NASA EPIC LIES

Back to the NASA epic lies - Challenger astronauts.

This is not definitive proof the proposed doppelgangers are not the dead astronauts but it is a starting point that certainly leans that way.

The top row is a base to start from with the main star wars actors with similarity match with roughly forty years in between. The last one with Harrison Ford in his Indiana Jones days compared to now so with roughly 30 years age gap.

If you were to rely upon this facial similarity program, well, the results speak for themselves. If the chosen doppelgangers were indeed the challenger astronauts, I'd expect a similarity rating of about 80 percent on each of them or higher. 

McNair scores the highest similarity rating, likely because he is brother to the astronaut.

Maybie it is caused by angle. See how Star wars actors have relativly similar face expression.

Maybie it is caused by angle. See how Star wars actors have relativly similar face expression.

Also remember that mark Hamill was in an accident and needed facial reconstruction so I'm not sure how accurate any of this is.

Facial recognition is just guesswork, especially with differences in age. That can change a LOT and I wouldn't depend on it.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:53:33 AM

1. How about answering this simple question :

Eliminating the ether certainly solved a lot of problems for Einstein, but like any ad hoc solution, it created additional ones.

 William Magie, president of the American Physical Society, pointed out one of the obvious ones in 1911. To his scientific constituents he complained :

The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?

Try to answer this one smart guys!!!

You realize that William Francis Magie was a devout Heliocentrist, right? He felt that the ether had to exist as a medium. Additionally he knew the earth revolves. He was more concerned with whether the ether revolves with the earth (dragged) or remained stationary. That's it.

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:53:33 AM

2. How about answering this simple question :

Contrived results: light waves coalesce because the contracting space contracts the longitudinal arm of the apparatus. Time contracts (from the moving object’s perspective) or “dilates” (from the observer’s perspective) because it is an integral part of space (i.e., “spacetime”).

Now, care to explain to me : how in the world can time "dilate" from the observer's perspective only in relation to Michelson-Morley horizontal beam of light (the beam that goes along horizontal arm (horizontal = parallel with ether's wind) of Michelson's apparatus), and not (in the same time) in relation to Michelson's vertical beam of light???

This idiotic ad hoc assumption (that from the observer's perspective time dilates only in relation to one of two mutually perpendicular arms of Michelson's apparatus) is the stupidest logical fallacy i have ever heard of.

Everyone is very welcome to try to explain this idiocy!!!

The earth rotates.

And the nobel prize for idiocy goes to...

<< Don't shout! >>
And the Nobel prize for idiocy goes to...

cikljamas, of course!

Why is luminiferous aether needed to observe an interference pattern?

If you expect respectful answered make respectful requests.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:03:53 AM

I dedicate this video to you: NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION!!

But that video's nearly right. Make it, "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S absolute linear MOTION!!!"

But there are numerous experiments and devices that can detect and even accurately measure the Earth's rotation.
They are generally devices relying on either the Coriolis effect or on the Sagnac effect though even the Doppler effect and Stellar Aberration show the changes in the Earth's velocity.

Ever heard of marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodilites that rely on the Earth's rotation to find true north?
Ever heard of ring laser gyroscopes that can measure the rate of the Earth's rotation with better precision the astronomical observations?

Similar to Lynch, in the 1940-50s, Hebert Ives wrote extensively on the“self-contradictory” nature of Einstein’s principle of the constancy of the speed of light. Even some of today’s popular Relativists admit that the speed of light is not always constant in vacuo, and they go through the most strained semantic contortions in order to deny it is happening. As always, mathematics comes to the rescue. Clifford Will explains:

The speed of light is indeed the same in every freely falling frame, but we are forced to consider a sequence of such frames all along the light path, and when we do so, we find that the observer at the end of the path determines that the light took longer to cover a given trajectory when it passed near the Sun than it would have had it passed farther from the Sun. Whether or not the observer used the words “light slows down near the Sun” is purely a question of semantics. Because he never goes near the Sun to make the measurement, he can’t really make such a judgment; and if he had made such a measurement in a freely falling laboratory near the Sun, he would have found the same value for the speed of light as in a freely falling laboratory far from the Sun, and might have thoroughly confused himself. All the observer can say with no fear of contradiction is that he observed a time delay that depended on how close the light ray came to the Sun. The only sense in which it can be said that the light slowed down is mathematical: in a particular mathematical representation of the equations that describe the motion of the light ray, what general relativists call a particular coordinate system, the light appears to have a variable speed. But in a different mathematical representation (a different coordinate system), this statement might be false.
---  Clifford Will, Was Einstein Right? pp. 112-113. Will goes on for six more pages using charts, diagrams and more math to convince the reader that his above paragraph actually makes sense.

