The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, Everything that I read about the MM experiment was that it failed to detect any evidence for an aether, not that it failed to detect movement in space.

From the Wikipedia article:

"After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history."

"The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887"

Dave, If anything, you're misreading the intent of the experiment, which was to see if there was any movement relative to the "lumineferous aether." It's intent was not to show if the earth was stationary, and you would have known that had you paid attention. And again, if anything, they also understood that the earth was in orbit around the sun (as far as I can tell from the wikipedia article). So there's that...

"The*Michelson–Morley experiment*was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by*Albert A. Michelson*and*Edward W. Morley*at what is now*Case Western Reserve University*in*Cleveland,*Ohio, and published in November of the same year.*It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the*relative motion of matter through the stationary*luminiferous aether("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent*aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to*special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.*The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution"."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment



Dave, I'm an open theist, yet I don't believe in a flat or stationary earth, nor do I believe in a timeless God (ie that God is outside of time), though God is a supernatural being that is not part of this universe, but is instead outside of it.

But again, what does being an open theist have to do with whether the earth is flat or stationary or not? That's theology, not cosmology.



Dave, the exact experiment I linked to in this post that you claim supports your position IN FACT is strong evidence against the aether theory.

From the wiki article on "lumineferous aether":

"In the late 19th century,*luminiferous aether,*aether, or*ether, meaning light-bearing*aether, was the postulated*medium*for the propagation of*light.*It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently*wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the*Michelson–Morley experiment*suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the*theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn't needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the*blackbody radiator*and*photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of*modern physics, which includes both relativity and*quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

FERC - Michelson Morley Experiment Proving Flat Earth is Motionless

Michelson and Morley expected to show how fast the earth was moving. They were surprised to find no movement. Sagnac later reveals the existence of the aether in his experiment.

You don't have to view this whole video to see the MM and SAGNAC experiments explained and defended.

Two points are important here:

1. The results of actual experiments were negated with theoretical arguments.

2. Everything is moving in relationship to everything else that is moving is an irrational proposition. Things move in relationship to what is not moving is a rational proposition. The antithesis of movement is non movement.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It just isn't so. You just simply don't know what you're talking about.


THAT IS NOT WHAT THE M-M experiment showed!

OMG! Please read a history book!

The Michealson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was no aether! Einstein's work is PREDICATED upon those experimental results, not falsified by them! :bang:


That entirely depends on just what you mean by space and what you mean by time and what you mean when you say that they are the same thing.

That's three different things that you have absolutely no clue about whatsoever. Not that you don't know what space and time are but that you have no idea about what Einstein meant (most people don't).

Read Enyart's thread about his summit clock experiment and when you do, understand that while Bob is entirely correct about the point he makes, he does not falsify Relativity. His point only highlights the difference between "t" in Einstien's equations and the actual passage of time itself. One is about clocks the other is about the sequence and duration of events. The two aren't always the same thing. As I've pointed out before in this thread, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is no Scylla and Charybdis (rock and hard place) scenario here.


Relativism? What is that, exactly?

Do you mean Relativity?

If so, you've got big problems, David, because we know - know for a fact - that Einstein was, at the very least, mostly correct. You actively use Relativity every time you use GPS but then again, you think GPS is a hoax of some kind too. How about nuclear bombs - are those fake too? A nuclear bomb is E=MC2 in action. Einstein's work accurately predicts all kinds of things that have been confirmed. Things like the weird orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the amount of energy contained in a neuclear explosion, etc.

Clete

"Airey's Failure"

Here is another experiment that shows the earth to be stationary.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Michelson and Morley expected to show how fast the earth was moving.

That was based on a theory that their own experiment proved to be incorrect.

They were surprised to find no movement.

No, Dave. They were surprised by the fact that there was nothing to suggest an aether in the first place.

Sagnac later reveals the existence of the aether in his experiment.

You don't have to view this whole video to see the MM and SAGNAC experiments explained and defended.

Dave, read the bold text in the last paragraph I quoted from the "aether" article.

Two points are important here:

1. The results of actual experiments were negated with theoretical arguments.

Incorrect, the results of the MM experiment showed there was no aether to begin with.

As for the Sagnac effect, I think you need to read more carefully:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

"Einstein was fully aware of the phenomenon of the Sagnac effect through the earlier experimentation of*Franz Harress, mathematically analyzed in an article by*Paul Harzer, entitled "Dragging of Light in Glass and Aberration" in 1914.*This was rebutted by Einstein in his articles "Observation on P. Harzer's Article: Dragging of Light in Glass and Aberration" and "Answer to P. Harzer's Reply."*After Einstein's mathematical argument in the first article, Einstein replied, "As I have shown, the frequency of the light relative to the medium through which it is applied is decisive for the magnitude k; because this determines the speed of the light relative to the medium. In our case, it is a light process which, in relation to the rotating prism system, is to be understood as a stationary process. From this it follows that the frequency of the light relative to the moving prisms, and also the magnitude k, is the same for all prisms. This repudiates Mr Harzer's reply." (1914)"

Einstein used math to rebut Harzer. Not theories.

2. Everything is moving in relationship to everything else that is moving is an irrational proposition. Things move in relationship to what is not moving is a rational proposition. The antithesis of movement is non movement.

No, Dave, it's not irrational. There is nothing in the entire universe which is not moving in relation to something else. Not even the atoms are stationary.

[watch?v=6HbJKbnzT2Y

Dave, read through the TOL link I gave above from Pastor Enyart. You might find it interesting.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That was based on a theory that their own experiment proved to be incorrect.

No, Dave. They were surprised by the fact that there was nothing to suggest an aether in the first place.

Dave, read the bold text in the last paragraph I quoted from the "aether" article.

Incorrect, the results of the MM experiment showed there was no aether to begin with.

As for the Sagnac effect, I think you need to read more carefully:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

"Einstein was fully aware of the phenomenon of the Sagnac effect through the earlier experimentation of*Franz Harress, mathematically analyzed in an article by*Paul Harzer, entitled "Dragging of Light in Glass and Aberration" in 1914.*This was rebutted by Einstein in his articles "Observation on P. Harzer's Article: Dragging of Light in Glass and Aberration" and "Answer to P. Harzer's Reply."*After Einstein's mathematical argument in the first article, Einstein replied, "As I have shown, the frequency of the light relative to the medium through which it is applied is decisive for the magnitude k; because this determines the speed of the light relative to the medium. In our case, it is a light process which, in relation to the rotating prism system, is to be understood as a stationary process. From this it follows that the frequency of the light relative to the moving prisms, and also the magnitude k, is the same for all prisms. This repudiates Mr Harzer's reply." (1914)"

Einstein used math to rebut Harzer. Not theories.

No, Dave, it's not irrational. There is nothing in the entire universe which is not moving in relation to something else. Not even the atoms are stationary.

Dave, read through the TOL link I gave above from Pastor Enyart. You might find it interesting.

If light travels at a given speed in a specific direction.

And if the earth travels at a given speed as it rotates and as it orbits the sun.

Wouldn't the time it takes light to hit the earth be different when the earth moves toward the light source as opposed to when the earth moves away from the light source?

The movement and the speed of the earth in relation to the direction of the light is the issue in the MM experiments not the speed of light. Aether was not the issue either. Aether has become the issue in order to negate the experiments that show the earth is stationary.

Nothing in my apartment is moving.

The buildings and the streets outside my apartment are not moving.

Do you want to prove me wrong???

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If light travels at a given speed in a specific direction.

And if the earth travels at a given speed as it rotates and as it orbits the sun.

Wouldn't the time it takes light to hit the earth be different when the earth moves toward the light source as opposed to when the earth moves away from the light source?

The movement and the speed of the earth in relation to the direction of the light is the issue in the MM experiments not the speed of light. Aether was not the issue either. Aether has become the issue in order to negate the experiments that show the earth is stationary.

Nothing in my apartment is moving.

Relative to you and the earth. However, to someone driving by, it is moving relative to them.

The buildings and the streets outside my apartment are not moving.

Relative to you and your apartment. However, if you start walking down the street, the rest of the world is moving in relation to you. See how that works?

Do you want to prove me wrong???

--Dave

I just did.

And in relation to the center of our galaxy, the entire solar system, with all of its moving parts, is moving at about 500,000 miles per hour around the center. So yes, Dave, while to you sitting in your apartment, it may not look like you're moving, but that's only because you're considering only one frame of reference.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Relative to you and the earth. However, to someone driving by, it is moving relative to them.

