The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: dirtysnowball on July 17, 2019, 10:46:19 PM

Title: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 17, 2019, 10:46:19 PM
Under 'additions to the library, Tom posts a reference to

Quote
I came across a geocentric work by Professor C. Schoepffer in the year 1900 called The Earth Stands Fast.

Early on in the publication, there is a sub-title which reads 'Proofs that the Earth revolves neither upon its own axis nor yet about the Sun'

If that is the case then what is the cause of the observed motion of the celestial bodies about the Earth?  This motion is observed in real time when one looks through an undriven telescope. What causes that motion if it is not the rotation of the Earth?

This concerns me because during the last 40 years that I have been showing people various targets through telescopes and they ask why the object is seen moving across the field of view, I have been telling them they are seeing the rotation of the Earth.  It seems that I must have been (unintentionally) lying to them?

Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 18, 2019, 05:48:07 AM
The book is actually a translation of a German book from 1853

This is the author
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sch%C3%B6pfer

And the original title:
Die Erde stehet fest. Beweise, daß die Erde sich weder um ihre Achse noch um die Sonne dreht, Berlin 1853

As for your question,  the rotation of the earth is a well known fact, but you already know this.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 18, 2019, 05:52:23 AM
Yes I know it does.

But this book that Tom has made reference to under 'Additions to Library' is suggesting is suggesting it doesn't. This seems to be a part of FET and so my question is aimed at the FE side to come up with a solution about what is making the heavens rotate around us if the Earth (according to them) neither rotates or orbits the Sun.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2019, 06:05:37 AM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 18, 2019, 06:50:52 AM
Or you could simply say that the Earth is rotating on its own axis and thereby making the heavens appear to be spinning or rotating above us. Call it cause and effect.

Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: stack on July 18, 2019, 07:20:01 AM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Seems reasonable. However, does FET have knowledge of any microgravity in space? And if so how?
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 18, 2019, 07:42:06 AM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

That's a very clever idea. Is there information about the axis of the firmament? Like its position, movement and inclination respective to earth?
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 09:53:39 AM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

If you're saying the stars and other celestial are fixed to some rotating dome then I guess you're correct.
But the sun and the moon are not fixed to it, are they?
A body will tend to remain stationary or continue at a constant velocity (note, velocity - that includes direction) unless acted on by a force.
So for the sun to be circling above us a force would have to be constantly applied to keep it going in a circle (and to make the radius of its orbit keep changing for the seasons)
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: ChrisTP on July 18, 2019, 10:01:46 AM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.
What about 'strange' movements of planets that do not simply visibly rotate above the earth? Take Mars for example when it does a loop on itself which can be explained by the movement of the earth and mars in relation to their orbits of the sun. It's not just a constant rotation like a fidget spinner if the earth is flat and stationary.

(https://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/Retrograde_Mars_NASA_credit_SMALL.jpg)
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 18, 2019, 01:53:57 PM
I am all in favour of seeking alternative models/theories when it is necessary to 'fill in the holes'. For example Newtonian gravity survived adequately until the early 20th century when Einsteins GTR proved to be a better explanation overall. Our understanding of gravity had evolved and so had to be refined.  That is what science is all about.

As far as I know the heliocentric model of the solar system where the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the events and phenomenon that we see in the night sky. So where is the need for an alternative approch like FET? You cannot make a base pre-assertion (that the Earth is flat for example) and then try to work everything we see and experience so that it fits in with that pre-assertion.

Certain observations, such as the retrograde motion of the (superior) planets that ChrisTP describes above is explained simply and logically in heliocentrism where as FET seems to have to produce all sorts or weird and complex geometrical shapes and patterns to create the same effect. 
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2019, 09:05:39 PM
The Retrograde Motion of the planets was determined by Copernicus. The planets are moving around the Sun to make those shapes.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Retrograde_Motion_of_the_Planets

However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

I am all in favour of seeking alternative models/theories when it is necessary to 'fill in the holes'. For example Newtonian gravity survived adequately until the early 20th century when Einsteins GTR proved to be a better explanation overall. Our understanding of gravity had evolved and so had to be refined.  That is what science is all about.

As far as I know the heliocentric model of the solar system where the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the events and phenomenon that we see in the night sky. So where is the need for an alternative approch like FET? You cannot make a base pre-assertion (that the Earth is flat for example) and then try to work everything we see and experience so that it fits in with that pre-assertion.

Certain observations, such as the retrograde motion of the (superior) planets that ChrisTP describes above is explained simply and logically in heliocentrism where as FET seems to have to produce all sorts or weird and complex geometrical shapes and patterns to create the same effect.

These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

The Wang Experiment appears to directly contradict (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment) the RE explanation for the MM and AF experiments.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 18, 2019, 09:09:20 PM
Quote
However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

So what to your mind then Tom is the definition of a planet?  And hence from that how exactly do you 'demonstrate' a planet to someone?

Oh yes and as I understand it the Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to 'demonstrate' the existence of the aether.  Something that it never succeeded in doing. Of course the context and details of the description of the experiment as described in your FE Wiki link is a little different to that given elsewhere.  Almost as if the FE Wiki description is a manipulated version of the experiment to suit a particular point of view.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
Aether was just postulated as the background medium to space which light travels through, like sound through the air or ripples through the water. A wave needs a medium to propagate through, so it was deducted that space was not truly empty.

Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the MM experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.” The result was that it did travel the same velocity in all (horizontal) directions.

But how could that be if the earth is in motion?

The RE explanation (SR) that was given; that light is consistent in speed for all observers, was contradicted by the Sagnac and Wang experiments, where light does change velocity for different observers, even to velocities greater than c: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Quote
However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

So what to your mind then Tom is the definition of a planet?  And hence from that how exactly do you 'demonstrate' a planet to someone?

A planet has been historically defined as a 'wandering star'. It was mainly through ancient reasoning that it was deduced that Earth was a similar wandering body in the solar system which we observe above us.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 19, 2019, 05:56:43 AM
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.  Is that because the interpretations of the ancients fell better in line with your current beliefs?

Just because modern astronomy has changed those interpretations it doesn't mean it is wrong. That is progress and what science is all about. 
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TheMaster on July 19, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 06:06:10 AM
Quote
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.

I believe that I just mentioned an experiment, Sagnac and Wang, which directly contradicted the explanation given for the motionless earth experiments, and it was you who ignored them.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Funny how we are in the position of the existence of motionless earth experiments and physcists needing to come up with ways to explain them.


These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Aether was merely the background medium of space which light flowed through. It was needed for the same reason that sound needs air for propagation.

The experiment was to test the velocity of light and see how it changed due to the motion of the earth. The velocity of light did not change. The earth appeared to be motionless. So Einstein did away with the aether and came up with an alternative explanation.

Unfortunately the explanation is directly contradicted by multiple experiments which do show that the velocity of light changes when motion is involved.   :(
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TheMaster on July 19, 2019, 06:15:18 AM
Quote
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.

I believe that I just mentioned an experiment, Sagnac and Wang, which directly contradicted the explanation given for the motionless earth experiments, and it was you who ignored them.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment


These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Aether was the background medium of space which light flowed through.

Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

The result: No, there is no aether as a background medium of space which light flows through. Light does not flow through such a background medium. That was the result of the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

The fact that the earth moves around the sun was a well established fact at that time and a premise in the experiment itself!
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TheMaster on July 19, 2019, 06:28:40 AM
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”


Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Yes that is exactly true! Does the light still has the same velocity in all direction despite earth's known motion around the sun? Yes, that is correct!

Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 06:31:48 AM
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TheMaster on July 19, 2019, 06:45:30 AM
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

There is no motion faster than the speed of light. And light appears to travel at the speed of light for every observer.

What you just claim is incorrect.

Also, the referenced paper in the link you shown does not mention any speed >c at all. Just check yourself.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: stack on July 19, 2019, 07:00:48 AM
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.

MMX was more than just about measuring the velocity of light.

Dorothy Michelson Livingston, Michelson's daughter, describes the experiment in The Master of Light (University of Chicago Press, 1979), her biography of her father. The following is excerpted from her book:

"In April 1887, Morely wrote his father that he and Michelson had begun a new experiment, the purpose of which was "to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions." They also hoped to learn from the experiment the speed of the Earth in orbit and in movement with the solar system; whether the ether was moving or stationary; and, most important to Michelson, some clear proof of the ether's actual existence, with which to confront skeptics.”

https://www.the-scientist.com/books-etc/michelson-morley-the-great-failure-63642

From:

On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether  (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley

"On the undulatory theory, according to Fresnel, first, the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio, where n is the index of refraction. These two hypotheses give a complete and satisfactory explanation of aberration. The second hypothesis, notwithstanding its seeming improbability, must be considered as fully proved, first, by the celebrated experiment of Fizeau,[2] and secondly, by the ample confirmation of our own work.[3] The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper."
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 19, 2019, 07:39:25 AM
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

However on Lijun Wang's own words:

"Einstein’s Relativity: Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein’s special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories. "

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf



Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 10:36:46 AM
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

However on Lijun Wang's own words:

"Einstein’s Relativity: Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein’s special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories. "

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf

That is a different experiment and a different Wang. Look into Ruyong Wang's experiment:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

MMX was more than just about measuring the velocity of light.

Dorothy Michelson Livingston, Michelson's daughter, describes the experiment in The Master of Light (University of Chicago Press, 1979), her biography of her father. The following is excerpted from her book:

"In April 1887, Morely wrote his father that he and Michelson had begun a new experiment, the purpose of which was "to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions." They also hoped to learn from the experiment the speed of the Earth in orbit and in movement with the solar system; whether the ether was moving or stationary; and, most important to Michelson, some clear proof of the ether's actual existence, with which to confront skeptics.”

https://www.the-scientist.com/books-etc/michelson-morley-the-great-failure-63642

From:

On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether  (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley

"On the undulatory theory, according to Fresnel, first, the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio, where n is the index of refraction. These two hypotheses give a complete and satisfactory explanation of aberration. The second hypothesis, notwithstanding its seeming improbability, must be considered as fully proved, first, by the celebrated experiment of Fizeau,[2] and secondly, by the ample confirmation of our own work.[3] The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper."

Learning about the motion of the earth and whether aether was stationary or not would have been derived from studying the velocity of light. There were no alternative theories at the time which held that light would not change velocity.

It was assumed that light would change velocities on a moving platform, like a bullet would hit you from a higher velocity if fired from a moving train that was approaching you. This was a correct assumption. It can and does, to even velocities greater than c. The error is assuming that the earth was an object in (horizontal) motion.

Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

There is no motion faster than the speed of light. And light appears to travel at the speed of light for every observer.

What you just claim is incorrect.

Also, the referenced paper in the link you shown does not mention any speed >c at all. Just check yourself.

Look at the quote by Dr. Croca in that link.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 19, 2019, 11:47:01 AM

That is a different experiment and a different Wang. Look into Ruyong Wang's experiment:


My mistake. Your post said something about light speeds faster than c, so I wrongly assumed you meant Lijun Wang's experiments.

So I went through the Dr. R.Wang's paper from your link  and I couldn't find the part about the speeds of light faster than c, so now I'm not sure where are you getting this idea from.

I also don't see where Dr. R.Wang is mentioning that his experiment contradicts relativity.

It seems to me none of those experiments are really proving your point, you are just drawing unfounded conclusions. Your argument sounds like this:
1. If aether exists it means the earth must be flat
2. Relativity is killing my best attempts to prove that aether exists
3. If I can prove that relativity is wrong then aether exists

The first problem is, proving relativity wrong doesn't automatically prove the existence of aether. That is a propositional fallacy.

The second problem is you can't really prove relativity wrong. All you have is a pseudoscience paper from a person called "Robert Bennett" who seem to be one of the authors of the book "Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right", is that the same person?
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 12:06:07 PM
That's the same person. Dr. Bennett holds a Ph.D. in Physics and agrees that the experimental evidence for Heliocentrism is insufficient.

I would submit that scientists follow the experiments to their conclusions, and that pseudoscientists do not, however.

I don't know why you guys are dancing around it. It says right here by Dr. Croca:

Quote
In the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (https://books.google.com/books?id=W4RIDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA307&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcfcul.fc.ul.pt%2Fequipa%2Fjcroca.php)), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/47/Wang-diagram.png)

They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TheMaster on July 19, 2019, 12:45:23 PM
That's the same person. Dr. Bennett holds a Ph.D. in Physics and agrees that the experimental evidence for Heliocentrism is insufficient.