Concerning a similar perspective on light, Charles Lane Poor reveals that Relativity’s postulates

indicate that light travels with different speeds in different directions,that the velocity of light depends upon the direction of transmission. That such a mathematical result represents the facts of nature is highly improbable, for in free space there is no difference between right and left, between north and south, or east and west; there is no reason why a ray of light should travel faster to the north than to the south. To overcome this mathematical difficulty, or inconvenience, as he calls it,the relativist makes a substitution, or approximation. Instead of using the direct distance between the centers of two particles of matter, the relativist adds a small, a very small, factor to this distance; or, as Eddington puts it, “we shall slightly alter our coordinates.” Such an approximation is very common among physicists: it is done every day to simplify troublesome formulas. The only precaution necessary in such a procedure is to remember always that the final result is necessarily approximate, and, before drawing any conclusion, to thoroughly test the effects of the approximation. --- Charles Lane Poor, “Relativity: An Approximation,” Paper presented to the American Astronomical Society, Thirteenth Meeting, 1923, Mount Wilson Observatory, California, p.3. Later Poor states: “But the method is faulty and contains obvious errors, and the fundamental formula for the velocity of light, upon which the entire method is based, is indirect contradiction to the principle of equivalence, for it shows that the speed of light decreases as it approaches the sun, while the equivalence principle demands that such velocity should increase” (ibid ., p. 12). For Poor’s complete paper, which makes a detailed critique of Einstein’s prediction of the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of starlight near the sun, see Volume II, “Einstein: Everything is Relative.”

Physicist Bryan Wallace reveals that when he discovered that the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory was basing their analysis of signal transit time in the solar system on the Newtonian and Galilean concept of c + v (i.e., the speed of light plus the speed of the source or medium of light) and not c as required by Einstein’s theory, he was summarily censured by the editors of Physics Today. His July 9, 1984 letter to the magazine states:

During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a paper published by Theodore D. Moyer [Celestial Mechanics 23, 33(1981)] of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory….The paper’s (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c + v equation (2) in my paper “Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space” [B. G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 2, 361(1969)]….The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein’s sacred postulate [B. G.Wallace, Physics Today, 36, (1), 11 (1983)]. Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS [Astrophysical Society] to bring true scientific freedom to the PR [Physical Review] journal’s editorial policy [B. G.Wallace, Physics Today, 37 (6), 15 (1984)]. --- B. G. Wallace, “Publication Politics” in The Farce of Physics, 1994. Wallace received a reply from Physics Today on Jan. 4, 1985 from Gloria B. Lubkin, acting editor, stating that the magazine editors reviewed the letter and decided against publication. Later, he received two more rejections. Moyer’s paper is titled: “Transformation from Proper Time on Earth to Coordinate Time in Solar System Barycentric Space-Time Frame of Reference.” His abstract states: “In order to obtain accurate computed values of Earth-based range and Doppler observables of a deep space probe, an expression is required for the time difference t – t, where t is coordinate time in the solar system barycentric space-time frame of reference and t is proper time recorded on a fixed atomic clock on Earth…” (p. 33).

How would the non-constancy of the speed of light affect Relativity theory? Marilyn vos Savant tells us: “If the speed of light were discovered not to be constant, modern scientific theory would be devastated.”

But according to one of Einstein’s letters to Paul Ehrenfest, it wouldn’t do any damage. He writes: “I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate.”

We can only say that it is amazing to watch the contortions through which Einstein puts his own theory.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

<< Don't shout! >>
And the Nobel prize for idiocy goes to...

cikljamas, of course!

Why is luminiferous aether needed to observe an interference pattern?

If you expect respectful answered make respectful requests.

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question. Not only that, the existence of ether is a proven fact (Sagnac effect). You should really carefully read these posts again :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254236#msg2254236
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254388#msg2254388
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254393#msg2254393
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254727#msg2254727
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254804#msg2254804
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254840#msg2254840
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254967#msg2254967
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255299#msg2255299
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255301#msg2255301
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255963#msg2255963
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256632#msg2256632
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256769#msg2256769
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257182#msg2257182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257753#msg2257753
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257908#msg2257908
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258086#msg2258086
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258145#msg2258145

So much spam so little knowledge.

I dedicate this video to you :
NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION!!!

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."

This very funny.  Who’s clinging to anything “like a teddy bear”?  Scientists in general have no emotional attachment to any particular model, they simply go where the evidence leads.  It’s geocentrists who need to place the earth and therefore humanity at the center of the universe, usually for religious reasons.

NASA and governments have nothing to do with it either.  That’s just a dumb excuse because your “model” requires ignoring evidence it can’t explain.  The heliocentric model of the solar system was determined by astronomers and physicists long long ago, purely through observation, logic and maths.

The big problem with it (apart from the blatantly false claim that all the evidence supports your model) is in claiming that the heliocentric system is convoluted.  It’s not, it’s very simple.  Gravity and the laws of motion alone describe the motions of all the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, etc almost perfectly (with a very small adjustment for relativity that can be ignored for most things).

The geocentric model on the other hand has a huge number of things completely unexplained.  Such as:

1.  Why does the sun orbit the earth?
2.  Why do all the stars and galaxies orbit the earth?
3.  Why and how does the sun’s orbit shift up and down with the seasons?
4.  Why to the orbits of the planets and stars also shift up and down perfectly in line with the seasons?
5.  Why do the stars orbit slightly faster than the sun, exactly the right amount to account for an orbit of the earth in the heliocentric model?
6.  If we accept astronomical distances, how do you account for the extreme speeds of objects orbiting a stationary earth?  Eg. Neptune would break light speed and even the nearest stars would cover many light years in a single day.

That’s just for starters.

I kinda can't take you seriously when your Youtube name translates to "come to pussy.


And can you link video on Wolfie6020 channel. I can't find it

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

... except the experiments that did but you would like to deny them and erase them from history.

Just one of the simple examples: the Foucault.

BTW, what else could be the reason for different weight reading of the same object on the same scale at diferent latitudes (distances from the Earth's axis)?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:03:53 AM

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

... except the experiments that did but you would like to deny them and erase them from history.

Just one of the simple examples: the Foucault.

Foucault? ROFLMAO

Foucault pendulum is a hoax. All modern Foucault pendulum displays are driven by finely tuned electric motors, tuned according to Foucault’s own formula for pendulums at latitude, and therefore demonstrate nothing scientific. It does however create a context of vicious circular reasoning.

The motors found in museum Foucault pendulums involve an electromagnet ring that surrounds the wire holding the pendulum weight. The objective of the ring magnet is to draw the pendulum wire away from its center position, with a pulsating magnetic field, so that the pendulum swings without slowing under frictional forces. The problem with this electromagnetic setup is that the ring magnet induces current into the pendulum wire, and like a modern squarel-cage motor, the wire returns an opposite magnetic field almost perpendicular to field of the ring magnet, but with a very small inductive delay. This interaction of magnetic fields causes torque in the wire. That is, the wire rotates slightly as a result of these magnetic interactions, so that the magnetic interactions and resulting electromagnetic-propelled precession, fabricate the illusion of a working Foucault pendulum.

The problem with Foucault’s premise

Foucault’s premise for the pendulum is as follows: Suppose you swing a pendulum over a table and you rotate the table slowly. The pendulum will stay in line as the table turns. But if you sit on the table as it turns: the pendulum itself will appear to rotate. The pendulum, Foucault said, is "fixed in absolute space while, like the table, we and the planet rotate under it." The pendulum appears to us to turn slowly as it swings back and forth but it is really we who are rotating around the pendulum.

The problem for this premise is as follows: if the earth is spherical and rotating, then the only place where the pendulum can function as prescribed by Foucault, “"fixed in space”, is at a pole (and held by something external to the earth). At a further latitude on such a rotating earth, the component of the earth turning under the pendulum is so diminished, so that the dominating force on the pendulum would be the centripetal force of the earth rotating. That is, the premise for the Foucault pendulum can only apply at (or near) a pole. However, the Foucault pendulum experiment was conducted in France, which is nowhere near the pole.

According to Elmendorf’s own attempts to reproduce Foucault’s experiment, “the Foucault pendulums seldom achieve turning rates closer than 15 percent to the theoretical. Compared to a sundial their daily movements are a joke, swinging in erratic directions proving that it is not an instrument controlled solely by the supposed steady rotation of the earth underneath it, but that the sensitive bob is moved by other unknown inertial influences” (Elmendorf, Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society).

There is no physical or logical reason to put the pendulum in motion:

If the pendulum is indeed "fixed in absolute space”, then there is no need to rock the pendulum, because the frame of the earth would rotate beneath a stationary pendulum weight, anyway. One could just as easily have a large disk sitting with a flat side to the ground, and suspended on a frictionless magnetic-field bearing. If indeed the earth is rotating, then the disk should, according to Foucault’s own reasoning, also rotate. We do not observe this affect in any such cases.