Relative to you and your apartment. However, if you start walking down the street, the rest of the world is moving in relation to you. See how that works?

I just did.

And in relation to the center of our galaxy, the entire solar system, with all of its moving parts, is moving at about 500,000 miles per hour around the center. So yes, Dave, while to you sitting in your apartment, it may not look like you're moving, but that's only because you're considering only one frame of reference.

As I said, things move in relation to what is not moving.

Not things are moving in relation to everything else moving.

The opposite of moving is not moving.

Experiments have shown the heavens are moving not the earth in relation to each other.

My apartment is not moving around me.

Cars are moving on the streets, the streets are not moving under the cars.

--Dave

 

[chair]

As I said, things move in relation to what is not moving.

Not things are moving in relation to everything else moving.

The opposite of moving is not moving.

Experiments have shown the heavens are moving not the earth in relation to each other.

My apartment is not moving around me.

Cars are moving on the streets, the streets are not moving under the cars.

--Dave

Dave,

Have you watched a sunset yet? When you are done with that, try taking a train ride.

 

[Clete]

"Airey's Failure"

Here is another experiment that shows the earth to be stationary.

--Dave

Another video for me to watch and debunk without any response from you except for yet another asinine video. I am finished watching your videos until you start debating this topic.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It just isn't so. You just simply don't know what you're talking about.


THAT IS NOT WHAT THE M-M experiment showed!

OMG! Please read a history book!

The Michealson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was no aether! Einstein's work is PREDICATED upon those experimental results, not falsified by them! :bang:


That entirely depends on just what you mean by space and what you mean by time and what you mean when you say that they are the same thing.

That's three different things that you have absolutely no clue about whatsoever. Not that you don't know what space and time are but that you have no idea about what Einstein meant (most people don't).

Read Enyart's thread about his summit clock experiment and when you do, understand that while Bob is entirely correct about the point he makes, he does not falsify Relativity. His point only highlights the difference between "t" in Einstien's equations and the actual passage of time itself. One is about clocks the other is about the sequence and duration of events. The two aren't always the same thing. As I've pointed out before in this thread, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is no Scylla and Charybdis (rock and hard place) scenario here.


Relativism? What is that, exactly?

Do you mean Relativity?

If so, you've got big problems, David, because we know - know for a fact - that Einstein was, at the very least, mostly correct. You actively use Relativity every time you use GPS but then again, you think GPS is a hoax of some kind too. How about nuclear bombs - are those fake too? A nuclear bomb is E=MC2 in action. Einstein's work accurately predicts all kinds of things that have been confirmed. Things like the weird orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the amount of energy contained in a neuclear explosion, etc.

Clete

In trying to prove something there is what is called an alternate plausible explanation.

All cosmologies have plausibility in some respect which is why they all have followers.

That's why we look for those things that create contradictions, incoherence, and are empirically unverifiable.

Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else. The rule of rational thought states that something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time. Conflicting opinions means someone is wrong.

That does not mean that two different things cannot both be moving. But, I can't be on the moon believing the earth is moving around a stationary moon, and have someone else on the earth at the same time believe the moon is moving around a stationary earth. Any theory that says both views are correct is self-contradicting, which is what relativity is.

--Dave

 

[chair]

...
Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else.

Dave, this is not Einstein's relativity you are talking about. This is basic physics.

The rule of rational thought states that something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time.

Dave, if we are both in the same room. I get up and walk to the door, while holding my cell phone. Is my phone moving? Relative to you- it is. Relative to me- it isn't. This isn't rocket science. And it isn't irrational.

Conflicting opinions means someone is wrong.

Yes. You are wrong. Your 'opinion' is based on self induced ignorance.

By the way- have you watched the sun set yet?

 

[Clete]

In trying to prove something there is what is called an alternate plausible explanation.

All cosmologies have plausibility in some respect which is why they all have followers.

That's why we look for those things that create contradictions, incoherence, and are empirically unverifiable.

Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else. The rule of rational thought states that something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time. Conflicting opinions means someone is wrong.

Listen to what you just said.

"Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else."

"...something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time."

Read what you wrote again.

Read it a third time.

Read it over and over again until you see it.



