Re: Stationary Earth

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:55 am

"Einstein's new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it "Mach's ether" or simply "ether," and supplied the same reasons that Poincare had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether (we need the ether in order to remove absolute rotation and action-at-a-distance: see my papers "Poincare's ether"). Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein's ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincares ether. Einstein did not give a defmitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture."

- "Einstein's Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth," Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Cannel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:26 am

"A few words about the gravitational æther, and the æther concept in general may be in place here. The æther hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR: experiments capable of finding the æther were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic æther has always been observed..."

- Toivo Jaakkola Tuorla Observatory University of Turku "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", APEIRON Vol. 3 Nr. 3-4 July-Oct. 1996, p 70.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:28 am

"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium....A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum "ether" once again."

- 'The Philosophy of Vacuum' , 1991, Simon W. Saunders, Harvey R. Jr. Brown, p 251.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:44 am

"According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure. The impedance equals 376+ ohms."

- "Space Must Be Quantizied,", Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, 21st Century, 1988, p. 26ff.

by **strangelove** Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:34 am

"A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it."

—John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms: Volume IV, Ps 93:1, published 1559, 15 years after Copernicus' major work was published.

by **strangelove** Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:11 am

"…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light."

- Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.

by **strangelove** Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:24 pm

A "null" result doesn't mean ZERO relative velocity!

"Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10‐8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 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.5 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

by **strangelove** Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:34 pm

"In clear conception, it ought to be regarded as a direct manifestation of the luminiferous ether. In a system moving as a whole with respect to the ether, the elapsed time of propagation between any two points of the system should be altered as though the system were immobile and subject to the action of an ether wind which would blow away the light waves in the manner of atmospheric wind blowing away sound waves. The observation of the optical effect of such a relative wind of ether would constitute evidence for the ether, just as the observation of the influence of the relative wind of the atmosphere on the speed of sound in a system in motion would (in the absence of a better explanation) constitute evidence of the existence of the atmosphere around the system in movement."

- Georges Sagnac, “The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an Interferometer in Uniform Rotation", Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences 95, pp. 708-710, (1913).

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:44 am

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.”

- Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:06 am

"Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity....[...]...I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”

- Albert Einstein, in a speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 35 (8), 45, 1982, by Yoshimasa A. Ono.

by **strangelove** Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:48 am

"The logical existence of the incremental Sagnac effect implies... that there is some compelling physical reason why the effect cannot be observed at the surface of the Earth....We hold that until something new is brought to the table, this question simply cannot be resolved. No currently accepted theory reveals why, like a Cheshire cat, the Sagnac effect shows itself in one kind of experiment but not in another."

- Howard C. Hayden and Cynthia K Whitney, "If Sagnac and Michelson-Gale Why Not Michelson-Morley?" Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 1, no. 6, Tufts University, Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 73-74.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:52 am

"According to the second postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of light is independent of the uniform motion of its source. Direct experimental evidence by W. Kantor of the US Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, leads him to the surprising conclusion that it may be untenable (Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 52, No. 8, p. 978)...[...]..If Einstein's postulate is correct there should be no displacement between the two sets of interference fringes on spinning the disc, because the light from the approaching and receding windows, respectively, should all have the same velocity. In fact, an unambiguous, easily noted shift of the fringes was apparent when the mirrors were in motion (maximum linear velocity: 4,690 cm per sec) and Kantor deduces that Einstein's second postulate is incorrect. The fringe shift, moreover, appeared to depend on the speed of the disc. If the present work turns out, on more rigorous research, to be flawless and free from experimental artefacts, and if there is no obvious alternative explanation for the observed effects, there may be a need to reconsider some basic ideas in physics."

- 'Light Velocity Dependant on Speed of Source?', New Scientist 1 Nov 1962 p276.

by **strangelove** Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:42 am

Galileo's recantation...

"The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence.”

- Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei, p. 316, footnote #2.

by **strangelove** Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:58 am

“In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun…Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.”

- Isaac Newton, Proposition 43.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:10 am

"The infinite Universe of the New Cosmology, infinite in Duration as well as in Extension, in which eternal matter in accordance with eternal and necessary laws moves endlessly and aimlessly in eternal space, inherited all the ontological attributes of Divinity. Yet only those--all the others the departed God took away with Him."