In fact, if Foucault’s pendulum premises were valid, we could use the earth’s rotation to generate electricity, and solve the world’s energy problems. The fact that energy generation through the earth’s rotation, and Foucault’s premise, is not even being explored, is telling of the nonsense that is the Foucault pendulum.

Foucault’s approach was not even scientific, because he believed the earth was rotating, he created and peddled his pendulum experiment to support his belief through the fallacy ad populum. The Foucault pendulum experiment is Foucault’s confirmation bias. If his approach had been even remotely scientific, Foucault would have devised experiments to falsify his hypothesis, as opposed to confirming it.

Alas, Foucault’s pendulum is a hoax...

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:03:53 AM

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

BTW, what else could be the reason for different weight reading of the same object on the same scale at diferent latitudes (distances from the Earth's axis)?

GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS - part 1 :
GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS - part 2 :
GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS - part 3 :

Let's not gish galop. I have started thread while ago talking about geocentrism. Post your videos there, as that is proper thread, Mr. "Come to pussy"

Foucault? ROFLMAO

Foucault pendulum is a hoax. All modern Foucault pendulum displays are driven by finely tuned electric motors, tuned according to Foucault’s own formula for pendulums at latitude, and therefore demonstrate nothing scientific. It does however create a context of vicious circular reasoning.

The motors found in museum Foucault pendulums involve an electromagnet ring that surrounds the wire holding the pendulum weight. The objective of the ring magnet is to draw the pendulum wire away from its center position, with a pulsating magnetic field, so that the pendulum swings without slowing under frictional force...That is, the wire rotates slightly as a result of these magnetic interactions, so that the magnetic interactions and resulting electromagnetic-propelled precession, fabricate the illusion of a working Foucault pendulum.

Again, cite your sources. You lifted this from a creationist computer science phd named Rune Rasmussen.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Foucault-pendulum-prove-that-the-earth-is-rotating-Even-if-the-earth-is-not-a-globe-how-could-this-movement-be-explained-in-the-flat-earth-model

Specific to the 'motors' used in modern day Foucault experiments/displays, you have to remember that 'motors' weren't used until 1910 when a Columbia University Prof built one. So there were about 60 years of the pendulum working as expected/predicted based upon latitude on a rotating earth.

According to Elmendorf’s own attempts...(Elmendorf, Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society).

R.G. Elmendorf is a super hardcore Creationist. Anti-evolution, anti-rotation, anti-science.

"In the end, Elmendorf believes that it comes down to a choice between "arbitrary philosophical assumption or faith-accepted revelation." and he wants it to be "acknowledged as such, and not misrepresented as if it were scientifically 'all settled'."...

Clearly, Elmendorf (and Bouw) both hold that the Bible is the only completely reliable source of information about the natural world, and that any science based on merely human knowledge is fallible by comparison."
Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: God, Scripture

To the Editor of Punch,

Sir,

"Allow me to call your serious and polite attention to the extraordinary phenomenon demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, which I at the present moment experience, and you yourself or anybody else, I have not the slightest doubt, would be satisfied of under similar circumstances. Some sceptical individuals may doubt that the Earth's motion is visible, but I say, from personal observation, it is a positive fact. I don't care about latitude or longitude, or a vibratory pendulum, revolving round the line of a tangent on a spherical surface, nor axes, nor apsides, nor anything of the sort. That is all rubbish. All I know is that I see the ceiling of this coffee-room going round. I perceive this distinctly with the naked eye—only my sight has been sharpened by a slight stimulant. I write after my sixth go of brandy and water, whereof witness my hand."

SWIGGINS.

"Goose and Gridiron, May 5, 1851.

To the Editor of Punch,

Sir,

"Allow me to call your serious and polite attention to the extraordinary phenomenon demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, which I at the present moment experience, and you yourself or anybody else, I have not the slightest doubt, would be satisfied of under similar circumstances. Some sceptical individuals may doubt that the Earth's motion is visible, but I say, from personal observation, it is a positive fact. I don't care about latitude or longitude, or a vibratory pendulum, revolving round the line of a tangent on a spherical surface, nor axes, nor apsides, nor anything of the sort. That is all rubbish. All I know is that I see the ceiling of this coffee-room going round. I perceive this distinctly with the naked eye—only my sight has been sharpened by a slight stimulant. I write after my sixth go of brandy and water, whereof witness my hand."

SWIGGINS.

"Goose and Gridiron, May 5, 1851.

Now you're quoting an English humor and satire magazine from the 1850's? About as valid as your Creationists citations.

