, you are certainly "not" one of those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved, are you? LOL
Since you referred to my post #337 (regarding Galileo's wrong conception of the mechanism of tides), then as one of those who have idea of the science and facts involved, care to respond to this challenge :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can.  This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 
Right?

The rotation rpm of the earth doesn’t change at night.

The rotation rpm of the earth doesn’t change at night.

So, according to you, Galileo was utterly stupid person??? It is beyond me how anybody can be such a loser...

I suppose you got so pissed off after reading for the first time the following Galileo's open geocentric admission, so that now even your HC icon (falsely proclaimed as such, given his subsequent HC recantation) Galileo, has been added to your list of crackpots : :

"We 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

A year before he died Galileo rejected his belief in HC model of the Universe :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can.  This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 
Right?

WRONG!

a) You insist on changing the subject, once we have thoroughly refuted your nonsense (please see the topic of this thread 'Rockets can't fly in a vacuum')

b) Regarding the above drivel, we don't feel anything because there is no acceleration. You are chosing arbitrary frames of reference where none exist ... 'Forward' and 'Backward' in your post have no meaning!

care to respond to this challenge :

Your challenge has already been met repeatedly.
All it does is show that you don't understand how acceleration works on a rotating body.

It is irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is if rockets work in a vacuum.

Perhaps you can respond to my challenge which is directly related to that topic:
What force acts on the gas to eject it from the rocket in a particular direction?
What is the other body involved in this interaction?

Again, the only rational responses is that the rocket is applying a force on the gas to push it out the back of the rocket which means the gas will push the rocket forwards, which means rockets will work in a vacuum.

Do you have a different explanation?
If not, then rockets work in a vacuum, even if it is just a cold gas thruster.

Quote from: Romp on July 30, 2019, 10:52:21 AM

This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.

So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?

Since you refuse to even reply to MY challenge I must assume you admit your deception in using "Photoshopped" image in your videos. Right, got that!

Wow, you are certainly "not" one of those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved, are you? LOL
Since you referred to my post #337 (regarding Galileo's wrong conception of the mechanism of tides), then as one of those who have idea of the science and facts involved, care to respond to this challenge :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.

Why is that a problem for you? The earth is rotating on its axis and that rotation is a constant magnitude acceleration directed towards the centre of the earth.
The nett effect of that is to gradually, over a 12 hour period, change the surface velocity at the equator from 1036 mph in the same direction as the orbital velocity to 1036 mph in the opposite direction to the orbital velocity.

Hence your roughly 66,000 mph gradually changes to 64,000 mph over a 12 hour period.

So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 
Right?

No, your phone will not show a reading!

As noted above that acceleration appears to you as always down and so simply changes the effective g an imperceptible amount - about 0.034 m/s² in 9.780 m/s² at the equator.
That is one of the reasons that the effective g is slightly lower at the equator = more evidence of a rotating earth!

Quote from: Romp on July 30, 2019, 10:52:21 AM

This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.

So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?

Wow, you are certainly "not" one of those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved, are you? LOL
Since you referred to my post #337 (regarding Galileo's wrong conception of the mechanism of tides), then as one of those who have idea of the science and facts involved, care to respond to this challenge :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can.  This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 
Right?

Chick pajamas, earth's speed is a flat 67,000mph around the sun. Were you born yesterday, been chained up in a dungeon for the past 4 decades, or do you really have no conception as to how an accelerometer works?

A bunch of HC crackpots just don't get it : They are in dispute with Galileo himself, not with me (not only with me, at least)!!!
They are in dispute with NASA, also :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191005#msg2191005
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82503.msg2191590#msg2191590
They are in dispute with NASA and Newton :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191013#msg2191013
They are in dispute with common sense :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191172#msg2191172

As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.

But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.

If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.

It can fly???
LOL

A bunch of HC crackpots just don't get it

No, we get it.
You cannot defend your arguments so you need to go and spam a bunch of completely unrelated arguments to avoid admitting you are wrong.

You still refuse to answer a very simple question which clearly shows that rockets will work in space.
Why?

Again, what force acts on the gas to eject it from the rocket in a particular direction?
What is the other body involved in this interaction?

Again, the only rational responses is that the rocket is applying a force on the gas to push it out the back of the rocket which means the gas will push the rocket forwards, which means rockets will work in a vacuum.

Either answer the question, or admit you were wrong and that rockets can actually work in space.
Stop trying to distract from this failure by spamming loads of other arguments.

Quote from: sokarul on July 31, 2019, 06:24:45 AM

The rotation rpm of the earth doesn’t change at night.

So, according to you, Galileo was utterly stupid person??? It is beyond me how anybody can be such a loser...