The surface of the Earth is not moving relative to me. It is moving relative to someone in an airplane at 20,000 ft. The airplane is not moving relative to the person in the airplane but it is moving relative to me.

There is no contradiction because it is not talking about two people in the same place at the same time. It's talking about two different frames of reference. This is the most basic principle of Relativity. If you cannot get that, you cannot even begin to discuss Relativity, nevermind dispute it.

That does not mean that two different things cannot both be moving. But, I can't be on the moon believing the earth is moving around a stationary moon, and have someone else on the earth at the same time believe the moon is moving around a stationary earth. Any theory that says both views are correct is self-contradicting, which is what relativity is.

--Dave

No, it is not what Relativity is!

Relativity does not say that the Earth is actually stationary nor does it say that the Moon is actually stationary nor anything else like that. Your objection here is predicated on the idea that there is an absolute reference for motion (that actual motionlessness is detectable or even possible) which is precisely the thing that the Theory of Relativity denies!


Relativity is all about frames of reference, all of which are moving relative to another frame of reference. It says that the idea of motion is only meaningful in relation to something else. Whether you are moving or are standing still, you are doing so RELATIVE to something else.

Actually, the theory has to do with light and gravity and other things but the reason its called the Theory of Relativity is because of this understanding of what motion is. Again, it is the most fundamental concept of the theory. The speed of light is constant relative to any observer, no matter their frame of reference. It makes no difference how fast or slow I am moving relative to you, you and I will both measure the speed of light to be the exact same. So, if I am moving away from you at half the speed of light and turn around and shine my flashlight at you, the light beam will proceed away from me at exactly the regular speed of light, not 1.5 times the speed of light. And you would measure the speed of my light beam at exactly the same speed of light, not .5 of the speed of light. This counterintuitive aspect of the speed of light is accounted for in the theory and it all has to do with relative frames of reference and it is constantly talking about what is true in one frame of reference RELATIVE to another frame of reference thus the name of the theory. It does not say anything that is contradictory (at least not in regards to motion).

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

http://i.imgur.com/bvUFDzZ.gifv

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

This thread is getting really long in the tooth. Could we perhaps move on to something a bit less Neanderthal, move forward in time to at least the 19th century and dispute that microbes cause disease? Get back to mocking surgeons who wash their hands? Or at least that diseases are caused by the imbalances of the four humors: if we can't get more modern, maybe change the subject? Or alchemy? How about fire is made of an element called Phlogiston? At least move on to acknowledge a globe, albeit on Atlas' shoulders, then, a suitable compromise for those math and physics challenged, who also didn't take their meds? I fear this thread may not be taken as seriously as others. Then again... hmmm... may be uniquely less serious... lack credibility, but... darn! Alright. Never mind. Carry on.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

http://i.imgur.com/bvUFDzZ.gifv

Clearly that's computer enhanced!! FAKE!!

:chuckle:

 

[Clete]

http://i.imgur.com/bvUFDzZ.gifv

That is a really well made graphic video! I like it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Too all of you

I have take a break from TOL for little while.

The company I work for has be sold and the new ownership have been making changes. I have been getting up at 4 am to start work at 5 am, I have been working 10 to 12 hour days and am exhausted because of this. This is a transitional time for the company and I completely understand the need for this schedule at this time. Because of this I have not been able to respond to all of you as much as I wanted to this passed week.

All of you have been great as usual, I have enjoyed every post. Thank you all for participating.

I will be going over this thread as I have time to study the many arguments that have been presented.

I think we are repeating some things now and a break will help me to now evaluate all of this.

After being so stimulated once again with intelligent debate I now find TV boring.

Knight and Clete, sorry to disappoint with this at times.

Judge Rightly, you're not idiot, you added a lot. Chair thanks as well.

--Dave :salute:

 

[chair]

If you are up so blessed early, you can watch a sunrise instead of a sunset.

Good luck

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Too all of you

I have take a break from TOL for little while.

See ya 'round Dave. :chuckle:

But seriously... this was a really fun thread. That being said I really hope you come to your senses because I used to count you as one of the sharp tacks in the drawer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/69ulef/taken_from_our_schools_high_altitude_balloon/

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I miss this thread already. Are there any other Flat Earthers on TOL we can play with?