I don't know why you guys are dancing around it. It says right here by Dr. Croca:

Quote
In the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (https://books.google.com/books?id=W4RIDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA307&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcfcul.fc.ul.pt%2Fequipa%2Fjcroca.php)), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/47/Wang-diagram.png)

They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”

Its highly unlikely that something can move faster than 'c'.

But still, absolutely independent of that, earth is not flat!
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 19, 2019, 01:05:32 PM
So based on an article  written by physicist talking about the experiments done by another physicist we can conclude that an experiment done by a third physicist over a 100 years ago proves that ether exists and thus the earth is flat, is that it? It looks very far fetched.

I will concede that relativity is not perfect and there are things it can't properly explain. That doesn't make it a false or debunked theory and certainly doesn't make the world flat.

Dr. Croca concludes that under certain circumstances speed of light would theoretically (might) be faster than c  as an argument to show that relativity doesn't work in that case. He is not saying that it has been observed to  move faster than c.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 09:04:44 PM
It says that light 'may' travel faster than c because, depending on which direction things are moving it 'may' also travel slower than c. The Sagnac-type devices show that the speed of light is c +/- velocity.

On the topic of Sagnac from Al Kelly's book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XVLmihZnsvUC&lpg=PA64&dq=%22Sagnac%22%20%22faster%20than%20c%22&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/05T2Nl4.png)

See the last sentence.

Dr. Gezari in his "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector" shows us that Special Relativity is a theory of limited experimental validity and casts doubt on the invariance of c postulate (the same light consistency postulate used to justify the MM and AF experiments).

https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818

Quote
ABSTRACT

A search of the literature reveals that none of the five new optical effects predicted by the special
theory of relativity have ever been observed to occur in nature. In particular, the speed of light (0)
has never been measured directly with a moving detector to validate the invariance of c to motion of
the observer, a necessary condition for the Lorentz invariance of c.
The invariance of c can now
only be inferred from indirect experimental evidence. It is also not Widely recognized that essentially
all of the experimental support for special relativity in the photon sector consists of null results.
The experimental basis for special relativity in the photon sector is summarized, and concerns about
the completeness, integrity and interpretation of the present body of experimental evidence are
discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most reassuring things we know about modern physics is that the special theory
of relativity has faced a century of experimental challenges, and passed every test. This is
generally understood to mean that every aspect of special relativity has been tested and
validated, beyond any doubt. But all it really means is that every aspect of special
relativity that has been tested has passed the test. This prompts the question, what has
been tested and what has not?

Contrary to the popular view, a search of the literature reveals that the experimental basis
for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector is not robust.

....

2.1. Invariance of c.

There are two necessary conditions for the local Lorentz invariance of c: invariance to
motion of the source and invariance to motion of the observer. Satisfaction of these two
conditions is both necessary and sufficient to validate the invariance of c. Invariance to
motion of the emitting source — Einstein’s second postulate has been convincingly
validated experimentally (Section 3.1). But conspicuously absent from the experimental
record is any published attempt to directly measure the speed of light with a moving
detector to test the invariance of c to motion of the observer.

The experimental validation of the invariance of c is plagued by misconceptions and errors
of interpretation. There is a common misconception that Einstein’s second postulate says
that c is invariant to ‘motion of the source and motion of the observer" and it is
incorrectly presented this way in most textbooks. But the second postulate says nothing
about the observer: “Light is propagated in empty space with a definite velocity 0 which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (Einstein 1905). The second
postulate was not a new idea in 1905 and it is not unique to special relativity (recall that
the classical wave theory of light also holds that c is invariant to motion of the emitting
source). So observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity
and the old ether hypothesis, and do not favor one over the other. Of course, it could be
argued that experiments with moving sources and moving observers should be equivalent
and indistinguishable, so the second postulate would apply to the observer as well as to
the source. But in other phenomena involving propagating light (e.g., the Doppler effect
in an optical medium, stellar aberration) motion of the source and motion of the observer
have entirely independent consequences. To claim that source and observer motions are
equivalent without experimental confirmation would be invoking the theory to validate
itself.
Observations of moving sources certainly cannot validate the universal Lorentz
invariance of 0 without observations with moving detectors, or at least experimental
validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions for propagating light, and
these things have not yet been accomplished.

