*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2023, 02:40:44 AM »
Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.

Plenty of people in the mainstream do say it though. To believed in modern gravity you have to believe that something meta-physical is happening.

This author of the type of mass media book you can find in a library repeats it:

https://qr.ae/pyhDGQ





This popular science video by Vertasium with over 10 million views explains at the 9:57 mark how you can be accelerating upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equations:

https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597

    @9:57

    "But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

    No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

    (equation)

    ...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still."

It also appears in this book about how math relates to the universe:

One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers
By Andrew Hodges

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCuwrtBax7AC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

    "Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature."

Andrew Hodges is a mathematician:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hodges




A physics student, Berry, once made us a brief paper about what he learned in physics class, showing the math on how the surface of the earth in the globe model of gravity is actually accelerating upwards.

https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards-pdf





Quote from: Dual1ty
That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".

But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?

I watched the video and Dubey only questions things like why the stars don't hit the earth, while you appear to be questioning the power source for what is pushing up the earth. If someone is an avid experimentalist like Max Plank and believes that all we really know is what has been subjected to experimentation then those concerns are immaterial to the demonstrated facts.

Max Plank is known for remarking that "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."

Experimentation is all we really know of the workings of the world, and this form of empirical inquiry is what marked the Scientific Revolution and the Scientific Method. Lesser forms of knowledge are often deemed to be pseudoscience. Experimentation shows the empirical truth of nature. The physical gravity experiments as verified by multiple laboratories have demonstrated in multiple ways that the earth is accelerating upwards. Everything else, and all other explanations, must follow behind this physical reality.

In the case of the Round Earth gravity, it must follow behind the empirical reality of experimentation, hence the need for illusions and processes in unseen dimensions to cause the physical earth to accelerate upwards.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2023, 04:22:23 AM by Tom Bishop »

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2023, 08:57:53 AM »
Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.

Plenty of people in the mainstream do say it though. To believed in modern gravity you have to believe that something meta-physical is happening.

This author of the type of mass media book you can find in a library repeats it:

https://qr.ae/pyhDGQ





This popular science video by Vertasium with over 10 million views explains at the 9:57 mark how you can be accelerating upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equations:

https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597

    @9:57

    "But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

    No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

    (equation)

    ...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still."

It also appears in this book about how math relates to the universe:

One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers
By Andrew Hodges

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCuwrtBax7AC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

    "Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature."

Andrew Hodges is a mathematician:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hodges




A physics student, Berry, once made us a brief paper about what he learned in physics class, showing the math on how the surface of the earth in the globe model of gravity is actually accelerating upwards.

https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards-pdf





Quote from: Dual1ty
That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".

But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?

I watched the video and Dubey only questions things like why the stars don't hit the earth, while you appear to be questioning the power source for what is pushing up the earth. If someone is an avid experimentalist like Max Plank and believes that all we really know is what has been subjected to experimentation then those concerns are immaterial to the demonstrated facts.

Max Plank is known for remarking that "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."

Experimentation is all we really know of the workings of the world, and this form of empirical inquiry is what marked the Scientific Revolution and the Scientific Method. Lesser forms of knowledge are often deemed to be pseudoscience. Experimentation shows the empirical truth of nature. The physical gravity experiments as verified by multiple laboratories have demonstrated in multiple ways that the earth is accelerating upwards. Everything else, and all other explanations, must follow behind this physical reality.

In the case of the Round Earth gravity, it must follow behind the empirical reality of experimentation, hence the need for illusions and processes in unseen dimensions to cause the physical earth to accelerate upwards.

I already told you I don't care about that. Saying that the Earth is accelerating upwards as a ball is even more insane than saying the Earth is accelerating upwards as a flat plane. It's definitely not physics, so there's no point in bringing that up in a physics discussion.

I used to believe in Rocketship Earth too until I got my head out my ass. Rocketship Earth requires a dome and there is no dome other than the one resulting from the gravitational field (and your perspective).

Unfortunately for you, experimentation shows that the Ether is real and that you're talking nonsense. But will you ever acknowledge that? Probably not.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2023, 10:26:29 AM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2023, 09:43:50 PM »
I don't know what the ether gravity theory is, but it would need to answer for the Equivalence Principle experiments like everything else. Any gravity theory where things are physically pushed or pulled downwards towards the earth does not work. Things would not be weightless in free fall.

Say you have a large heavy magnet and a tiny screw. If you hold the screw at some point near the magnet the screw flies out of your hand towards the magnet. While the screw is flying towards the magnet is it weightless as it is 'falling' towards the magnet?