- Alexandre Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, p276.

by **strangelove** Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:33 am

"Galileo's way of thinking laid 350 years ago the foundation for the modern science and technology, and into what crisis he since has brought theological thinking is difficult to describe. Until today the Church fights for an inventory of religious truths that are no longer compatible with the insights gained by means of the inductive method: among them the dogmas and the notion of a Supreme Being, an Almighty Father in Heaven.”

- Theo Löbsack, Wunder, Wahn und Wirklichkeit, München, C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1976, pp.31-32.

by **strangelove** Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:28 am

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?"

- Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 11: Psalms.

by **strangelove** Sun May 07, 2017 4:58 pm

"We can talk with precision of a body as spinning around relative to something or another, but there is no such thing as absolute spin: the Earth is not spinning to those of us who live on its surface and our point of view is as good as anyone else’s – but no better."

- F. Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p344

by **strangelove** Wed May 31, 2017 4:55 pm

"Examined more closely, this simple idea acquires capital importance; there is no way of settling the question, no experiment can disprove the principle that there is no absolute space, all displacements we can observe are relative displacements. I have often had occasion to express these considerations so familiar to philosophers. They have even given me a publicity I would gladly have avoided. All the reactionary French journals have made me prove that the sun turns around the earth. In the famous case between the Inquisition and Galileo, Galileo should be all wrong."

- “The New Mechanics,” Henri Poincaré, 1913, The Monist, Vol. 23, pp. 385-395

by **strangelove** Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:39 am

"We will see that utilizing a Weber’s law for gravitation it is possible to show that when the heaven of stars (or the set of galaxies) rotate together around a test body, centrifugal forces of gravitational origin act on this body. These forces act on the portions of the body which are not along the axis of rotation. These forces press these portions away from the axis of rotation. Therefore, these portions tend to move away from the axis of rotation of the stars and galaxies around the test body."

- Andre K. T. Assis, (professor of physics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil) Relational Mechanics, p. 251

"We have found a complete equivalence between ptolemaic and copernican worldsystems. It is then equally valid to say that the Earth is spinning once a day relative to the stationary set of distant galaxies, or that the Earth is at rest while the set of distant galaxies is rotating once a day as a whole relative to the Earth. Both world views are now equivalent not only kinematically or visually, but also dynamically (yielding the same ﬂattening of the Earth at the poles, the same precession of the plane of oscillation of Foucault’s pendulum relative to the ground, etc.) We have deduced the fact that all inertial forces of newtonian mechanics, like the centrifugal or Coriolis forces, are real forces acting on the test body and being exerted by the set of galaxies. These forces have a gravitational origin and appear when there is a relative rotation between the test body and the set of galaxies. This property explained the ﬂattening of the Earth as being due to the relative rotation between the Earth and the set of galaxies. This property also justiﬁes the fact that the plane of oscillation of Foucault’s pendulum at the North or South poles remains at rest relative to the set of galaxies, while the Earth is spinning relative to the galaxies. In the terrestrial frame of reference, on the other hand, the Coriolis’s force exerted gravitationally by the set of galaxies and acting on the mass connected to the pendulum rotates the plane of oscillation of the pendulum, relative to the ground. This Coriolis’s force causes a precession in the plane of oscillation of the pendulum, making it rotate together with the set of galaxies around the North-South axis of the Earth."

- Andre K. T. Assis, (professor of physics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil) Relational Mechanics, p. 488

by Bro John Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:33 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Well....you can unless you believe that views of Earth from space are fake.

Doc, I took it you believed nasa was a pysop developed by the nazi scientists who formed it, along with the high level esoteric men that succeeded them and further perpetrated the lie. If i am incorrect, my apologies. If you believe it is a psyop why would we trust anything from them, ie views from space? If you concur what is your strongest reason for believing the earth to be a ball or oblate spheroid. I believe the earth is a plane; that is flat with a solid firmament above. My reasons are the rule of 8", the testimony of railroad and canal works engineers, and a simple shining of the sun on the ocean surface. Doc, you are a learned man. But if you are unfamiliar with the short and concise works of Thomas Winship, David Wardlow Scott, and William Carpenter may I suggest you read them. It will take you all of an afternoon as some of the material is repetitious. Take care, sir.

by **strangelove** Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:36 pm

Bro John wrote:
Doc, I took it you believed nasa was a pysop developed by the nazi scientists who formed it, along with the high level esoteric men that succeeded them and further perpetrated the lie. If i am incorrect, my apologies. If you believe it is a psyop why would we trust anything from them, ie views from space? If you concur what is your strongest reason for believing the earth to be a ball or oblate spheroid. I believe the earth is a plane; that is flat with a solid firmament above. My reasons are the rule of 8", the testimony of railroad and canal works engineers, and a simple shining of the sun on the ocean surface. Doc, you are a learned man. But if you are unfamiliar with the short and concise works of Thomas Winship, David Wardlow Scott, and William Carpenter may I suggest you read them. It will take you all of an afternoon as some of the material is repetitious. Take care, sir.

I don't trust nasa but I have no reason to believe that satellite images of earth are fake. Same as I've no reason to believe the earth is flat. Strongest reason I believe the earth to be a ball is coreolis effect. It doesn't work with a flat earth. Also flat earth goes against much common sense regarding telescopic line of sight, travel, seasons and some other stuff I can't think of right now but I think the other new member listed a lot in the other thread.

by Bro John Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:34 pm

Strangelove wrote:

I don't trust nasa but I have no reason to believe that satellite images of earth are fake.

Same as I've no reason to believe the earth is flat.

Strongest reason I believe the earth to be a ball is coreolis effect. It doesn't work with a flat earth.

Also flat earth goes against much common sense regarding telescopic line of sight, travel, seasons and some other stuff I can't think of right now but I think the other new member listed a lot in the other thread.

What exactly do you not trust nasa on? please be specific.

Are you saying that you have no reason to trust flat earthers because you have seen nasa images with your own eyes?

If you read fixed earth by marshall hall and still believe what he wrote about it allow me to refresh your memory regarding the C- Effect. What he said is that the non rotating earth (he made no distinction in flat or ball) allows for the phenomena. I do not claim marshall was a flat earther. in all of our many calls and correspondences i cannot say he was. he was a ball geocentrist. God rest his soul.

I take it you mean common sense in yur last line as as empirical evidence. i will leave until you read the 3 authors and their short works i suggested. i will not raise the topic again unless prompted by you. One parting comment. Contrary to Galileo, the Bible does indeed tells us how the heavens go, as well as tell us how to get there. Good day to you, sir, and God's richest upon you.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:45 pm

Bro John wrote:
What exactly do you not trust nasa on? please be specific.

Are you saying that you have no reason to trust flat earthers because you have seen nasa images with your own eyes?

If you read fixed earth by marshall hall and still believe what he wrote about it allow me to refresh your memory regarding the C- Effect. What he said is that the non rotating earth (he made no distinction in flat or ball) allows for the phenomena. I do not claim marshall was a flat earther. in all of our many calls and correspondences i cannot say he was. he was a ball geocentrist. God rest his soul.

I take it you mean common sense in yur last line as as empirical evidence. i will leave until you read the 3 authors and their short works i suggested. i will not raise the topic again unless prompted by you. One parting comment. Contrary to Galileo, the Bible does indeed tells us how the heavens go, as well as tell us how to get there. Good day to you, sir, and God's richest upon you.

I don't trust nasa on anything mate, but I have no reason to reject their images of a ball earth. Simple as that.

I have no reason to believe the earth is flat. Simple as that.

Marshall Hall was not a flat earther.Coriolis works in a stationary earth system only when the earth is a ball The effect is covariant between universe and globe regardless which is spinning.

I have no reason to read flat earth material unless you can provide a concise description of how they can explain coriolis.

Flat earth is unscientific and I have no reason to pursue it on logical or theological grounds.

by CONSPICILLUM Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:51 am

Strangelove wrote:

I don't trust nasa on anything mate, but I have no reason to reject their images of a ball earth. Simple as that.

I have no reason to believe the earth is flat. Simple as that.

Marshall Hall was not a flat earther.Coriolis works in a stationary earth system only when the earth is a ball The effect is covariant between universe and globe regardless which is spinning.

I have no reason to read flat earth material unless you can provide a concise description of how they can explain coriolis.

Flat earth is unscientific and I have no reason to pursue it on logical or theological grounds.

