EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS

  • 40 Replies
  • 1357 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« on: October 07, 2019, 06:00:36 AM »

According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

I am very curious how english native speakers are going to interpret this Einstein's assertion : (Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.)...

Mysterious force that sways the constellations???

Verb sway :

1. Move back and forth or sideways
"the tall building swayed"

2. Move or walk in a swinging or swaying manner

3. Cause to move back and forth
"the wind swayed the trees gently"

If we supposed that Einstein hadn't been aware of geocentric truth then we would have to ask ourselves : why in the world would he have used such a phrase (Mysterious force that sways the constellations) given the fact that in HC universe there is no swaying of constellations (which (swaying in that (HC) case would be only the apparent phenomena)???

On the other hand, if Einstein was aware of geocentric truth (which truth/fact in all probability (almost certainly) he was perfectly aware of) then his assertion (formulation/phrase) would make perfect sense, wouldn't you agree???

Within HC theory, the phrase "Mysterious force that sways the constellations" makes no sense whatsoever, because the apparent phenomena of "swaying constellations" within the context of HC theory would be the consequence of earth's rotation on it's axis, so that the only phrase that in HC context would make sense would be something like this : "Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that throughout hundreds of millenniums maintains earth's rotation so amazingly stable."

So, the question is this : Did Einstein actually spill the beans??? What do you think?


"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2019, 08:56:22 AM »
"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations"

True. The research is ongoing and there's something new to learn on a daily basis. Einstein died more than 60 years ago. Although really smart, he did not know everything and things change in that timeframe. We currently call stuff "dark matter" but we don't yet know what it is.

Yay science, for trying to enlighten us.
I tried so hard, and got so far. But in the end, I fell off the edge. I had to fall, to lose it all, but in the end, I still fell of the edge.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2019, 12:24:57 PM »
Isn't it interesting how Einstein's spilled beans efficaciously shut heliocentrist's mouths? How come there isn't at least one lousy attempt of reconciliation Einstein's awesome geocentric testimony (intentional or not, it doesn't matter) with HC brazen lie???
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16173
  • Discount Chemist
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2019, 12:51:23 PM »
Yawn

You just keep adding to the list of things you don’t understand.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2019, 01:27:35 PM »
If we supposed that Einstein hadn't been aware of geocentric truth then we would have to ask ourselves : why in the world would he have used such a phrase (Mysterious force that sways the constellations) given the fact that in HC universe there is no swaying of constellations (which (swaying in that (HC) case would be only the apparent phenomena)???
You almost answered that yourself.
One option is that he was discussing the apparent phenomena as viewed from Earth.
Another option was that he was referring to how the constellations change over time, not due to Earth but due to the movement of stars or their formation or end.
Or it could be entirely figurative.
He wasn't discussing science in that section. He was discussing his beliefs on the divine.

that the only phrase that in HC context would make sense would be something like this : "Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that throughout hundreds of millenniums maintains earth's rotation so amazingly stable."
No. That is not the only phrase that makes sense in a HC context. I wouldn't say it makes sense anywhere.
Just what is so amazing about conservation of angular momentum and the precession of Earth which means the rotation isn't even completely stable?

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2019, 05:48:18 AM »
Just what is so amazing about conservation of angular momentum and the precession of Earth...?

You almost answered that yourself...

If conservation of angular momentum was to be accounted for the apparent swaying of constellations then why would anyone in his right mind have to appeal to some mysterious force as an explanation of the apparent phenomena (swaying constellations) towards which alleged cause (angular momentum) we have just pointed ahead???

In another words, if angular momentum is behind the apparent swaying of constellations, then there is no logical base for being astonished by some MYSTERIOUS force that sways constellations, because if HC theory were true description of our reality there would be no need for the amazement by the mysterious (unknown) FORCE that sways constellations, since there would be NO FACTUAL SWAYING of constellations, in the first place...



In his 1881 and 1887 experiments, Albert Michelson discovered the Earth was not moving around the sun. As Michelson himself described the results of his own experiment: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” But since his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, were die-hard Copernicans who didn’t want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth, they proposed his experimental apparatus was distorted by the Earth’s motion through space and thus Michelson’s apparatus only made it appear as if it wasn’t moving. In scientific parlance, we call this the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, using as proof (a moving Earth) the very thing one is trying to prove (a moving Earth).  Let me explain.

Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another.

The first light beam was pointed westward because it was the presumed direction of the Earth’s movement around the sun. The second light beam was pointed northward and thus away from the direction of the presumed moving Earth.

The first light beam should have been affected by the Earth’s movement through space if it the Earth is moving around the sun at the accepted speed of 66,000 mph. If so, the first beam would have traveled slower than the second light beam.

But that didn’t happen and the die‐hard Copernicans of that day were not about to accept the prima facie results of Michelson’s experiment. They knew the catastrophic scientific, cultural, and religious implications if it was experimentally shown that Earth is fixed in space. In a word, the whole world would have been turned upside down, literally and figuratively. Pressured to provide a “scientific” answer to the world, they searched for a way to make it appear that the first light beam did, indeed, provide six‐sixths of the retarded speed required for an Earth moving around the sun. To do so they thought up an ingenious (but devious) explanation. As noted above, they claimed the Earth’s movement around the sun contracted the metal enclosure in which the first light beam traveled.

If the length of the housing is contracted, then the first light beam does not need to travel as far as when the housing is not contracted. This would account for the why the speed of the two light beams did not differ much. With this contrived explanation, they proposed to the world that the contraction of Michelson’s apparatus was the reason the Earth appeared to be motionless.

In effect, if someone said to them, “You claim the Earth is moving but you admit you cannot detect that movement by any experiment,” they would retort, “Well, we can’t detect it because every time we try to do so, the length of the experimental apparatus shrinks just enough to conceal the movement, which makes it impossible to measure the Earth’s movement.” 

Again, we see the fallacy of petitio principii is in play.

From start to finish the whole enterprise was ad hoc. Length contraction wasn’t even contemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in this emergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the science establishment would have at least some hypothetical answer why Michelson’s experiment showed the Earth was motionless. Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief. The irony, as of this date, is that no one has ever detected a length contraction in a moving object. In fact, modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would be manifested.

In other words, Einstein was forced to assume that because Michelson did not find enough ether for an Earth revolving around the sun, then Michelson couldn’t have found any ether. But if this conclusion of Einstein’s was wrong, then his whole relativity theory would be falsified automatically, since even a little ether would act as an absolute frame and thus nullify “relativity.” Noted physicist Charles Lane Poor of Columbia University reiterated the problem:

“The Michelson‐Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory: Einstein calls it decisive...if it should develop that there is a measurable ether‐drift, then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of cards.”