No. If you were to momentarily pull it back in the opposite direction at the half way point you would feel resistance as the atoms of the screw attempts to accelerate towards the magnet. The magnetic atoms of the screw are not weightless in-flight. If there were metallic flexible hairs dangling from the screw it could not experience weightlessness float weightlessly 'up' and 'down' in relation to the screw's descent without resistance. If the screw was a magnetic metallic container containing a magnetic metallic liquid, and if the atoms were being pulled towards the magnet equally, then the liquid would not become weightless globs which can easily float in any direction while the container was accelerating towards the magnet.

A theory where something is pulling does not work. The only physical gravity theory which works is a scenario where the earth is accelerating upwards. Otherwise you would need something meta-physical with illusions in unseen dimensions to create the upward accelerating earth effect like the Round Earth explanation.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2023, 11:27:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2023, 11:45:32 PM »
I don't know what the ether gravity theory is, but it would need to answer for the Equivalence Principle experiments like everything else. Any gravity theory where things are physically pushed or pulled downwards towards the earth does not work. Things would not be weightless in free fall.

Say you have a large heavy magnet and a tiny screw. If you hold the screw at some point near the magnet the screw flies out of your hand towards the magnet. While the screw is flying towards the magnet is it weightless as it is 'falling' towards the magnet?

No. If you were to momentarily pull it back in the opposite direction at the half way point you would feel resistance as the atoms of the screw attempts to accelerate towards the magnet. The magnetic atoms of the screw are not weightless in-flight. If there were metallic flexible hairs dangling from the screw it could not experience weightlessness float weightlessly 'up' and 'down' in relation to the screw's descent without resistance. If the screw was a magnetic metallic container containing a magnetic metallic liquid, and if the atoms were being pulled towards the magnet equally, then the liquid would not become weightless globs which can easily float in any direction while the container was accelerating towards the magnet.

A theory where something is pulling does not work. The only physical gravity theory which works is a scenario where the earth is accelerating upwards. Otherwise you would need something meta-physical with illusions in unseen dimensions to create the upward accelerating earth effect like the Round Earth explanation.

First off, there's no such thing as a "magnetic atom". From reading that and the rest of what you wrote, it's apparent to me that you gravely misunderstand how magnetism works.

When the screw is "flying" towards the magnet it is in fact weightless, UNTIL you put some resistance on it or it settles on the magnet. What you're describing as "pulling in the opposite direction" is in fact applying resistance.

"A theory where something is pulling does not work.". That's you attacking a strawman theory that exists only in your imagination. In fact Ether distortion/dilation implies that everything is falling towards the center of the distortion/dilation with no force applied. Therefore, no "pulling" involved.

Furthermore, you keep hammering the point of the "upward accelerating ball" while ignoring yet again that an expanding non-expanding ball is nothing more than an oxymoron, and it is in fact not physics. The real ball Earth physics explanation is what I explained previously - that everything is freefalling weightlessly along a curved path UNTIL a resistance is applied such as that of the solid ground. Unfortunately for you and all the "upward accelerating ball" lunatics, the upward acceleration is an illusion and it doesn't happen in reality.

Oddly enough you claim that Rocketship Earth is powered by an unknown force that can only be explained spiritually, but accepting and understanding the reality of the Ether is a big problem for you (even though denying that the Ether exists is insane because a child could prove that it exists if given some tools and some directions).
« Last Edit: May 16, 2023, 11:57:48 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2023, 04:43:20 AM »
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each half of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.

And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you still have the same problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.

It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet.  By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 12:45:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2023, 08:01:02 AM »
Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
That may be true, but "accelerating upwards through curved space" (you mean spacetime) is NOT the same as a flat earth accelerating upwards through space.
In fact, both sources you cite explain that this does NOT mean that the earth is expanding.
So this may be true, but it's irrelevant and nothing to do with your hypothesis of UA
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2023, 08:20:54 AM »
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.

And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.

It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet.  By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.

What's the point in you using century-old misconceptions to mansplain how magnetism works?

"Magnetic atom", "magnetic attraction", "pulling phenomena". None of those things are real.

I suggest you study how magnetism actually works instead of invoking the old ghosts of outdated science. In real magnetism, there is no force involved. Same with gravity.

Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
That may be true, but "accelerating upwards through curved space" (you mean spacetime) is NOT the same as a flat earth accelerating upwards through space.
In fact, both sources you cite explain that this does NOT mean that the earth is expanding.
So this may be true, but it's irrelevant and nothing to do with your hypothesis of UA

It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector), which is why Tom here insists on that point.

Universal Acceleration is such a misnomer for Rocketship Earth. You're right about that at least.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 09:11:16 AM by Dual1ty »

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2023, 09:20:47 AM »
It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector)
???

But...the vertical vector IS what UA claims. I'd suggest that's a pretty fundamental difference.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2023, 09:29:33 AM »
It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector)
???

But...the vertical vector IS what UA claims. I'd suggest that's a pretty fundamental difference.

Yeah, I agree. But Tom doesn't seem to think so.  ::)

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2023, 12:29:16 PM »
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.

And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.

It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet.  By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.

The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.

The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.

You can see this in your balloon diagram.

At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.

There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.

A common misconception regarding spaceflight is that the weightlessness experienced in orbit is due to there not being any gravity. This is completely wrong - there is only a small reduction in g in low earth orbit. The reason astronauts feel and appear weightless is because they are perpetually 'falling' (ie accelerating) towards the centre of the earth, but are travelling  so fast horizontally that they trace a perfect circle - the orbit - around the earth. If you could travel fast enough and overcome the drag from the atmosphere - I believe the figure is around 17,600mph - you would experience weightlessness at the earth's surface. If you were flying an aircraft at 17,6000mph you would need to 'push' to 0g just to maintain the same altitude. Oddly enough, if aircraft were equipped with extremely accurate g-meters, in straight and level flight the accelerometer wouldn't actually say 1g, it would actually be very slightly less than this, reducing further as speed increases.

As an aside, accelerometers are something of a confusion - the standard is to read 1g at rest on the earth's surface, and therefore 0g in freefall. This is very confusing, as of course freefall is acceleration, but there is some logic to it.   

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2023, 01:45:40 PM »
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.

And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.

It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet.  By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.

The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.

The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.

You can see this in your balloon diagram.

At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.

There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.

A common misconception regarding spaceflight is that the weightlessness experienced in orbit is due to there not being any gravity. This is completely wrong - there is only a small reduction in g in low earth orbit. The reason astronauts feel and appear weightless is because they are perpetually 'falling' (ie accelerating) towards the centre of the earth, but are travelling  so fast horizontally that they trace a perfect circle - the orbit - around the earth. If you could travel fast enough and overcome the drag from the atmosphere - I believe the figure is around 17,600mph - you would experience weightlessness at the earth's surface. If you were flying an aircraft at 17,6000mph you would need to 'push' to 0g just to maintain the same altitude. Oddly enough, if aircraft were equipped with extremely accurate g-meters, in straight and level flight the accelerometer wouldn't actually say 1g, it would actually be very slightly less than this, reducing further as speed increases.

As an aside, accelerometers are something of a confusion - the standard is to read 1g at rest on the earth's surface, and therefore 0g in freefall. This is very confusing, as of course freefall is acceleration, but there is some logic to it.

"there is some logic to it". That logic is explained with relativity in the globe Earth / Heliocentric model.

"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D


100 YEAR OLD NEWSFLASH FOR EVERYONE

Did you know that even Einstein himself couldn't justify the absence of the Ether in his theory of relativity (read "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Einstein, 1920)? But his version of the Ether is one where "it's just there to help explain things" (my words, not his) and it doesn't do anything, because his mathematical model where he replaces the true Ether medium with his "spacetime" nonsense already does everything... mathematically. Meanwhile, in that same lecture he tells you that "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field.". EM field = Ether.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 01:57:34 PM by Dual1ty »

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2023, 02:25:21 PM »

"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D


Well, not much - I am going back to Newton, as it were, because TB appears to not really understand the basics. If you can't understand the basics, there's little point in proceeding.


Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2023, 02:33:59 PM »

"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D


Well, not much - I am going back to Newton, as it were, because TB appears to not really understand the basics. If you can't understand the basics, there's little point in proceeding.

I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2023, 04:34:03 PM »
I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?

That wasn't really the point I was making - as we seemed to be struggling to understand springs and freefall, but yes, I'm aware of that lecture. Not really my area of knowledge, to be honest, so I don't really have a view on it. As with some of the earlier responses to your OP, I'm unclear as to how you get from assertions about the ether to the earth being flat. I'm also unclear as to what, precisely , about conventional understandings of the earth's shape and relationship to the sun, moon and other planets you find to be contradictory or ridiculous.

