[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

I don't know what these are. Are they experiments that prove the Earth is flat?

Wait, I know M-M, that proved that the Earth doesn't move through a luminiferous ether. So you took this to mean that the Earth doesn't move as opposed to proving the non-existence of a luminiferous ether? Here, behold, I have conducted an experiment that proves that Billy doesn't move through strawberry jam when he walks, ergo Billy doesn't move at all. Where did you study physics (and logic) again, was it Broadmoor by any chance? Are you not embarrassed of being such a complete moron?

I thought M-M was finally explained by Relativity?

IIRC, it was explained when we started understanding more about how light works, in particular that it propagates in a vacuum and that no matter is actually "waving" as with, for example, water waves or sound waves. I'm not sure how much of this was relativity and how much was pre-relativity.

It certainly wasn't explained by stationary Earth. The fact that Billy seems to think that it was (or that there is even any way that it logically could have been) is a pretty laughable fail.

Your schematic has a flat earth. It is the orbital motion I object to.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

So explain why you think M-M disproves orbital motion.

The special theory of relativity, but not quite. Einstein dispensed with the aether but the original culprits were Fitzgerald and Lorentz who first came up with the idea of length contraction. The reason we could not measure the aether is because, by some natural devilry, the equipment keeps changing itself by just the right amount that we can never detect the aether! The most obvious explanation of the MM null result: Earth is not moving. But, as history shows, preference for the heliocentric spinning ball religion won out.

Einstein later realised the Lorentz transformation (as opposed to the "commonsense" Galilean transformation) gives the correct coordinate transformations for the laws of physics so that the two postulates of special relativity are satisfied with respect to inertial reference frames. The aether is dispensed with in electromagnetism also.

Length contraction remains as a "real physical effect" with a sound mathematical and logical underpinning - Einstein's theory. Go figure.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

TLDR: Einstein was wrong, Billy is right. Poor Einstein, Billy has relegated him to the scrap heap along with NIST, Bez, Eagar and NDT.

Great work, champ!

No, you ****ing dipshit. If my experiment shows that you are not moving through strawberry jam, you can't infer from that that you are not moving at all. Even someone as dense as you should be able to understand this very simple concept.

If you knew what the MM was, which you claim to, then you will know what the simplest explanation is.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Oh good, your usual "I've been caught saying something braindead so I'll try to save face by saying 'figure it out for yourself'" schtick. Don't worry, I'm sure you are much smarter than everyone here and nobody has noticed every time you do this.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know everything. But I know enough to know that you're as full of **** on this topic as you are on every other, and are, as usual, exhibiting all the logical ability and mental acuity of a lobotomised monkey.

Let it go folks. Stop feeding the troll.

Being a troll would be a very good outcome for him, life EV wise. The chances of him actually being a troll are about zero.

This thread is much more fun for me now that I'm just mostly spectating instead of participating.

Reasoning with BillyGoat has roughly the same effect as reasoning with a bowl of jello.

He wants and needs the attention he receives by being contrarian. He just keeps adding new topics to rile you up.

I suspect you know nothing of the michelson-morley experiment nor of Einstein's explanation.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

"I know MM"

d2, 2026.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ah geezerchess. Surely he will confirm the Teaching of the stationary Earth.

Can it be moved?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

In which case I'm sure you'll gladly explain which part of what I said was inaccurate or mistaken.

Same as you were 100% sure that my calcs had a mistake, yet completely to failed to follow up to several requests to point it out, remember? You do like to have your ******ation follow very predictable patterns, don't you?

That was shorthand for "I know the experiment you're talking about", not "I know everything there is to know about this topic", as was abundantly clear in context. Keep trying.

Define 'moved.'

Pretty sure Einstein thought the Earth was neither flat nor stationary.

It's not relevant to the foolish flat-stationary-Earth point you're attempting or pretending to make.

hOsTiLe wItNeSs

I am not sure that me defining biblical terms is appropriate here.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk