[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Preference.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

It proves conclusively a stationary Earth. So yeah, it's relevant.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Wat

Ah, we're back to you not understanding what words mean.

Here, I'll help you out by using these words in a sentence: "In this thread, you have proved conclusively that you are an arrant moron".

Note how when you've been asked why you think it proves this, or why explanations as to why it doesn't, and it's ****ing ******ed to think it ever could are mistaken, you deflect as usual to "if you understood then you'd know".

Er, no.

These are my hostile witnesses:

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”

Arthur Eddington

“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the Earth was at rest.”

Bernard Jaffe

“Thus, failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’... It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is notthe center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"

Adolph Baker

“... The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to theearth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage bymoving around it.

James Coleman

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Oh wow, so you actually have a reasonable explanation this time. Well done! I take it back, congratulations.

Of course, those people were proved to be wrong, but at least you weren't being entirely unreasonable.

No, it just proves that 'the aether' doesn't exist.

You have completely misunderstood or pretended to misunderstand what they were talking about. As Coleman says, the stationary Earth is an obvious absurdity. Eddington, for instance, never believed that the Earth was stationary except for the subjective purposes of an Earth-based observer.

More hostile witnesses:

“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained somany things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves–light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustainthem. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter of a century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”

Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein

“What happened when the experiment was done in 1887. There was never, never,in any orientation at any time of year, any shiftin the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth has in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morley experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving...”

Richard Wolfson

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Point sailed over your head.

I am not claiming that frigging Eddington was a geocentric stationary ball tard.

I am saying the MM presented physics with a true dichotomy. The choice of which is preference, based on a fundamentalist belief system.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Wrong. Quit tarding this up.

Lorentz did NOT dispense with the aether to explain the null result. His explanation was that the equipment physically contracted to give the appearance of no aether.

It was Einstein who later produced the thought experiments and the two postulates of SR.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ok, so, now we've established all that, it would appear that if you think the M-M "conclusively proves" (again, you clearly don't know what the word "conclusively" means, but whatever) a stationary Earth, then you are saying Einstein's explanation was wrong. Correct?

Huh??

You asked me if the stationary Earth can be "moved."

I'm asking you to define the term that you yourself introduced into the conversation.

(Exactly what you yourself have done at least a dozen times here.)

So, please the define the term 'moved'. Thanks a bunch!

Einstein assumed a priori Earth motion at say 30 km/s orbital motion +/- 0.5 km/s earth spin. (This is in fact the third hidden postulate of SR). From there a "theory" was built to explain why Earth is not measured to move wrt the aether, based on the principle that light never measures anything but c (in a vacuum) thus explaining why there is no change in the interference pattern despite the equipment moving and hence ought to displace the interference pattern.

What is this theory? It is based on thought experiment. It is not a physical theory. SR is correct insofar as it satisfies its own logical framework. Einstein's theories in physics are his explanation of Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect. These won the Nobel prize. Not for SR, the Nobel prize is for PHYSICS.

The two physical explanations for the null result are the literal contraction of the apparatus, the Lorentz contraction, or the stationary Earth. The first is impossible.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with

majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” (Psalms 93:1).

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

That's a lot of words. Now try and see if you can arrange them into an order that answers my question.

Let me know if you need any clarification of what the question is asking. Note that it wasn't about the Nobel prize. Much obliged.

When you're checking the dictionary to brush up on what "proof" and "conclusive" mean, as you'd be well advised to do, you may want to add "impossible" to that list.

I don't know man, in the blue corner we have a man whose name is literally synonymous with "genius", and in the red corner we have cretin on the internet who, inter alia, works out damage caused by projectiles going at 100mph without taking their velocity or material properties into account. It really is a poser.

You asked if Einstein's explanation is wrong.

It is like asking if the correct explanation for my shirt being blue is because it cost £8.99.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Despite me saying his theory of SR, which I have studied to the point of being expert in it, is correct. Insofar as it satisfies its own logic.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You may want to look up "expert" too while you're at it.

Einstein's (amongst others) explanation clearly contradicts your assertion that the only possible explanation for the experimental results is a stationary earth. That is what "conclusively proves" would mean - that there are no other possible valid explanations.

Ipso facto, as you like to say, Einstein, amongst others, is wrong, and dipshit Billy from the tinternet is right.

Whatever.

You cannot see the difference between thought experiment and direct observation.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I literally just explained this to you like you were 5 and you still don't seem to understand. Not sure there is much more I can do to help.