So Einstein was banking on the hope that since Michelson did not detect the required amount of ether for an Earth moving around the sun, he could conclude that the ether simply didn’t exist. Hence, the detection of one‐sixth of the required ether was thus conveniently chalked up to “experimental error.” 

The facts show otherwise, however. Every interferometer experiment performed from Michelson in 1881 to Joos in 1930—which is 50 years of the same results from a dozen different experimenters—detected one‐sixth to one‐tenth. Einstein was so bothered by this fact that he hired what can be called a ‘scientific hit man,’ Robert Shankland, to seek to discredit the experiments, especially the most comprehensive interferometer experiments performed by Dayton Miller between 1908 and 1921.

But at this point in time (the 1910s and 1920s) the world was only too happy to accept Einstein’s theories and reject anyone who challenged them. After all, Einstein was the Earth‐Mover. He made the Earth move around the sun and thus saved mankind from having to admit that popular science had misled the world for the 500 years prior.

For the geocentrist, the only thing left to answer is: from whence did the one‐sixth of ether originate? The simple answer is that since the universe, with its ether, is rotating around a fixed Earth, some of that ether spilled into Michelson’s 1887 interferometer when he was trying to detect if the Earth was moving around the sun. This is confirmed by the fact that Michelson did another experiment in 1925 in order to measure the ether movement for the daily rotation between space and Earth. In that experiment he found six‐sixths of the required ether for a daily rotation. Hence it is logical to assume that the one‐sixth he found in 1887 came from the same ether he later detected in his 1925 experiment.

Even Albert Einstein, not known for faith, said in a 1929 interview :

We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

Einstein thus came to the conclusion from viewing the evidences that there must be a “God” or “mysterious force” that is controlling the universe.

Isaac Newton wrote:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler.

Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a great Christian and studied the Bible as much as he did science.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, wrote something very similar to Newton. He said:

So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe.

Aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, said it a bit differently:

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. … My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Yes

  • 256
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2019, 06:10:51 AM »
Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another.
I know this is just a minor nitpick in your nest of misunderstanding, but I'm starting to get annoyed by how often you repeat this.  Your statement is not true.

The experimental scientists weren't looking for the movement of the Earth.  That the Earth is moving was well understood by everyone and not under question.  The question was if luminiferous aether could be detected as the Earth revolved around the day and rotated around the year.  The nature of the medium of light was a open question at that time.  Thanks to their experimental results, we now understand that light has no material medium.  (I'm saying "material medium" to avoid a semantics argument of whether a quantum field could be called a medium.)

Now, cikljamas, what I want to know is this:  Who told you that Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving, and what about this person was so convincing that you didn't look up the truth for yourself?

You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2019, 06:54:16 AM »
Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving by using the speed of two light beams against one another.
I know this is just a minor nitpick in your nest of misunderstanding, but I'm starting to get annoyed by how often you repeat this.  Your statement is not true.

The experimental scientists weren't looking for the movement of the Earth.  That the Earth is moving was well understood by everyone and not under question.  The question was if luminiferous aether could be detected as the Earth revolved around the day and rotated around the year.  The nature of the medium of light was a open question at that time.  Thanks to their experimental results, we now understand that light has no material medium.  (I'm saying "material medium" to avoid a semantics argument of whether a quantum field could be called a medium.)

Now, cikljamas, what I want to know is this:  Who told you that Michelson found the Earth wasn’t moving, and what about this person was so convincing that you didn't look up the truth for yourself?

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.

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:



"It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."


- Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 06:56:51 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2019, 07:08:46 AM »
Without question, no one has influenced physics and cosmology more than *Albert Einstein* (1879-1955). His name has become a household word, one associated with superior intelligence and foresight. His work has inspired many a young man to take up the mantle and advance the cause of science, and even philosophy and politics. But as with many popular figures, they are often bigger than life, and soon the myths surrounding the person become more popular and accepted than the actual person himself. This is especially true with Einstein. Most people know very little behind the image of the wire-haired, absent-minded professor or the floating formula E=mc they see in scenic backgrounds of movies and television. They know very little concerning how Einstein’s famous theory of Relativity was born or what it means. Often the extent of their knowledge is the oft used cliche “everything’s relative.”

In reality, Einstein was the forerunner to *Hubble, Hawking, Sagan* and the rest of modern science’s icons who have done their best to preserve Copernican cosmology in the face of evidence that strongly indicated it was seriously flawed. Similar to *Edwin Hubble* who stated that an Earth-centered cosmos would be “intolerable” and “must be avoided at all costs,” so *Einstein* gave birth to Relativity for precisely the same reason, only his biographer chose the word “unthinkable.” After the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, *Ronald W. Clark* describes what came next:

The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable.

474 Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Book, New York, NY, 1984, p. 109-110.

We have to give credit to *Clark* for even mentioning a motionless Earth as a possible explanation to this famous experiment, for many other biographers and historians do not even allow their readers the privilege of knowing that such an option exists. Some allude to the possibility, but even then it is treated anachronistically, as in *G. J.
Whitrow’s* comment that a very simple explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment is that the Earth doesn’t move, but only. . .

if such an experiment could have been performed in the
sixteenth or seventeenth [centuries] when men were debating
the rival merits of the Copemican and Ptolemaic systems. The
result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive
evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a
triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable
falsification of the Copemican hypothesis.


The scientific community would much rather the public not entertain such ideas, let alone seriously study them. Nevertheless, as Clark forthrightly reveals, a motionless Earth was one of the scientific alternatives to explain one of the most important and puzzling experiments of human history. Sadly, he also shows that scientists were so ingrained in Copemican thinking that no one would even dare question whether heliocentrism was really true, even when evidence against it was staring them in the face. It was as preposterous as saying that the sky is green or that grass is pink. As the historical record will show, so “unthinkable” was this alternative that scientists were in a virtual frenzy to find some way to dispel it, to relieve themselves of having to dethrone their heroes: *Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler* and *Newton,* or be required to give a posthumous apology to *St. Robert Bellarmine* and Popes *Pius V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII.*

Later, when *Einstein* was inventing his second leg of the theory, General Relativity, the decision had already been made. *Clark* writes:

_As *Einstein* wrestled with the cosmological implications of the General Theory, the first of these alternatives, the Earth- must care to think about the unthinkable things, because *when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.*”_

Interestingly enough, in Clark’s entire autobiography of Einstein, which amounts to 878 pages, not one reason, or even a suggestion of a reason, is ever cited as to why, scientifically speaking, the Earth-centered universe was “ruled out.” In fact, no other biography, or even autobiography, of Einstein gives a reason to the “ruling out” of geocentrism. Heliocentrism is just assumed as fact, and a fact upon which every other decision in physics would be made for the next one hundred years. As Einstein himself said about heliocentrism:

“Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept Copernicus’ point of view.”