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

No, the question is now that you have effectively admitted that your claims regarding Judy are pure nonsense, why keep up the charade?
Why don't you admit you have no basis at all for your claim that the Challenger disaster didn't kill these astronauts?

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question.

No, it isn't.
Instead it is baselessly asserted to provide a problem.

Foucault pendulum is a hoax. All modern Foucault pendulum displays are driven by finely tuned electric motors, tuned according to Foucault’s own formula for pendulums at latitude, and therefore demonstrate nothing scientific.

Got any proof for that?
Especially for the display I have used personally, which has no motor at all and will have each swing be reduced in amplitude until it eventually stops?

All you have is a pathetic attempt to dismiss it.

But of course, it is still entirely an attempt to deflect from your inability to defend your hoax.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

No, the question is now that you have effectively admitted that your claims regarding Judy are pure nonsense, why keep up the charade?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:46:03 AM

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question.

No, it isn't.
Instead it is baselessly asserted to provide a problem.

We must understand the bind in which Einstein found himself: (a) the Michelson-Morley experiment has provided him with evidence that the Earth is not moving through ether; and (b) the property of magnetism requires that magnetism be understood as a velocity-vector phenomenon, but neither (a) nor (b) are “relativistic” events. Since Einstein believes a moving Earth is already proven,he must find a radical solution that will allow him to dispense with a motionless Earth and the vector-dependent state of magnetism. Einstein’s solution, of course, is to do away with “absolute rest” altogether. Hence, there would be no fixed Earth, no fixed universe, no fixed magnet and no fixed conductor. All are in relative motion and there is no fixed frame of reference. It was the only way out of the dilemma. As Dingle recounts it in terms of his famous Cheshire cat:… 

this was a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s basic axiom…What Einstein was proposing, therefore, was to retain the finite velocity of light without the existence of any standard with respect to which that velocity had a meaning. Light consisted of waves, with a definite length, frequency and velocity, in nothing; it was the grin without the Cheshire cat….the fact that it could have been proposed at all is inexplicable until we remember the nature of the acceptance…so well expressed by Hertz – ‘Maxwell’s theory is Maxwell’s system of equations.’ The physical part of the theory was expendable; only the equations needed to be saved. Einstein saw a way of saving the equations, and did not consider it worthwhile to ‘explain’ light…If his assumptions were granted he did save the equations, and when his theory ultimately made its general impact on the world, mathematics had so dominated physics that the non-existence of the Cheshire cat was regarded as a triviality; the grin remained, and all was well. --- Science at the Crossroads, pp. 155-156.

Norton tries to explain the issue by noting that“if the magnet and conductor move together an extra complication enters. Because the conductor is now moving absolutely in a magnetic field, another part of Maxwell’s theory tells us that a second electric current will be induced in the conductor. Remarkably that second current flows in the opposite direction to the one produced by the electric field and it turns out to cancel it out exactly. The upshot is that checking for an electric current in the conductor fails as a means of distinguishing the absolute rest of the magnet in motion…it is as if the electric field just isn’t there for an observer moving with the magnet. But one at rest in the ether would say there is an electric field present” (Einstein’s Pathway to Special Relativity,” pp. 4-5). This is a special pleading that has no merit, since moving the magnet with the conductor is clearly a different case; and no claims of “moving absolutely” or “as if it isn’t there” applications can be made. It is fallacious to deny the significance of two opposing currents simply by an appeal to an observer who has no senses to distinguish them. Norton’s explanation is just another case that Relativity seeks to answer anomalies by making everything dependent on what the observer sees, not by what the reality dictates.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2020, 02:50:04 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

No, the question is now that you have effectively admitted that your claims regarding Judy are pure nonsense, why keep up the charade?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:46:03 AM

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question.

No, it isn't.
Instead it is baselessly asserted to provide a problem.

We must understand the bind in which Einstein found himself: <wall pf paste removed>

What happened to your Challenger 'Hoax'? Give up?

Make new thread, Mr "Go to pussy" or GTFO

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 03:02:47 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2020, 02:50:04 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

No, the question is now that you have effectively admitted that your claims regarding Judy are pure nonsense, why keep up the charade?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:46:03 AM

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question.

No, it isn't.
Instead it is baselessly asserted to provide a problem.

We must understand the bind in which Einstein found himself: <wall pf paste removed>

What happened to your Challenger 'Hoax'? Give up?

If you think you can prove that it wasn't a hoax, go ahead, prove it.
In the meantime, i can prove something else :
100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :
Best Proof The MOON Landings Were Fake 100% :

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 14, 2020, 03:35:30 AM

Maybie it is caused by angle. See how Star wars actors have relativly similar face expression.

Also remember that mark Hamill was in an accident and needed facial reconstruction so I'm not sure how accurate any of this is.

Facial recognition is just guesswork, especially with differences in age. That can change a LOT and I wouldn't depend on it.

So, you don't use facial recognition security on your iPhone? You also don't trust facial recognition programs being used in airports to try and identify potential terrorists or threats? Law enforcement agencies use it routinely to track suspects.

You think it's all "guesswork?"

I said from the beginning, this was the cheapest face matching app going, but it certainly isn't "guesswork" as you so eloquently state.

Different face angles and image quality, coupled with aging and the way the bones in our faces lose volume and our skin wrinkles, certainly affects reliability. But, the programs map biometrics. Harrison ford, Mark Hamill, and Carey Fisher were all still recognizable after 4 decades, and this cheap app delivered.

This is why emailing a doppelganger and requesting a photo of himself from 1986, wasn't a stupid idea.

What do you reckon, cikljamas? Still willing to bet your life these doppelgangers are the challenger astronauts?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 13, 2020, 06:06:03 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 13, 2020, 06:03:53 AM

I dedicate this video to you: NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION!!

But that video's nearly right. Make it, "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S absolute linear MOTION!!!"

But there are numerous experiments and devices that can detect and even accurately measure the Earth's rotation.
They are generally devices relying on either the Coriolis effect or on the Sagnac effect though even the Doppler effect and Stellar Aberration show the changes in the Earth's velocity.

Ever heard of marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodolites that rely on the Earth's rotation to find true north?
Ever heard of ring laser gyroscopes that can measure the rate of the Earth's rotation with better precision the astronomical observations?

Please explain how marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodolites can show indicate true north.
The most accurate can find true North to within 5 seconds of arc, see:
Azimuth determination by gyroscope, 50 years later, has anything changed? by Grobler HCI, PhD

Flat Earth and the Gyro REVISITED by Rob Durham

None of the gyros in that video have the stability needed to measure the rotation rate of the Earth. Try again!
But the one described here does!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You really should read up on "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser".
See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser
The author list is a bit long to put in the link with all these J. Belfi1, N. Beverini, F. Bosi, G. Carelli, D. Cuccato, G. De Luca, A. Di Virgilio1, A. Gebauer, E. Maccioni, A. Ortolan, A. Porzio, R. Santagata, A. Simonelli, and G. Terreni.
And note that it starts with:

Quote

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

The resolution is quite impressive.

Quote

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

Figure 3b. the chamber is complete

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

And the result is:

Quote

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

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

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

And I wish you'd note that as far as I can see all of those refereed (and other) papers you quote from are written by authors who most certainly believe in the Heliocentric Solar System.

Note that a sidereal day, as measured astronomically, is 86164.0905 seconds. So from that the rotation rate of the Earth relative to the stars is 7.292115858 x 10^-5‬
So they agree in all but the last place and these a good reason for even that.

https://s8.postimg.cc/6blgrt7j9/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_4.jpg
https://s8.postimg.cc/deyunr06d/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_5.jpg
https://s8.postimg.cc/719rkj5l1/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_6.jpg
https://s8.postimg.cc/ho863i879/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALLGAME_-_7.jpg
https://s15.postimg.cc/oh6lj51gb/A_WHOLE_NEW_BALL_GAME_-_8.jpg

take that up with Wolfie6020, not me!

Similar to Lynch, in the 1940-50s, Hebert Ives wrote extensively on the“self-contradictory” nature of Einstein’s principle of the constancy of the speed of light.

Hebert Ives is known to be an anti-relativist but the question here is the Geocentric Universe vs. the Heliocentric Solar System.
And that has been accepted from well before the time Isaac Newton.

Even some of today’s popular Relativists admit that the speed of light is not always constant in vacuo, and they go through the most strained semantic contortions in order to deny it is happening. As always, mathematics comes to the rescue. Clifford Will explains:
<< Ignored, that quote was from "Gallileo Was Wrong" by Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D. >>

If you want to quote what Clifford Will says please show what Clifford Will say and not what Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett say he said, thank you!

Concerning a similar perspective on light, Charles Lane Poor reveals that Relativity’s postulates
<< Ignored, that quote was from "Gallileo Was Wrong" by Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D. >>

If you want to quote what Charles Lane Poor says please show what Charles Lane Poor say and not what Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett say he said, thank you!

But I get back to the core question which is the Geocentric Universe vs. the Heliocentric Solar System and has nothing in the slightest to do with the correctness or otherwise of Einstein's General Theory of relativity.

The only geocentrists you've quoted from have been Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett.