This is a bit of a side note interjection… If we don’t trust NASA about anything, and we are to understand Geocentricity appropriately; then wouldn’t we reject that any of NASA’s rockets have left the upper reaches of earth’s atmosphere, and thus coriolis has never been a necessary aspect of alleged “space flight”?

Just trying to see where the few active posters stand on some of this minutiae. Smile

by **strangelove** Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:34 pm

CONSPICILLUM wrote:This is a bit of a side note interjection… If we don’t trust NASA about anything, and we are to understand Geocentricity appropriately; then wouldn’t we reject that any of NASA’s rockets have left the upper reaches of earth’s atmosphere, and thus coriolis has never been a necessary aspect of alleged “space flight”?

Just trying to see where the few active posters stand on some of this minutiae.

Forget about rockets bro. Coriolis can be observed by anyone shooting a rifle, or standing either side of the equator pouring water down a sink and watching it swirl in opposite directions.

by Bro John Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:01 pm

Forgive me, but bullets go where they are aimed, accuracy improving with the sighting of the barrel in addition to taking into account distance and fall line from target along with wind-speed. (no east west force to reckon with) Again, reread Marshall's chapter on Coriolis Effect in his book, entitled, "Fixed Earth". I have not been to the equator but I have seen those cheesy videos where they drain a sink of water while the congregation watches amazed as leaves disappear down the drain either in a clockwise or anticlockwise pattern depending on what side of the equator they are on (or more to the point what direction they poured the water in before it was totally settled)

by **strangelove** Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:52 pm

Bro John wrote:Forgive me, but bullets go where they are aimed, accuracy improving with the sighting of the barrel in addition to taking into account distance and fall line from target along with wind-speed. (no east west force to reckon with) Again, reread Marshall's chapter on Coriolis Effect in his book, entitled, "Fixed Earth". I have not been to the equator but I have seen those cheesy videos where they drain a sink of water while the congregation watches amazed as leaves disappear down the drain either in a clockwise or anticlockwise pattern depending on what side of the equator they are on (or more to the point what direction they poured the water in before it was totally settled)

Please don't be silly. Snipers lives depend on this. Are they all daft and getting corioils mixed up with wind-speed?

Bro....Marshall Hall was not a flat earther. He was a sphere geocentrist who did not have a full grasp of the science of geocentrism and therefore had to make dubiuos claims about the size of the universe and explain away things like Foucaults pendulum as being fraudulent. I studied his website for years. Definately not a flearther. He just didn't get as far as co-variance so was wrong on a lot of science. God rest his tireless soul but he didn't have the full story.

Again...there is absolutley no reason why I would accept flat earth theory.

by Bro John Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:17 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Please don't be silly. Snipers lives depend on this. Are they all daft and getting corioils mixed up with wind-speed?

Bro....Marshall Hall was not a flat earther. He was a sphere geocentrist who did not have a full grasp of the science of geocentrism and therefore had to make dubiuos claims about the size of the universe and explain away things like Foucaults pendulum as being fraudulent. I studied his website for years. Definately not a flearther. He just didn't get as far as co-variance so was wrong on a lot of science. God rest his tireless soul but he didn't have the full story.

Again...there is absolutley no reason why I would accept flat earth theory.

Please give me name and email address of your sniper source(es). I am not being silly, Doc, I am full on deadly serious. I am all in. I never said my friend Marshall Hall was a flat earther. On the contrary, I made it clear he was a ball geocentrist from the start. Please quote my words to the contrary, please if you will. If not, be a brother and apologize. I went to to the Tellus Museum in Cartersville, GA. close to where both of us lived where they have a Foucoult's Pendulum in their lobby. Just as Marshall said "they [the hardware] hang like a sack of potatoes" after hours. Now since you have ascended to the knowledge he fell shot of please enlighten us as to how the Nile River flows north. Please consult a globe to understand this. Now that you claim to know more than Marshall [whom you sited favorably] please grace us with how he fell short in his understanding concerning the size of the universe, and co-varaiance. Earnestly awaiting your reply, i am , man of clay.

by CONSPICILLUM Thu Jul 15, 2021 6:51 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Forget about rockets bro. Coriolis can be observed by anyone shooting a rifle, or standing either side of the equator pouring water down a sink and watching it swirl in opposite directions.

I wasn’t insisting against coriolis. I was pointing to how often rockets are the primary argument for the Helio-boys.

by Sponsored content