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. As *Van der Kamp* puts it:

No question about it: if STR [Special Theory of Relativity] is true then the logically understandable hierarchical and Earth-centered universe of antiquity and the Middle Ages was a pipe dream. The problem remains the “if’ in the last sentence.... In the present context I am satisfied with the undeniable actuality that though STR presumably allowed the astronomers to escapefrom a geocentric bugbear - and a daunting argument from  design behind it - the GTR [General Theory of Relativity] has been compelled to declare the Earth-centered model “as good as anybody else’s, but no better”... after Einstein. . .burst for the second time upon the scene the tables were turned... the geocentric model of the universe, be it absolutely unacceptable, science cannot show it to be wrong. . .the theoretical status of the Earth- centered concept is today under Einstein’s regimen higher than it has ever been since the 1687 publication of Newton’s Principia, the ruling model now “giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture.”

Nevertheless, Einstein’s relativistic contortions were a small price to pay to save the world from the embarrassment of having to admit that it had been wrong for six centuries about one of the most fundamental issues of life. Accordingly, Van der Kamp remarks on the pressure to which students are forced to accept Relativity theory:

As science teachers know: when students for the first time are
introduced to the special theory of relativity it is not the
dullards in the class who initially are often unwilling to
reconcile themselves to it. Until, of course, they begin to
realize that a refusal logically constrains them to part with
Copernicus’ system. Which system, thanks to Galileo and his
apostles, they have been brainwashed to deem ‘obvious.’ And
therefore seeing no other way out of the dilemma, no other
acceptable possibility in sight, they close their eyes and
swallow what in their hearts they know to be impossible [STR]
but gradually and under persistent peer pressure are converted
into believing as scientific and self-evidently true truth. ...If we
accept Copernicus there is no way around it. The wearying
trouble is that “if.”


Many writers pretend to understand [relativity], but simply do
not. Many otherwise alert students studying relativity become
logically bewildered and lose confidence in their own ability to
think clearly as they slip into mysticism and become the next
generation of scientific priests.... The public has trusted the
physicists, trusted them perhaps more, in this generation, than
any other group. But in time, people will learn that physicists
are no more immune to the perverse motivational currents of
the times than any other professional people. Scientists have
enormous vested interests in protecting their theories - vested
energy, time, money and indeed reputation. Like most other
human beings, many are less than saintly in possessing the
attributes of honesty, unselfishness and respect for truth... .For
seventy-two years [1905-1977] humanity has been browbeaten
by an incomparably brazen bit of pseudo-science because its
perpetrators have defended it by using mathematics which,
though valid in itself, is not applied in relation to objective
facts that are analyzed logically in the real world. Recondite
kinds of higher mathematics have been falsely used to create an
awesome, esoteric language whereby the initiated elite have set
themselves apart from the world and have labeled all dissenters
as quacks.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 07:11:14 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Yes

  • 256
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2019, 09:14:53 AM »
cikljamas, where do you come up with this nonsense?  Are you being told this information, or do you make it up yourself?  Seriously, I want to know this: what is your source?

Does it bother you that your claims and quotes can be trivially run though a search engine to find the truth of the matter?
You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2019, 01:17:44 PM »
If conservation of angular momentum was to be accounted for the apparent swaying of constellations then why would anyone in his right mind have to appeal to some mysterious force as an explanation of the apparent phenomena (swaying constellations) towards which alleged cause (angular momentum) we have just pointed ahead???
Which is why I said it likely meant something else. The change in the constellation over long periods of time due to the actual movement of stars or the formation/end of stars.

Even if you wanted a GC explanation, with the stars on a celestial sphere, it is still just conservation of angular momentum for the normal motion.

Also, I have also found other quotes, which says moving instead of swaying. So which is the correct one, if either?

In his 1881 and 1887 experiments, Albert Michelson discovered the Earth was not moving around the sun.
Stop lying.
We have been over this repeatedly.
The experiment shows nothing of the sort.
Your quote mine is no better than this:
the Earth ... moving around the sun.
See how you are saying the Earth was moving around the sun?
the Earth is moving
See how you are saying the Earth is moving?

Your dishonest quote mining is no better.
The paper in no way indicates that Earth is not moving.
All it failed to detect was the relative motion of the aether, which isn't surprising now as the aether doesn't exist.
It did not detect that Earth was stationary. It wasn't even capable of doing so.
All it was capable of doing regarding motion was measuring the motion of the hypothetical aether relative to Earth.

The instrument (if the hypothesis was correct) would be quite akin to a wind-speed meter (or air speed indicator). It can't detect absolute motion, all it is capable of measuring is a velocity relative to something else.

It also has nothing to do with this thread discussing Einstein.

But I see that now that your OP has been refuted you are resorting to your typical derailment by spamming unrelated, already refuted nonsense.
But at least now every time you pull this dishonest garbage I can always refer back to these quotes:
the Earth ... moving around the sun.
the Earth is moving
Which are just as honest representation of your claims as your quotes are of others.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2019, 02:19:24 AM »
Have you ever heard about Occam's razor?

If we could go back in Einstain's time and set up a debate between Einstein and JackBlack this is what we would witness :

Einstein : Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
JackBlack : No, it's all about angular momentum no matter whether you are talking about factual (geocentric) swaying of constellations or you are trying to be even more mysterious (than your mysterious "mysterious force") implying/referring to something else (which can't be anything else but angular momentum, can it?), as simple as that.
Einstein :  As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and more mysterious.
JackBlack : Don't try to be smart with me, better to say, don't be a smart ass, i said there is a simple explanation for your swaying of constellations, and when i say something you better listen it very carefully and think twice before you reply something even more stupid, o.k.???
Einstein : Of course mr JackBlack, at your service (as always)...Oh, btw, have you noticed what is displayed in Cikljamas' signature?
JackBlack : What? I see, now that all your stupid claims (in relation to some "mysterious force" which is not mysterious at all, as i have just proven) have been refuted, you are resorting to your typical derailment by spamming unrelated, already refuted nonsense, isn't that so?
Einstein : You mean successfully refuted as your infamous claim "You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes."???
JackBlack : After all, who do you think you are, Einstein?
Einstein : Exactly!
JackBlack : Fuck off!
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 02:22:12 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2019, 02:32:02 AM »
Have you ever heard about Occam's razor?
Yes, it fully supports a RE that orbits the sun.
It has a much simpler explanation for the apparent motion of the planets and the sun.