No! Galileo was a frail sick blind old man threatened by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!

Aging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633. Because of his advanced years, he was permitted house arrest in Siena. Legend has it that as Galileo rose from kneeling before his inquisitors, he murmured, "e pur, si muove" -- "even so, it does move."

Would you fair any better?

I suppose you got so pissed off after reading for the first time the following Galileo's open geocentric admission, so that now even your HC icon (falsely proclaimed as such, given his subsequent HC recantation) Galileo, has been added to your list of crackpots : :

No! Pissed off be deceivers like you supporting the evils of the the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!.

And by the hypocrisy in your use of "Photoshopped" images in attempting to show that NASA's deception.

The image below is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku

And I know following image is also a composite of two NASA photos: Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Please explain your deception!

A bunch of HC crackpots just don't get it : They are in dispute with Galileo himself, not with me (not only with me, at least)!!!
They are in dispute with NASA, also :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191005#msg2191005
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82503.msg2191590#msg2191590

No! Just with Tom Bishop and others interpretation of what NASA wrote!

They are in dispute with NASA and Newton :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191013#msg2191013

Rubbish! Just in dispute with the total crap and utter distortion that you write!

They are in dispute with common sense :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191172#msg2191172

Don't be ridiculous! Your "THE MIDGET-SOLDIER ROCKET PROJECT" was proven quite unable "to fly" by both JackBlack and myself.

You don't even have the brains to understand either answer!

It seems to take your sort of deception and total of lack of understanding and common sense to believe in Geocentrism.
Learn a bit of physics before you try to disprove the Heliocentric Solar System!

Hmmpft! I don't see anybody in dispute with Galileo. Galileo supported Copernicus theory that earth rotates around a sun. Where does your dispute assertion originate from, chick?

Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....

Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....

In addition to jokes. This is the same as before sailing ships with a direct sail along the rivers. You asked yourself a question, is this even possible? Everyone before the flood sailing ships had fans that blew into the sail. So look for the analogy with rockets. Yes, and vimana flew without problems to other planets. But we are forbidden to fly to the moon. Learn the story and understand where the fake is and where the truth is.

Hmmpft! I don't see anybody in dispute with Galileo. Galileo supported Copernicus theory that earth rotates around a sun. Where does your dispute assertion originate from, chick?

It comes from:

Galileo was a frail sick blind old man threatened by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!

Quote

Aging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633.

But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. 

But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. 

MacAndrew: Let’s examine other ways in which his hypothesis fails. Across much of his writing Sungenis and his supporters repeatedly fall into what I call the Great Inconsistency, appealing to the conclusions of General Relativity while vehemently  rejecting  them (see Here Comes the Sun, p.17, and There He Goes Again, p.2). 

R.Sungenis: Let’s get some perspective. Mr. MacAndrew knows that the very science he believes in, namely, General Relativity supports geocentrism, but he is too dishonest to give this information to the world. He would rather pretend it doesn’t exist and instead accuse me of “inconsistency” because I point out to the world what he won’t. His goal is to take the focus off his own sleight of hand and put the onus on me. But the truth is, he is very embarrassed that Einstein supported geocentrism. 

Nevertheless, let me say once again so that Mr. MacAndrew can finally  stop misrepresenting my appeal to GRT: I don’t appeal to GRT because I believe in it, but because Mr. MacAndrew believes in it! What better way to expose the fallacy of your opponent’s position than to point out that his system denies him the very thing he wants to achieve – to deny geocentrism. As St. James says in 1:23‐24: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”

MacAndrew: The section from GWW that we are reviewing is no exception. He quotes W G V Rosser’s review of General Relativity approvingly in spite of the fact that he rejects the theory: “As Rosser notes “light can assume ANY NUMERICAL VALUE depending on the strength  of  the...centrifugal  gravitational  field”  which  has  “enormous  values  at  large distances.” Sungenis is more interested in the rhetorical capital he can make from Rosser’s statements than he is in adopting a self‐consistent case for geocentrism.

R.Sungenis : MacAndrew is a guy who lives in a glass house (since his own GRT believes in geocentrism) but he keeps throwing stones at me for pointing this out to the world. He then has the audacity to say that we are using GRT because our own theory is not “self‐consistent.” Let’s set the record straight. We don’t believe in GRT. The reason is because it is not consistent. SRT contradicts GRT and GRT contradicts Quantum Mechanics, so we don’t dare use any of them to support geocentrism. Quoting John Wheeler again, here is what he has to say regarding the bankrupt theories of SRT and GRT:

The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which  is  central  to  all  of  classical  general  relativity,  the  four‐dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.

So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :

If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and  in  general  relativity  this  enormous  motion  would  create  forces  akin  to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We 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