...

It would seem that elements of the classical Sagnac effect conflict directly with special
relativity, however, the prevailing view is that the rotating instrument is a non—inertial
system to which special relativity does not apply (as first argued by Langevin 1921). The
argument goes further to say that an observer viewing the rotating experiment from any
inertial frame would be permitted under the rules of special relativity to measure relative
speeds that differed from c, so the apparent speeds c + v and c - V of the counter—
propagating beams in the instrument frame would still be consistent with special relativity.
However, recently Wang et a1. (2003, 2004) demonstrated the Sagnac effect in a non-
rotating, inertial reference frame using a fiber optic linear motion sensor (FOLMS)
interferometer. They showed that the light travel time in a straight optical fiber in inertial
motion has a first—order dependence on the fiber speed in the local stationary frame, just as
the light travel time in a rotating Sagnac effect fiber optic gyro has a first-order
dependence on the tangential rotation speed of the fiber. The effect was obtained using
both solid and hollow (air core) fibers. If the Sagnac effect can be produced by inertial
motion then the rules of special relativity would have to be applied after all, and the linear
Sagnac experiment would violate special relativity.

...

5. CONCLUSION

Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the
fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and
the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors,
the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions,
doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the
applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous
tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be
claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by
observation or experiment.

Gezari appears to agree that Wang's linear Sagnac experiment violates SR and also tells us that SR has never been validated with a moving detector in a laboratory.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: stack on July 19, 2019, 09:11:00 PM
That's the same person. Dr. Bennett holds a Ph.D. in Physics and agrees that the experimental evidence for Heliocentrism is insufficient.

I would submit that scientists follow the experiments to their conclusions, and that pseudoscientists do not, however.

I don't know why you guys are dancing around it. It says right here by Dr. Croca:

Quote
In the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (https://books.google.com/books?id=W4RIDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA307&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcfcul.fc.ul.pt%2Fequipa%2Fjcroca.php)), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/47/Wang-diagram.png)

They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”

Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 09:24:24 PM
Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.

It sounds like he gave up and is admitting that SR cannot explain why some of its defining postulates are violated in experiment.

He is somehow suggesting that SR only applies to the 'proper scale' of explaining the Michelson-Morley, Airy's Failure, and other motionless earth experiments, but does not apply to the laboratory experiments which show that the speed of light is c +/- v.

Back to the drawing board!
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: stack on July 19, 2019, 09:30:04 PM
Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.

It sounds like he gave up and is admitting that SR cannot explain why some of its defining postulates are violated in experiment.

He is somehow suggesting that SR only applies to the 'proper scale' of explaining the Michelson-Morley, Airy's Failure, and other motionless earth experiments, but does not apply to the laboratory experiments which show that the speed of light is c +/- v.

Back to the drawing board!

That's quite the interpretation on your part that he "gave up". I don't think you're in a position to make such a claim.

What laboratory experiments show that the speed of light is c +/- v? I'm not seeing that in Wang's 2004 Generalized Sagnac Effect paper.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: kopfverderber on July 20, 2019, 07:04:27 AM
@Tom

You are grasping at straws. Some lab experiments might put relativity in question. It's scientists' job to question things, but no lab experiment is going to prove that the earth is not rotating or flat.

Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 20, 2019, 10:26:10 AM
Exactly. No lab experiment would ever claim to have proved or disproved anything for certain. Ironically I guess you could say that scientists spend most of their careers trying to prove themselves wrong in some ways. Once a theory is devised it is put up against more and more stringent testing in search for holes in it. Some theories, such as both GR and SR have stood the test of time rather well but that does not make them perfect.

Many experiments being carried out now - such as those at the LHC for example use equipment and facilities that are well beyond anything an individual could manage on their own. Also the experiments are far too complex in their nature for me or most people to fully understand how those experiments are either derived or carried out. Does that give us (as some FE believers seem to insist) reason to dismiss those experiments?  Of course it doesn't.

Mind you if I do one day see a version of the LHC that is made available on the consumer market to purchase then I might join the queue be one of its buyers.
Title: Re: The Earth Stands Fast
Post by: TomInAustin on September 06, 2019, 04:24:37 PM
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Now thats funny Tom, I guess your spinner has some superpower bearings that have zero friction?