We must understand the bind in which Einstein found himself:

No.
Lets first understand the bind you have placed yourself in.

You started a thread entitled NASA EPIC LIES.
You started with a post claiming the Challenger disaster was a hoax and that at least 6 of the astronauts who died didn't actually die and are still alive today.
You backed this up with superficial nonsense.
You then admitted that Judy Resnik who allegedly died is not the same as the law professor you originally claimed she was.

You have been completely unable to justify that any of those 6 are still alive.

You also refuse to admit you have nothing more than baseless nonsense.

When faced with this bind, you then choose to repeatedly deflect and spam irrelevant garbage.

So yes, lets focus on this bind. How will you get yourself out?
Will you produce the evidence that you have failed to provide since the start of the thread? Or will you admit you claim is pure unsubstantiated garbage?

If you think you can prove that it wasn't a hoax, go ahead, prove it.
In the meantime, i can prove something else :

That isn't how the burden of proof works.
You claim it is a hoax, the burden is on you to prove it is.
Needing to deflect and try to prove something else just further shows you have no case.

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 03:08:06 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 03:02:47 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2020, 02:50:04 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:09:28 AM

Just answer the question, and the question is this :

No, the question is now that you have effectively admitted that your claims regarding Judy are pure nonsense, why keep up the charade?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 14, 2020, 05:46:03 AM

Maybe you haven't noticed that the answer is given in the very question.

No, it isn't.
Instead it is baselessly asserted to provide a problem.

We must understand the bind in which Einstein found himself: <wall pf paste removed>

What happened to your Challenger 'Hoax'? Give up?

If you think you can prove that it wasn't a hoax, go ahead, prove it.

You are the bearer of the burden of proof. Not me.

So far, you have failed in providing any proof to overturn what was witnessed by millions.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You really should read up on "GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser".
See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser
The author list is a bit long to put in the link with all these J. Belfi1, N. Beverini, F. Bosi, G. Carelli, D. Cuccato, G. De Luca, A. Di Virgilio1, A. Gebauer, E. Maccioni, A. Ortolan, A. Porzio, R. Santagata, A. Simonelli, and G. Terreni.
And note that it starts with:

Quote

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

The resolution is quite impressive.

Quote

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

Figure 3b. the chamber is complete

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

And the result is:

Quote

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

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

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

And I wish you'd note that as far as I can see all of those refereed (and other) papers you quote from are written by authors who most certainly believe in the Heliocentric Solar System.

Note that a sidereal day, as measured astronomically, is 86164.0905 seconds. So from that the rotation rate of the Earth relative to the stars is 7.292115858 x 10^-5‬
So they agree in all but the last place and these a good reason for even that.

Michelson's 1887 experiment came before Special Relativity. His 1925 experiment came after Special Relativity. As the 1887 experiment was set up, it was believed that the Earth was revolving around the sun at close to 20 mps. If that was the case, then Michelson should have found an ether drift moving against the Earth commensurate with 20 mps. But Michelson only found about 10% of the needed ether drift. So, the conclusion should have been that the Earth was not revolving around the sun. Lorentz tried to explain the lack of sufficient ether drift by claiming that the ether moving against the Earth at 20 mps shortened the interferometer arm of Michelson's experiment. A shorter arm would thus shorten the measurement of the ether drift down to what Michelson found.

Einstein, coming about 13 years after Lorentz, didn't want ether pressure as the explanation for the shortening since if ether existed it could serve as an absolute for measurement, and Relativity could not coexist with an absolute reference frame of ether. So Einstein claimed that there was no ether, and that the "null" result of Michelson's experiment was caused by the limited speed of light, that is, moving objects appear to shrink because the light coming from the tip can't travel fast enough to our eyes as compared to the light from the back end coming to our eyes.

Thus the limited speed of light became a necessary "postulate" of Einstein's Special Relativity theory, but this postulate was never proven, only assumed as true. But if Einstein had chosen the Earth as constant instead of light (that is, the Earth not moving in space and thus is constantly in the same position), then light speed would have to vary, and it would vary because of the resistance of the ether it had to travel through.

The 1925 Michelson experiment showed why Einstein was wrong in choosing light as the constant and not the Earth as the constant. As Michelson set up the 1925 experiment to test for the daily rotation of the Earth, he found an ether drift for the daily rotation that was 98% of what was needed for confirmation (thus, far more than the 10% he got for a revolution of the  Earth around the sun in 1887). As such, Michelson proved that the ether existed (contrary to Einstein's claim in 1905 that ether did not exist) and the ether he found in 1925 impeded the speed of light commensurate with the speed of the daily rotation (which is 1054 mph at the Earth's equator). This discovered ether drift meant that Einstein's interpretation of the 1887 experiment (that ether did not exist) was totally wrong, and thus it meant that Special Relativity was wrong. For if ether impeded light's speed in the 1925 experiment, then it would have impeded the speed of light in the 1887 experiment, and thus light speed could not be constant but is affected by the ether within which it travels. 