If you want to apply it in this case, lets consider the options:
Einstein meant it in a metaphorical way, likely describing how the constellations change over time; or
Einstein meant it in a literal way and is in on a conspiracy to hide the "fact" that Earth is actually magically the centre of the universe for no reason at all with everything all magically moving around Earth for no reason at all.

The former is vastly simpler.

If we could go back in Einstain's time and set up a debate between Einstein and JackBlack this is what we would witness :
There would be no need for a debate on this topic. It would just require a clarification of what he meant.
There is no way he in any way meant for it to be taken as Earth being stationary.

His writing clearly indicates that he fully accepts that Earth is moving.
e.g. "Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."
So like I said, Occam's razor isn't on your side here. The simpler option is that he fully accepts that Earth is orbiting the sun.

P.S. Insulting and ridiculing is not refuting.
Asserting something as an axiom is not providing a rational basis and is not refuting.
You are yet to refute the fact that you have not provided any rational basis for your claim.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2019, 03:07:22 AM »
"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.

In heliocentric model the earth and the air rotate and revolve around the sun, the sun revolve around the center of the galaxy etc...and an aether is at rest (old hypothesis) or doesn't exist (new hypothesis - invented by Einstein and co. - after Airy's failure, MMX and other experiments started to point to the geocentric universe). In geocentric model an aether rotates and the earth and the air are at rest. Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment has proved that an aether rotates. Airy's failure, MMX exp. and other similar experiments proved that there is no orbital motion of the earth (tried to be measured with respect to a stationary aether, hence Einstein ad hoc "relativity" invention). So, if there is no orbital effect but there is rotational effect (with respect to a stationary aether), then it can only mean that the earth and the air are at rest and that an aether and the whole universe rotate daily around the stationary earth.

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

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

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

AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :

Of his own MMX experiment, *Albert Michelson* said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. First performed in Berlin in 1881 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and E.W. Morley in the United States.

The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth's motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth's motion. SOURCE : http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/michelson_morley.html

The purpose of the Morley-Michelson experiment was to detect the motion of the lab relatively to the inertial system of the luminiferous aether, i.e. the "aether wind". SOURCE : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34689/what-were-the-intention-conclusions-for-michelson-morley-experiment

Here are Michelson’s own words:

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

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2019, 03:52:44 AM »
"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
Notice how no where does this state that Earth is stationary?
Instead it is providing a nonsensical origin of the apparent centrifugal force as magically coming from the stars.

after Airy's failure, MMX and other experiments started to point to the geocentric universe
No they didn't. We have been over this plenty of times. All they did was show the aether isn't real.
Under the aether model Airy's failure depended upon a relative motion between Earth and the aether. This is directly contradicted by MMX which relies upon no motion. This shows that the aether cannot exist.

Since  Einstein  chose  as  his  foundation  that  the  Earth  was  translating around the sun
And with that you admit Einstein didn't spill the beans.

And with all your quote mining, even you admit that Earth moves:
the Earth ... moving around the sun.
the Earth is moving

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2019, 07:22:28 AM »
Either Einstein is right and the equations of classical mechanics need indeed to be revised, or the equations of classical mechanics are correct as they stand, and it is actually his "relativistic" mechanics that proves to be false. How, then, does Einstein argue his case : on what grounds does he justify his theory?

To answer this question we turn now to his original 1905 paper, published in the Annalen der Physik - under the rather unassuming title "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" - which marks the birth of "relativistic" physics, to see how Einstein himself justified his revolutionary proposal.

As might be expected, he begins by recounting experiments pertaining to the domain of electromagnetism to exhibit observable phenomena which do "depend only on relative motion," that is to say, satisfy his stipulated Principle of Relativity. But what about the "other half" of classical physics : the equations of mechanics?

Einstein gives a very brief (and interesting!) answer to this question.

Having alluded - in the opening paragraph of his paper - to certain electromagnetic phenomena (which, as we have noted, comply with his Principle), he begins the second paragraph as follows :

"Examples of this sort," he writes, "together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relative to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will rise this conjecture (hereafter referred to as the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate."

The reasoning here is astonishing. Let us first of all consider Einstein's allusion to the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which, as one knows, was designed to detect and measure the postulated orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun (said to be around 30 km/sec), but proved "unsuccessful" inasmuch as no such velocity was found. On what basis therefore, let us ask, does Einstein rule out the theoretical possibility that the experiment may actually have proved that in fact there is no such "orbital" velocity, as the Michelson-Morley finding appears to attest? After all, given that the question pertains to physical science on its most fundamental level, it would seem that no conceptual possibility - no matter how apparently improbable - should be ruled out simply "by a wave of the hand"! And as a matter of fact : to imply that a "uniform motion without rotation" is not detectable is to beg the very question which stands at issue : namely, whether or not the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity is true.

What i find still more surprising, however, is Einstein's claim that empirical findings "suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics" conform to his postulate : for whereas, in the case of electrodynamics, the property in question follows mathematically from the fact that Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field are in fact Lorentz invariant, the opposite holds true for the classical equations of mechanics. For unlike electrodynamics, classical mechanics happens not to be Lorentz invariant; and whereas it was consequently a foregone conclusion that "the phenomena of electrodynamics" conform to Einstein's Principle, the opposite holds true in the case of mechanics. In other words, even as the phenomena of electrodynamics predictably obey the Principle of Relativity, so on the strength of classical physics "the phenomena of mechanics" predictably do not. Now to be sure, Einstein was well aware of the fact that the classical equations of mechanics do not obey his Principle - which is after all the reason he felt obliged to alter them, to render them "relativistic."

My point is that this fateful step was, in the final count, authorized by nothing more substantial than the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the postulated - but never yet observed! - "orbital" velocity of the Earth.

There is thus no complete - let alone compelling - argument to justify the shift from classical to relativistic physics. Einstein's pivotal allusion to the Michelson-Morley experiment has no doubt a powerful psychological efficacy within the scientific community, but actually carries no weight : given that the experiment was designed to detect and measure - for the very fist time - a conjectured velocity, its failure to confirm that hypothetical motion hardly disproves the validity of classical mechanics!