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2023, 04:53:21 PM »
I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?

That wasn't really the point I was making - as we seemed to be struggling to understand springs and freefall, but yes, I'm aware of that lecture. Not really my area of knowledge, to be honest, so I don't really have a view on it. As with some of the earlier responses to your OP, I'm unclear as to how you get from assertions about the ether to the earth being flat. I'm also unclear as to what, precisely , about conventional understandings of the earth's shape and relationship to the sun, moon and other planets you find to be contradictory or ridiculous.

If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:


SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2023, 08:30:26 PM »

If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:



So two main issues with that video:

1. It doesn't touch on FE at all. It is all about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Even if you do subscribe to a geocentric view, that isn't FE. I'm therefore none the wiser on what you are thinking.

2. The entire video is based on a disingenuous interpretation of Einstein's quote, and his thinking. The video asserts that Einstein has no proof that the earth is travelling around the sun. This is simply not true - his quote very specifically mentions optical methods, meaning techniques akin to the M-M experiment. Einstein, and other physicists, would be well aware of the abundance of observations that astronomers had made over the years to arrive at the conclusion of heliocentricity. Examples include:

- Venus having phases
- Retrograde motion of Mars
- Venus and Mercury solar transits (ie passing in front of the sun), when other planets do not do this
- stellar parallax
- stellar velocity aberration

Most of these were observed and well understood well before Einstein came along. Summed together, every single observation we can make of our solar system strongly supports  the heliocentric model. It is from that position that Einstein and other scientists tried to make sense of the M-M experiment. Had they concluded that, in fact, the geocentric model was correct, they would have had many, many more questions to answer, because it simply does not make sense based on what we can observe.

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2023, 08:59:19 PM »

If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:



So two main issues with that video:

1. It doesn't touch on FE at all. It is all about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Even if you do subscribe to a geocentric view, that isn't FE. I'm therefore none the wiser on what you are thinking.

2. The entire video is based on a disingenuous interpretation of Einstein's quote, and his thinking. The video asserts that Einstein has no proof that the earth is travelling around the sun. This is simply not true - his quote very specifically mentions optical methods, meaning techniques akin to the M-M experiment. Einstein, and other physicists, would be well aware of the abundance of observations that astronomers had made over the years to arrive at the conclusion of heliocentricity. Examples include:

- Venus having phases
- Retrograde motion of Mars
- Venus and Mercury solar transits (ie passing in front of the sun), when other planets do not do this
- stellar parallax
- stellar velocity aberration

Most of these were observed and well understood well before Einstein came along. Summed together, every single observation we can make of our solar system strongly supports  the heliocentric model. It is from that position that Einstein and other scientists tried to make sense of the M-M experiment. Had they concluded that, in fact, the geocentric model was correct, they would have had many, many more questions to answer, because it simply does not make sense based on what we can observe.

1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.

2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.

I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2023, 09:22:16 PM »

1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.

2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.

I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.

You said the video would explain the connection between the ether and FE. It didn’t. I pointed that out, now you seem to be switching to something else.

I did, believe it or not, watch all of the video, and I understand what he’s saying; I just disagree with it, for the reasons I described. I note with interest that you’ve failed to actually address any of the points I raised, switching instead to ad hominem. That’s disappointing - not much point in debating if you aren’t going to respond. I’m not asking you to care, you are welcome to disagree, but the idea is that you read my points, and argue against them, using evidence. I’ve extended you the courtesy of doing that with your video, now will you actually address the points I made in response?

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2023, 09:45:09 PM »

1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.

2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.

I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.

You said the video would explain the connection between the ether and FE. It didn’t. I pointed that out, now you seem to be switching to something else.

I did, believe it or not, watch all of the video, and I understand what he’s saying; I just disagree with it, for the reasons I described. I note with interest that you’ve failed to actually address any of the points I raised, switching instead to ad hominem. That’s disappointing - not much point in debating if you aren’t going to respond. I’m not asking you to care, you are welcome to disagree, but the idea is that you read my points, and argue against them, using evidence. I’ve extended you the courtesy of doing that with your video, now will you actually address the points I made in response?

So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?

There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 09:51:16 PM by Dual1ty »

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2023, 03:39:53 AM »

So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?

There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.

Ok, I get that you think it isn’t true. The critical question is why? I’ve shown you some examples of observations that perfectly fit the heliocentric model, and which do not fit the geocentric model. How do you explain our observations of the solar system and the stars around us from a geocentric perspective?