Offline TheEIR

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
I have questions
« on: October 12, 2019, 08:39:03 AM »
My Questions:
- How does Lunar and Solar eclipse happen?
- Explain How there is a nearly 24hr day/night in some places (ex. St. Petersburg, Russia)?
- Has no one seen the south pole/Antartica from above?
- If the earth doesnt revolve around the sun, why do astronomers wait for a specific time of the year to see specific star formations?
- Explain the different layers of the earth
- Explain Horizon
IF YOU ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS WITH SENSE AND REASONABLE ANSWERS I WILL BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT

Re: I have questions
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2019, 01:40:41 PM »
My Questions:
- How does Lunar and Solar eclipse happen?
- Explain How there is a nearly 24hr day/night in some places (ex. St. Petersburg, Russia)?
- Has no one seen the south pole/Antartica from above?
- If the earth doesnt revolve around the sun, why do astronomers wait for a specific time of the year to see specific star formations?
- Explain the different layers of the earth
- Explain Horizon
IF YOU ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS WITH SENSE AND REASONABLE ANSWERS I WILL BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT

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


Jon McIntyre - Truth Seeker says :
Hey cikljamas 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

However, the earth is motionless and in the center of the universe :

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.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2019, 04:41:05 PM »
Did you just post a quote from j*** bl*** on this forum?

Never again.

Now, let us suppose that you, or Robert Sungenis, would be asked a simple question: do you cikljamas agree that the formula published by Albert Michelson in 1925 (MGX) is the SAGNAC effect formula?

Here is the paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Here is the formula:



Re: I have questions
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2019, 05:59:57 PM »
Did you just post a quote from j*** bl*** on this forum?

Never again.

1.I've reposted my own post.
2.Are you an owner of this forum?
3.Are you a moderator on this forum?
4.Even if you were a moderator or even an owner of this forum, how could you allow yourself so condescending (shameful) behaviour towards someone who has just become new member of this society?
5.Is this how you are welcoming all new members on this forum?
6."Never again!" What did you mean by that? Is this some kind of a commandment?
7.Who is j*** bl*** (oh...you mean JackBlack???) JackBlack is a fanatic heliocentrist and a fanatic atheist. I have had many discussions (better to say : i have fought many battles against him) with him on FES in last few years. So, i am totally amazed that you confused JackBlack with me. What in the world made you think that someone like JackBlack could have ever written (even in his wildest dreams) such a blatant geocentric post???
8.Are you and Sandokhan (who writes on FES) the same persons?
9.After i receive your answers to the questions above, then we can continue our discussion...Are you O.K. with that?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 06:07:24 PM by cikljamas »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2019, 06:13:37 PM »
Lighten up.

Do not post quotes from that user here, or anywhere else.

Your quotes on geocentrism are fine, as usual.

Now, the heliocentrists (RE) will ask you (or Sungenis) exactly that question.

How do you answer, yes or no?

Because either way, they win hands down.

If you say yes, then it's all over: you have just accepted that the effects registered by MGX can be attributed to the SAGNAC EFFECT, just as Michelson had claimed.

If you say no, they will demand that you provide the correct equation. Can you do that?

« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 06:22:43 PM by sandokhan »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2019, 06:39:25 PM »
Lighten up.

Do not post quotes from that user here, or anywhere else.

Your quotes on geocentrism are fine, as usual.

Now, the heliocentrists (RE) will ask you (or Sungenis) exactly that question.

How do you answer, yes or no?

Because either way, they win hands down.

If you say yes, then it's all over: you just accepted that the effects registered by MGX can be attributed to the SAGNAC EFFECT, just as Michelson had claimed.

If you say no, they will demand that you provide the correct equation. Can you do that?

---What would be the problem if i said yes?

---In all honesty, unlike dr Sungenis i am not capable of making deep analysis of that formula, in this matter i have to rely on competence of people who are much, much better mathematicians and physicists than i am.

---A few following paragraphs can illustrate how i understand true meaning and important geocentric implications of MGP and MMX :
 
---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.

---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.


---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.

---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.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2019, 06:52:00 PM »
In his classic treatise, Galileo Was Wrong, R. Sungenis devoted some pages to the MGX. Just like you he tried the following argument:

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).

You still don't get it.

Once you ACCEPT that Michelson recorded the SAGNAC EFFECT, you also accept that the Earth is rotating around its own axis as well.

Do not forget the Lorentz ether theory: the ether travels merrily along with the Earth around the Sun.

SAGNAC = ROTATION

If you accept that Michelson recorded the Sagnac effect, the RE win hands down.

Michelson-Morley interferometer = Sagnac interferometer, so we are back to the same situation.


Once you answer yes, it is all over.

Now, if you somehow realize that Michelson pulled a fast one on the rest of the scientific community, and no longer agree that the formula published is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the RE will answer back: show us the correct formula then.

If you cannot, they win again.

Now you understand why Michelson was given $17,000 (a fortune at that time) to carry out the experiment in Clearing, Illinois.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2019, 07:32:11 PM »

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.

The author of the words above is Marshal Hall, if i remember well, he is a geocentrist, however he made the same mistake as JackBlack did (pay attention to the words in red)...

Now, this is going to be interesting (how i responded to one of infamous JackBlack's stupid lies) :

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is utter nonsense, and here is why :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: I have questions
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2019, 07:45:23 PM »
Did you just post that quote from that user? Again?

You see, Georges Sagnac did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT.

He registered the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale measured a difference, YES.

I ask you: which is it? Is it the SAGNAC EFFECT? If you answer yes, you lose. If you answer no, the RE will demand to see the correct formula.

You did not expand correctly on hypothesis #1.

The Lorentz ether theory takes care of all problems for relativists: the ether is TRANSLATIONAL, and the Sun also has a TRANSLATIONAL ETHER FIELD around it, which takes care of the orbital Sagnac effect.

Hypothesis #1 is very real for the relativists: the Earth is rotating and you have the ether too.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2019, 08:15:30 PM »
When we send electromagnetic signal towards east it takes extra time to reach certain destination wrt sent signal in counter direction (westward).
The amount of this lagging is the difference between the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic waves) and the speed of aether's rotation around stationary earth.
Doesn't that demonstrate that Michelson and Gale didn't measure Coriolis effect, but Sagnac effect???
"Sagnac effect" in common use designates the difference between the speed of light and the speed of aether's rotation (portrayed in official science as the rotation of the earth).
Hypothesis No 1, could yield the same effect as the rotation of aether around the stationary earth, only if the earth wasn't orbiting the sun, and since in HC model you can't have earth's rotation without earth's orbital motion then you would have "a different (opposite) problem," just as i have explained above.
Opposite in a sense that in that hypothetical case (if HC model were true description of our reality, which it is not) when conducting MM type of an experiment we would be able to measure earth's orbital speed of exactly 30 km/s, however when performing MGP type of an experiment we would have problems with correct measuring because aether's wind due to the orbital motion would overcome aether's wind due to the earth's rotation and so produces serious disturbances in measuring the speed of earth's rotation.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 08:19:28 PM by cikljamas »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2019, 08:27:57 PM »
The amount of this lagging is the difference between the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic waves) and the speed of aether's rotation around stationary earth.

Sure.

What formula did you use?

Perhaps the one published by Michelson and used by all of the ring laser gyroscopes?

That formula measures the AREA, not the difference in VELOCITY.

You need THE ACTUAL FORMULA.

But you don't have it.

Doesn't that demonstrate that Michelson and Gale didn't measure Coriolis effect, but Sagnac effect???

The RE will simply respond: show us the formula.

Hypothesis No 1, could yield the same effect as the rotation of aether around the stationary earth, only if the earth wasn't orbiting the sun, and since in HC model you can't have earth's rotation without earth's orbital motion then you would have "a different (opposite) problem," just as i have explained above.
Opposite in a sense that in that hypothetical case (if HC model were true description of our reality, which it is not) when conducting MM type of an experiment we would be able to measure earth's orbital speed of exactly 30 km/s, however when performing MGP type of an experiment we would have problems with correct measuring because aether's wind due to the orbital motion would overcome aether's wind due to the earth's rotation and so produces serious disturbances in measuring the speed of earth's rotation.


The MGX was not meant to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC, just the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

Again, the Lorentz ether model permits you to have full heliocentrism and also enjoy the benefits of an ether envelope around the rotating earth.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2019, 08:56:21 PM »
Sandokhan, i told you several times : Earth is not flat, i don't know why you insist that it is?
Insisting that the earth is flat is dancing on HC notes... Ask yourself : Cui bono?

This is a message that i sent a while ago to my dear (former, former on his request) friend My Perspective below one of his not so old videos :

The earth is not flat, and i can easily prove it. But the question is this : can you make one important step forward? What lays one step ahead of you? Geocentric truth (the earth is stationary) and one other very important revelation : Flat Earth is a psyop, it really is a psyop, very dangerous one. Do you know why? Because they use it to compromise geocentric truth! Always use this rule : CUI BONO (to whom is it a benefit?)???  Whenever someone mentions that there is no proof in favor of HC theory what happens instantly??? That someone is immediately dismissed as a lunatic a.k.a. labeled as a FLAT EARTHER. It is not easy to get out of a flat earth shell (i've been through it all), but it is necessary to make that step because we can't allow ourselves to be deliberate liars (once that we figure out our serious FE blunder) alike HC - NASA shills. I mean, do you really want to stay in your flat earth shell, just because you can't find enough strength to do what it has to be done for your (and our mutual) own good??? Don't you realize that remaining a flat earther is nothing else but accepting their rules a.k.a. playing according to their notes a.k.a. being their puppet (consciously or unconsciously)??? Now, are you prepared to encounter the truth about the shape of the earth? If you are not i won't blame you, you will always be my friend even if you believed in unicorn because i am sure you are absolutely honest person. If your answer is : yes, i am ready to see your set of round earth proofs, then i will provide it for you in one single and not very long post. May God's bless be with all of you!!!

Claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect, not sagnac effect, you are making another serious mistake which sets back your own interests, as well (assuming that motionless earth is your interest)...
MGP experiment (correctly interpreted) in combination with MM experiment makes deadly combination for HC camp, so i ask myself : why are you trying to undermine geocentric position by claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect, not sagnac effect???
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 08:58:19 PM by cikljamas »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2019, 09:14:46 PM »
We are not discussing the shape of the Earth here at all.

Just geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect

If you have a formula which features the area of the interferometer then you have the Coriolis effect formula.

If you want the velocity, you need the Sagnac effect formula.

MGP experiment (correctly interpreted) in combination with MM experiment makes deadly combination for HC camp

But it doesn't! Not if you agree that the MGX measured the Sagnac effect.

The RE are laughing all the way to the bank with the MGX.

They will ask you: did the MGX measure the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Since you are going to answer yes, they win.

Sagnac = rotation.

If you say no, they will require of you the correct formula.

Can you understand? If you agree with the RE that the MGX formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation, then you have just agreed that the MGX measured Earth's rotation.

But if the MGX measured only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then you have a chance to win by providing the CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2019, 09:18:54 PM »
If you want to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC or CORIOLIS, then you'd need a 40 km interferometer, a larger scale MGX.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2019, 02:00:09 PM »
If you want to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC or CORIOLIS, then you'd need a 40 km interferometer, a larger scale MGX.
Why would you need a 40 km interferometer?

Re: I have questions
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2019, 02:04:48 PM »
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf

This is from 1904, way before Sagnac; Michelson derives the Coriolis formula, proportional to the area of the interferometer. The 40 km figure derivation is included.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2019, 02:41:25 PM »
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf

This is from 1904, way before Sagnac; Michelson derives the Coriolis formula, proportional to the area of the interferometer. The 40 km figure derivation is included.

We all know that Sagnac effect (lagging of electromagnetic waves sent in eastward direction) is real phenomena, do we really need anything else to be sure that aether rotates around motionless earth?
On the other hand if the earth and it's atmosphere rotates towards east how come that airplanes take longer to fly west, not east (as it is the case with electromagnetic waves)?

Re: I have questions
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2019, 02:53:36 PM »
The Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer.

In 1999 E. J. Post showed the equivalence between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.
Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,
Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity  between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be  remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):



Upon learning that their 1881 and 1887 experiments did not include the expected fringe shifts, Michelson and Morley planned what later became the Michelson-Gale experiment to concentrate on the hypothesized diurnal rotation aspect of Earth's heliocentric orbit.

They sought to link the SAGNAC EFFECT with an experiment purported to be a proof of Earth's rotation, later these experiments used ring laser gyroscopes.

We all know that Sagnac effect (lagging of electromagnetic waves sent in eastward direction) is real phenomena, do we really need anything else to be sure that aether rotates around motionless earth?

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect on the light beams, their trajectories will be slightly offset.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect on the velocities of the light beams.

Any interferometer has to record BOTH PHENOMENA, as proven by Stokes' theorem.

Please state what formula you used for the eastward direction lagging effect.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2019, 03:57:25 PM »
Sagnac effect :
--Aether rotates towards west
--Electromagnetic waves sent towards west lag wrt those sent towards east
--So, electromagnetic waves sent in counter-direction of aether's rotation (eastward) need less time to cross the same distance wrt those sent in the same direction of aether's rotation (westward).

Coriolis effect :
--Earth and it's atmosphere allegedly rotate towards east
--Airplanes lag when fly west
--So, airplanes that fly in counter-direction of earth's alleged rotation need more time to cross the same distance wrt airplanes that fly in the same direction of earth's alleged rotation

This difference can illustrate (to a certain extent) why i think that your claim that Coriolis effect can affect electromagnetic waves, has no foundation in reality. I remember how Fizeau's experiment demonstrated that circulating water can impede light beams, but i have never heard of an experiment which indicated that Coriolis effect can affect the speed of electromagnetic waves...
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 04:01:11 PM by cikljamas »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2019, 04:12:46 PM »
I have just stated that the CORIOLIS EFFECT modifies the PATH of the light beams, a physical effect. The speed of the light beams is modified by the SAGNAC EFFECT.

You did not answer the question: what equation did you use to record the lagging of the electromagnetic waves?

Perhaps this will be of help:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/39778/InTech-Gps_and_the_one_way_speed_of_light.pdf