Moreover, there is nothing in any way illogical, incongruous, or scientifically objectionable in the fact that the equations governing mechanical phenomena and those which describe electromagnetic fields should be invariant under different groups (Galilean and Lorentz, respectively). It could in fact be argued quite cogently that in view of the radically different nature of these respective domains, such a discrepancy is rather to be expected. In any case, there appears to be no bona-fide argument which would exclude that possibility, and Einstein's above-cited reference to "the phenomena of mechanics" most certainly doesn't alter this fact.

Meanwhile it is a mathematical fact that, so far from satisfying Einstein's Principle of Relativity, the equations of classical physics - mechanics plus electromagnetism - actually entail the very opposite : they imply, namely that if the equations of mechanics and of electromagnetism both hold in two reference frames Ko and K, then K is in fact stationary with respect to Ko. Instead of the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity, we actually have here a Principle of Immobility - and not as a conjecture in conflict with the equations of mechanics, but as theorem of classical physics.

The fact is that pre-Einsteinian physics implies the very opposite of Einstein's postulate : in place of an ensemble of "inertial" reference frames in uniform motion with respect to each other, in which none can be singled out on physical grounds, one finds that physics itself defines a state of absolute rest.

So far as I know, neither Albert Einstein nor any post-Einsteinian physicist of repute has ever so much as mentioned this remarkable fact, let alone explored its implications. No one among the avant-garde physicists appears to have seriously entertained the possibility that the equations of classical mechanics may actually be correct!

In place of a Principle of Immobility corroborated empirically for well over half a century, they have opted for a Principle of Relativity for which there is actually no empirical validation at all : that conjectured Principle takes precedence, in their mind, over three centuries of scientific verification!

But why?

On what grounds does Einstein justify his rejection of classical mechanics? When and where, exactly, did it fail?

Does he have nothing more cogent to offer in that regard than the reputed "failure" of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

I contend that the Einsteinian preference for the Principle of Relativity is based in the final count - not on scientific or empirical grounds - but on ideological premises.

- Wolfgang Smith

COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 1 :

COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :


Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift is approaching. Theories which have yielded the standard cosmology “physical universe” (with the exception of quantum physics, which, as anyone who has read Wolfgang Smith’s “The Quantum Enigma” will know, is the key exception) have arrived at last at dead ends, with ad-hoc ex-post-facto patch ups galore and the “multimess” providing the Big Red Flag that something has gone amiss.

Speaking of Wolfgang Smith, the matter of the Kuhnian paradigm shift is considered by him in his remarkable “Science and Myth“:

“There remains the question of evidential basis, of verification. It is to be noted, first of all, that in the absence of controlled experiment, verification in the full scientific sense is ruled out in advance: the best one can hope for is that signals from outer space, when interpreted according to terrestrial physics, do not conflict with the theory. It happens, however, that they do, which is to say that it has been necessary to introduce a number of ad hoc hypotheses: i.e., assumptions formulated specifically for the purpose of squaring the theory with conflicting observational findings. What is more, the process of adding extra assumptions in response to adverse data appears to be ongoing; as Brent Tully (known for his discovery of supergalaxies) observed: ‘It’s disturbing that there is a new theory every time there is a new observation.’ To which one might add that Tully has every right to be disturbed: for such a modus operandi in effect eliminates empirical verification as a criterion of truth. Under such auspices it becomes hard to ascertain whether there exists so much as a shred of real evidence in support of the theory.”

"It is surely no accident that the rise of astrophysics has been accompanied by the advent of post-modernist nihilism in its philosophic as well as cultural manifestations. The drift into nihilism corresponds precisely to the loss of substance implicit in the physicist’s world view: culture and cosmology, it turns out, are intimately linked. In fact, as the cosmology flattens, so invariably does the culture.”— Wolfgang Smith, “Ancient Wisdom and Modern Misconceptions- A Critique of Contemporary Scientism” Angelico Press 2015
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2019, 07:33:46 AM »
Of his own MMX experiment, *Albert Michelson* said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

cikljamas, you are a liar.  Here is the full quote:
Quote from: Albert Michelson
This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

You are a liar, cikljamas.  How does that make you feel to be caught lying?

Full quote is even better, where is the problem? The real problem here is your inability to cope with the truth, isn't it?

There is more 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.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Yes

  • 256
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2019, 08:14:34 AM »
Full quote is even better, where is the problem? The real problem here is your inability to cope with the truth, isn't it?
You propose that these famous scientists claim the earth isn't moving.  The problem is that your proposition is based on lies, or at least willful ignorance.

The experiments you reference were to observe luminiferous aether, as has been explained to you.  The hypothesis is that, since we already know through direct observation that the earth is moving around the sun, then if aether exists we may be able to directly detect earth's movement through that aether.  (Or more pedantically: detect the relative motion of aether.)

But it turns out aether doesn't exist, hence no motion through the aether was detected.

You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2019, 01:24:51 PM »
which, as one knows, was designed to detect and measure the postulated orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun
No, it was designed to detect the motion of Earth relative to the alleged aether.
With the idea that the aether was stationary and fixed to the solar system then that would measure Earth's orbital motion as well.

On what basis therefore
On the same basis which has been explained to you repeatedly.
This was not the only experiment dealing with aether.
These experiments, when taken together show the aether model to be untennable.
They require the Earth to be moving relative to the aether while also being stationary relative to the aether, a direct contradiction.
Ignoring this fact will not change it.

Full quote is even better, where is the problem?
The problem is that it shows you are intentionally leaving out the most important part of that quote, the aether.
It isn't saying that it contradicts Earth moving. It is saying that it contradicts Earth moving through the aether.

Which one is moving (Earth, the aether, or both) is irrelevant. What is important is the relative motion between Earth and the aether, which must exist and not exist.
This means that it shows the aether model is wrong, not that Earth is stationary.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2019, 05:38:12 AM »
The problem is that it shows you are intentionally leaving out the most important part of that quote, the aether.
It isn't saying that it contradicts Earth moving. It is saying that it contradicts Earth moving through the aether.

And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists, then all i can say : good morning Jack...

To read before bedtime :

 Einstein defines K as a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system, and K1 as a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K. Since this directly represents the earth (K1) and the universe (K) in Dr. Nieto's antigeocentric cosmology, I will substitute these identifications for K and K1 in italics in Einstein's text to make Einstein's position clear to every reader:

”Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth. [The geosynchronous satellite is precisely such an object, at rest with respect to the earth, but viewed as having a centrifugal force acting on it with respect to the universe — MGS.] Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as 'absolute,' and that the earth could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of 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 the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest.”

In quite precise language, Einstein taught that the centrifugal force on an object in the earth's rest frame is inadmissible as evidence of the rotation of the earth, for in the earth's frame that force arises from “the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses.” This 1914 teaching of Einstein is rather old news — and it remains inconceivable that Nieto would cite it, “amusingly enough,” without reading it. Or is there a tragic pattern here? Thirring observed in his opening paragraphs that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the geosynchronous satellite or Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: “the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.” This is what geocentrists mean when they assert (much to Dr. North's disdain) that the mathematics is the same for the heliocentric and geocentric models: Einstein's field equations are structured to supply the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. In fact, the only reason Thirring wrote his paper was because the boundary conditions of Einstein's paper were geared for a finite universe, so that Thirring set forth, in his own words, “the mathematical development of a rotational field of distant masses for a specific, concrete example.” After ten pages of tensor analysis, Thirring summarizes: “By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.” Hard again to imagine Dr. Nieto's amusement in citing in his favor a source, even second-hand, that negates his position. Harder yet to imagine Dr. Nieto rejecting Thirring's argument, since it simply (and ably) develops Einstein's own stated position.

In short, we have here Thirring cited against Thirring, Einstein cited against Einstein, and general relativity cited against general relativity. Dr. Nieto deliberately and directly undermines his own physics, and his arguments are manifestly self-contradictory. Consistent relativists have never been hostile to geocentricity. Dr. Fred Hoyle pointed out that had the trial of Galileo been held after Einstein published his general theory, it would have resulted in an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity. This is the legacy of general relativity: the overthrow of absolute reference frames, and the democratization of all coordinate systems. Let it be clearly understood that the presentation of general relativity's teaching on the geocentric model presented herein is central, not peripheral or obscure, in Einstein's theory. It was plainly presented to this author when he learned the fundamentals of general relativity and geometrodynamics at the California Institute of Technology at the age of 16 (as a research fellow for the 1973 California Junior Science & Humanities Symposium, under the supervision of Dr. Kip S. Thorne and his associates — and often studying, in fact, from the galley proofs of Gravitation as it was being completed for publication). We can therefore safely rule out the idea that Dr. Nieto's training somehow glossed over this key proposition, in light of the fact that it is basic to Einstein's theory, and that Dr. Nieto freely cites references from general relativity's body of extant literature. He even indicates that he is actively seeking to improve upon Enstein, which would, presumably, imply some mastery and understanding of the theory one is attempting to supplant.

Therefore, Dr. Nieto's multiple citations from the world of general relativity constitute academic suicide so far as this particular debate is concerned. A geocentrist could have easily quoted the selfsame references as Dr. Nieto did, but in so doing remained consistent with Einstein. (There are, in fact, a number of geocentrists who base their scientific understanding of the geocentric model directly upon general relativity, at least one of which has conveyed this clearly and concisely to Dr. North.)

To summarize: it is impossible to launch an attack on geocentricity on the basis of general relativity, by definition. Proof of a moving earth is simultaneously proof that general relativity is a myth.

There are two variations of the geocentric model that account for the phenomenon in question.

In the modified Tychonic model (the version of geocentricity that most geocentrists tend to adopt), the motion of the stars, etc., is tied to the Sun, so that the annual motion of the Sun is also geometrically shared by the stars. This gives a purely geometric explanation of the dynamics. This would be the form of geocentricity that secular scientists working within relativistic frameworks, for example, Einstein or Poincare or Hoyle would have adopted, as it is a simple coordinate transformation with all the relative velocities remaining constant. This, as has long been pointed out, is due to the general covariance of Einstein's field equations (which also has implications for forces present at the Earth's surface). This model also accounts for related phenomena alleged to "prove" heliocentricity (diurnal variation of meteoric influx presumed to be due to how the Earth scours out a path through interplanetary debris during its alleged journey around the Sun, etc.).

There is, however, a minority view among geocentrists, whom we shall call the purists, who don't think the modified Tychonic model is the right geocentric paradigm to promote. This smaller group is extremely well versed in high power mathematics, and were able to make some rather remarkable scientific concepts quite rigorous. In this variation of geocentricity, the stars do NOT partake of the annual motion of the Sun, but are rotating around a center that is still fixed on the Earth. The question them becomes, how then do these purists account for parallax and aberration? These two phenomena are distinct in the modified Tychonic (and conventional heliocentric) cosmologies, but not in the case of this "pure geocentric" model. What these men have discovered is that if you treat the Earth as the sink of a conformal mapping (an elaborate mathematical procedure that is tractable in two dimensions, but not yet in three dimensions), you discover that both parallax AND aberration are two orthogonal components of a single phenomenon tied to that mapping effect at the sink. Because this derivation was made rigorous in two dimensions, it has considerable scientific plausibility and provides a rather novel approach to the behavior of starlight that isn't anticipated in conventional heliocentric cosmology nor in the majority version of geocentricity, the modified Tychonic model (which leverages the same explanation as heliocentricity uses to explain these phenomena, namely, dynamic shifts in system geometry). The purists are interested instead on the behavior of the light and accounting for it directly as a property of the light and the position of the sink. The non-purists and detractors of geocentricity are interested in the geometry, assuming nothing unusual about the behavior of light in any way, shape, or form.

I hope this helps set forth the two options available under the geocentric paradigm to explain phenomena such as posed in the quote you affixed to your inquiry.

As to the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the situation is rather simple: the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. Those physicists who hold to various ether theories have to also teach that the ether is "entrained" at the Earth's surface to create that null result, but that means that there is a gradient in the ether between the Earth's surface and outer space — and this gradient (required by this model) simply does not exist, and has never been found. There is also a massive disproportion in this effect between the daily and annual motion of the Earth, where the greater acceleration yields the smaller apparent effect — but such discrepancies are ignored. The geocentrists, to their credit, do not ignore this evidence, they make sure these serious problems with the modern cosmologies remain center stage wherever and whenever possible. Nobody should be given a free pass on a question of this nature, nor permitted to fudge the data.

- Martin G. Selbrede
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2019, 05:54:36 AM »
And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists,
[citation needed]
You need more citations? No problem, here we go :

0. Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the  aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed  unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is  largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).

Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise  around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise.  After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes.  Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be  chasing the camera  (which is moving away at  speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a  relative  speed  of c +v.  If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.

But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth  alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed  out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the  evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's  experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations  of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General  Theory  of Relativity" (GTR).

Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is  clearly  invalid.

Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago.  The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause  a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both  beams would take the same time. the  earth's  rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the  earth were standing still with the universe, including the  aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.

They measured a difference. Existence  of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.

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.

2. For Sagnac, the result of his famous experiment proves the existence of the aether. In his paper, Sagnac also predicts that a similar effect would be observed from the diurnal Earth rotation (the Earth taken as a rotating turntable) using a very large interferometer. The argument of this author (Gianni Pascoli) appears a priori quite convincing. The existence of a propagation medium for light waves seems to be confirmed by his experiment.

But in science, an hypothesis cannot be validated only if it allows one to explain all the experiments, not one in particular. Other experiments definitively invalidate the hypothesis of the aether, according to Gianni Pascoli. Perhaps most famous is the crucial experiment of Michelson and Morley. The aim of this experiment was to measure the displacement of the Earth with respect to the aether. Using an interferometric device, they showed that the velocity of the aether wind, if any, was less than 5 km/s (we should remember that the alleged velocity of the Earth in the solar system is 30 km/s, and therefore much greater). The procedure has obviously been repeated several times within a year (in case at a given time, and by an extraordinary coincidence, the Earth's velocity at the time of measurement had been less than 5 km/s with respect to the aether), but no seasonal effects have been found. The Michelson–Morley experiment has been repeated with ever-increasing accuracy.

The Michelson-type experiment carried out by Georg Joos in 1930 allowed him to give a bound to the velocity of the aether wind of less than 1.5 km/s. More recently, experiments have been carried out using various sophisticated devices, such as lasers and masers, optical resonators and microwaves, etc. The conclusion is always the same: no measurable aether wind which speed would be close to the alleged orbital speed of the earth. If we only focus on the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is still perfectly legitimate to imagine that the Earth completely drags the aether in its translatory motion (Fresnel had already suggested in 1818 the hypothesis of a partial dragging of the aether with moving substances). In this case, the negative result of the Michelson experiment has a trivial explanation.

Unfortunately, however, such an assumption cannot be maintained. There are two immediate reasons for 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.

3. 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???

The results of the Sagnac experiment, the MGP experiment and the Brillet and Hall experiment, all indicate that one can effectively measure rotation by optical means, whether the interferometer is rotating or not.  Given the required resolution, a rotating interferometer will always be capable of optically measuring its own rate of rotation, as well as  that of the revolving frame on which its axis of rotation is inertially at rest. A stationary interferometer can only electromagnetically measure the rate of rotation of the revolving frame on which it is inertially at rest.

No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.

Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded  in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz.

Aspden, who has suggested  that  the null result may well be  the  inevitable consequence of such  frequency-locked  laser  tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the  light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":

"Interpreting  the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as  this  is 0.131  (v/c)^2, we  find  that v/c  is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec.   If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of  earth  rotation  at Boulder, Colorado.  Being  at  40°N, Boulder  has,  in  fact,  an  earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!

More recently still, there have been confirmations of  the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction.  Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated  in  a N-S  plane  the  effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was  at a maximum.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Yes

  • 256
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2019, 05:59:28 AM »
And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists,
[citation needed]
You need more citations? No problem, here we go :
I guess I brought that on myself, didn't I?

If you would, allow me to request something more specific: external links to sources that provide evidence for aether.

As in, where are you getting this from?  Or put it another way, show me you're not making this up.
You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2019, 06:48:23 AM »
- Martin G. Selbrede

Martin G. Selbrede. Vicepresident of the Chalcedon Foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedon_Foundation


The Chalcedon Foundation advocates the Christian Reconstructionism movement which "believes Christians must take control of society for 1,000 years before the Second Coming of Christ can be achieved." Rushdoony believed the Bible should be adopted as law, including Scriptures advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, and lying.

In 2005, the Chalcedon Foundation was designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).The Chalcedon Foundation promotes Christian Reconstruction and calls for the "imposition of Old Testament law on America and the world." According to the SPLC, this "embraces the most draconian of religious views", being "opposed to modern notions of equality, democracy or tolerance." The SPLC also stated that Rushdoony supported the death penalty for homosexuals, opposed interracial marriage, denied the Holocaust, and included "incorrigible children" as a group of people deserving of the death penalty.



Scary stuff   :(
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2019, 07:20:33 AM »
By the way, your copypasta was already spanked years ago:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.120
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.1560
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74745.240
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68459.150
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68556.0

Just search for the phrase "Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully" and go from there.

If you dared to look in the mirror you wouldn't be able to notice a single shred of honesty :

ONLY A FOOL NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!!!

5. Jon McIntyre - Truth Seeker says :
Hey Odiupicku I've got a couple of more flat earth tests I've done that seem to show curvature. I've got four videos up now that all seem to show curvature. I came at this debate from a completely neutral perspective and in truth I actually preferred to find that the earth was flat. That's because if it was and it could be proven the whole corrupt system running the world would collapse. To my disappointment I keep finding what appears to be curvature but the  truth is that is what I'm finding. I've actually got another test in the can and will be uploading that one soon as well. It is called "The Floating Levels Test" and it shows the surface of a lake to be convex or at least it clearly appears that way. Could you please mirror my new videos and give a link back to my channel. I ask you mostly because I believe that spreading truthful inquiry and experiments is valuable. I also feel that you have shown yourself to have the character to admit you are wrong (regarding the shape of the earth) and pursue the truth just like I did. Thanks for all of your work. I'll also let you know when my latest test is uploaded. Thanks!?

OBJECT LESSON?

ONLY A FOOL NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!!!

This is not the first time that i am offering (to everyone who is interested) this irrefutable ROUND EARTH evidence :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2172534#msg2172534

Flat-earth stupidity revival was orchestrated by NASA guys. They organized it in a way that was going to produce the desired result : whenever someone mentions something about NASA fraudulent missions, or about the heliocentric hoax (which is a grandaddy of all deceptions in today's world) or about "evolution theory" hoax, or about Big-Bang idiocy, or about 9/11 inside job, or about NWO agenda, or about Kennedy assassination (which was an inside job, also), etc..., they instantly pull out from their asses "flat earth stupidity" saying : you see there is no essential difference between these guys (geocentrists-real truth seekers) and those who believe that the earth is flat (they instantly assign flat-earth label to all of them/us, in order to discredit every voice of reason in today's fucked up world)...

Give me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent scientist (or well educated person) who lived in last 2 500 years or even christian theologian who ever lived (in last 2 000 years) on this earth who claimed that the earth is flat!!! JUST ONE NAME, can you do that??? The earth is motionless and in the center of the universe, but the earth isn't flat for God sake, what is wrong with you people? How about this (simple challenge) : If the earth were flat, then the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to do (to deal with) is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so??? So, why don't you try to draw functional flat earth map? Why??? I'll tell you why : because it is absolutely impossible, that's why!

THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICALLY SHAPED :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201616#msg2201616
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200711#msg2200711
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 07:22:37 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack


Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2019, 12:37:38 PM »
And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists
You mean doesn't exist, including that very quote where you dishonestly leave out a key part which shows that aether can't exist.

Now you seem to have run off on a massive tangent, spamming with completely irrelevant nonsense.

Why don't we get back to the thread?
Your own quotes show that Einstein accepted the fact that Earth rotates.
As such, how did he spill the beans for something he didn't even agree with?

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2019, 01:56:40 PM »
And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists
You mean doesn't exist, including that very quote where you dishonestly leave out a key part which shows that aether can't exist.

Now you seem to have run off on a massive tangent, spamming with completely irrelevant nonsense.

Why don't we get back to the thread?
Your own quotes show that Einstein accepted the fact that Earth rotates.
As such, how did he spill the beans for something he didn't even agree with?

You should be banned for such a monumental trolling...

No marvel that Einstein spilled the beans (non-intentionally in all probability) given the following summary :

Thirring observed in his opening paragraphs that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the geosynchronous satellite or Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: “the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.”

Dr. Fred Hoyle pointed out that had the trial of Galileo been held after Einstein published his general theory, it would have resulted in an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity. This is the legacy of general relativity: the overthrow of absolute reference frames, and the democratization of all coordinate systems. Let it be clearly understood that the presentation of general relativity's teaching on the geocentric model presented herein is central, not peripheral or obscure, in Einstein's theory.

It is impossible to launch an attack on geocentricity on the basis of general relativity, by definition. Proof of a moving earth is simultaneously proof that general relativity is a myth.

In 1904 Lorentz admitted :

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.

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.

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:



AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :


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

Of his own MMX experiment, *Albert Michelson* said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

The purpose of the Morley-Michelson experiment was to detect the motion of the lab relatively to the inertial system of the luminiferous aether, i.e. the "aether wind". SOURCE : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34689/what-were-the-intention-conclusions-for-michelson-morley-experiment

Here are Michelson’s own words:

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

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

"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

I will substitute these identifications for K and K1 in italics in Einstein's text to make Einstein's position clear to every reader:

”Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth."

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

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

As to the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the situation is rather simple: the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. Those physicists who hold to various ether theories have to also teach that the ether is "entrained" at the Earth's surface to create that null result, but that means that there is a gradient in the ether between the Earth's surface and outer space — and this gradient (required by this model) simply does not exist, and has never been found. There is also a massive disproportion in this effect between the daily and annual motion of the Earth, where the greater acceleration yields the smaller apparent effect — but such discrepancies are ignored. The geocentrists, to their credit, do not ignore this evidence, they make sure these serious problems with the modern cosmologies remain center stage wherever and whenever possible. Nobody should be given a free pass on a question of this nature, nor permitted to fudge the data.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2019, 02:57:04 PM »
No marvel that Einstein spilled the beans (non-intentionally in all probability) given the following summary :
Again you have no basis to assert he spilled the beans.
All the evidence indicates that Einstein fully accepted that Earth rotates.
You are unable to produce a single valid reference from Einstein that indicates he thinks Earth is stationary.

The closest you are able to come is a quote discussing relativity where Einstein basically says that Mach's principles makes the distinction impossible and that a rotating Earth would be equivalent to the stars rotating about Earth and magically inducing because of their motion.

Even if taken as a complete fact, that in no way indicates Earth is stationary, all it is saying is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

But as there is no such mechanism for a force to magically arise, it can be dismissed.

Again, try and stay on topic.
Stop bringing up quotes from people who aren't Einstein, and stop bringing up the refuted aether.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17296
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2019, 03:57:52 PM »
No, it's not debunked. The aether still exists in science.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether

The aether was a substance filling background space and thought to be required to explain how light waves could be propagated through space, as all wave transmission requires a medium. Its existence has been postulated in various forms and uses throughout the ages, from the Ancient Greeks, to Newton, to the scientists of the Victorian Era. Aristotle called aether the Fifth Element.

James Clerk Maxwell, the father of Electromagnetic Theory and a figure widely considered to be one of the greatest scientists to have lived, utilizes aether in his treatise:

  “ In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium. ”
                  —James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism/Part IV/Chapter XX

It is popularly believed that Einstein abolished the aether in science with his Theory of Relativity. However, the following quotes suggest a different story:

  “ Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled "Is There an Aether?"(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with 'We have now the velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether'. ”
                  —An Aether Model of the Universe - http://www.epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf

  “ It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. ”
                  —Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).

  “ According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense ”
                  —Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in Sidelights on Relativity, 1983, p. 30

  “ Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics. ”
                  —Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971

  “ …in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together. ”
                  —Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.

  “ Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe. ”
                  —Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.

  “ A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept. ”
                  —“Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159. - http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF

  “ Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “ether” once again. ”
                  —S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, editors, The Philosophy of Vacuum, 1991, p. 251.

  “ Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view. ”
                  —Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

  “ Prior to the twentieth century, physics tried to explain how Nature works. Over the twentieth century, and especially in the last half, we got much more ambitious - now we’re uncovering what Nature is. The foundation is an entity I call the Grid. The Grid fills space, and is full of spontaneous activity. In some ways it resembles the old idea of “ether”. But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features. We have some wonderful ideas waiting to be tested. There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics. ”
                  —Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008) in a Q&A regarding his book. - http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Q_and_A.pdf

  “Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space 'Ether'; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity.”
                  —Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

  “ Einstein's new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it "Mach's ether" or simply "ether," and supplied the same reasons that Poincare had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether (we need the ether in order to remove absolute rotation and action-at-a-distance: see my papers "Poincare's ether"). Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein's ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincare's ether. Einstein did not give a definitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture. ”
                  —"Einstein's Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth," Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Cannel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64.

  “ A few words about the gravitational æther, and the æther concept in general may be in place here. The æther hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR: experiments capable of finding the æther were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic æther has always been observed... ”
                  —Toivo Jaakkola Tuorla Observatory University of Turku "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", APEIRON Vol. 3 Nr. 3-4 July-Oct. 1996, p 70.

  “ Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium....A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum "ether" once again. ”
                  —'The Philosophy of Vacuum' , 1991, Simon W. Saunders, Harvey R. Jr. Brown, p 251.

  “ According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure. The impedance equals 376+ ohms. ”
                  —"Space Must Be Quantizied", Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, 21st Century, 1988, p. 26

*

sokarul

  • 16173
  • Discount Chemist
Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2019, 04:33:12 PM »
There is no evidence you can post to clearly prove aether exists.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run