Hence, with Special Relativity discredited, there were only two alternatives to answer the 1887 experiment: (1) the ether was moving with the Earth and therefore there would be no resistance to Michelson's light beam from the ether, which yielded a "null" result; (2) the Earth wasn't moving, and thus there would be no resistance to Michelson's light beam, which would yield a "null" result. Michelson chose (1), since neither he nor anyone else wanted to believe the Earth was not moving.

But Michelson's answer to the 1887 experiment (that is, ether entrainment) was shattered when he did his 1925 experiment, for since he found that ether impeded the speed of light due to a daily rotation, then obviously the ether was not entrained with the Earth, but was moving against the Earth at 1054mph at the equator.

But there was a much bigger problem for Lorentz, Michelson and Einstein. For if they insisted that heliocentrism was the correct model, heliocentrism requires both an annual revolution of the Earth around the sun and a daily rotation of the Earth on its axis. But Michelson's two experiments (1887 and 1925) only showed one of these two requirements -- a daily rotation. But heliocentrism cannot have an annual revolution without a daily rotation; and it cannot have a daily rotation without an annual revolution. Both are required, and if one is missing from the experimental evidence, then heliocentrism is falsified.

But there is no such problem for geocentrism, since it only needs one of the two requirements. It only needs a daily rotation, not a revolution. But here is the catch. The daily rotation is not of the Earth rotating on its axis, but the universe daily rotating around a fixed Earth. A universe of ether daily rotating around a fixed Earth will produce the exact results for ether drift impeding the speed of light that Michelson obtained in his 1925 experiment. Moreover, a universe daily rotating around a fixed Earth will also produce the "null" results for ether drift in the 1887 Michelson experiment, since in geocentrism there is no translational movement of the Earth, just as there is no rotational movement of the Earth. 

So, the results of Michelson's two experiments (1887 and 1925) show that Einstein's Special Relativity has been falsified. Light speed is not constant, and the Earth is not moving. It just so happens that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity allows light to travel at any speed, depending on the gravity and inertial forces through which it travels. Einstein also took back the ether in his General theory that he had discarded in his Special theory, thus nullifying the Special theory within his own theoretical constructs.

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS - part 3 :

. . . . . . . . . .
In the meantime, i can prove something else :
100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

What do a few expressions of incredulity on a scene of unknown provenance prove? Nothing!
Either give the exact source of that video or forget it!

Best Proof The MOON Landings Were Fake 100% :

So you post a fake video and claim it is "Best Proof The MOON Landings Were Fake 100%"!

Try this one:

Apollo 11 TV Broadcast - Neil Armstrong First Step on Moon

And here is the one recorded by the Australian OTC:

Neil Armstrong First Step Apollo 11 (OTC Paddington) by AIRBOYD

Recorded by Australia's Overseas Telecommunications Commision, which handled all telecommunications traffic with the res of the world. One of its functions, centered at its Paddington facility in Sydney, was to receive signals from the various tracking stations around the country and send them onward to NASA. 

Michelson's 1887 experiment

Has absolutely nothing at all to do with your baseless claims regarding the Challenger crew.

Now care to actually defend them, or admit they are pure nonsense?

Cikljamas, I'd prefer we stick to the thread topic, particularly the challenger hoax? We are all supposed to be adults here, yet here are like, 3 or 4 debates occurring here concurrently.

Retain some focus people, or take your ritalin! 

Ok, cikljamas, so you couldn't resist throwing a couple of one minute NASA videos into the fray. Fair enough. At least they are on topic.

Unfortunately, those videos do not prove the moon landing was a hoax. Instead, they prove the narrator has tunnel vision with limited understanding of what he's viewing, the environment, mechanics, and physics at play. The titles of those videos are actually the hoax.

Honestly, if that's the best proof the moon landings were fake, bite the bullet, now, Cikljamas, and repent.

Rabinoz, what you are saying is that my fake videos can't disprove authenticity of your fake videos. Maybe they can't, but your fake videos can't disprove authenticity of my fake videos, either. Get it? According to my fake video fake landing on the moon was filmed on the moon, not on the earth. You see, they hide from us that people can walk on the moon without space suits. But as you can see from my fake video, it is totally possible.