[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Re Michelson-Morley: where is your proof that the aether exists?

Confounding variables, professor. Compounding is what interest on principal does.

Non sequitur.

The measurement of (nearly) no fringe shift does not disprove the existence of aether. It proves a stationary Earth, while the *nearly* bit confirms the rotation of aether around the Earth. As we observe daily.

Lorentz explained the result by length contraction *with* aether. Einstein's second postulate, the uniformity of the speed of light regardless of the motion of the observer and source, does not require an aether. Photons propagate independently of a medium.

"The scientists" wrote about this. I am simply telling you what they said.

So, you don't have any then, thanks for confirming.

We observe the rotation of the aether around the Earth daily? Tell us more.

No, you're not, as a quick perusal of the relevant literature confirms. "The scientists" do not say anywhere that either of the experiments you have referenced prove that the Earth is flat. On the contrary, they have a completely different explanation of the results.

"Quick perusal"

=

"Frantic google search".

How about AI cut and paste? I see they take inspiration from reddit, quora and the infamous flatearth.ws. Classic.

Why don't you show us where "the scientists" tell us that the results of these experiments prove that the Earth is flat, and give us the names of some of these scientists.

I note you completely ignored the question about how we observe the rotation of the aether around the Earth daily. Bit of a habit you have there, ignoring questions you can't answer.

Must be pushback against your ad homs[sic] and 'frantic' google searches.

You mention Joshua as if we haven't already discussed this. Joshua's 'long day' is consistent with both theories.

Either that or you are an insane, dishonest moron. Guess we'll never know which.

No. The maximum range of the missile (which is surface-to-air with only a potential secondary role against surface targets) does not relate to the detection range of surface radar against surface targets.

It is looking as if you do not know how anything works.

Another non sequitur.

Can you post once without making a silly fallacy?

I did not say in that post anything about Earth being flat.

We observe the rotation of the celestial sphere daily. This is recorded to a high degree of accuracy by the Michelson-Morley and more so by the Sagnac etc.

The "not quite nil" result is not explained in interpretations that dispense with the aether and maintain earth motion. Yet it is an observable effect.

Only for your bastardisation. He said the Sun stood still.

You just made this up.

Read the page I cited and original sources where they are still active online. Full surface to surface functionality.

Of course, you are cherry picking to suit your fundamentalist religious belief system. You think this is going to wash here? Hmm? Not on my shift.

Oh dear, sounds like you're not capable of following the thread of a discussion. Never mind.

So we can observe rotation through the aether without even establishing its existence. Logic is not really your thing, huh professor?

This is rather silly. It should not be underestimated how shocking the "null" result was. James Clerk Maxwell was incredibly successful in describing electromagnetism - the aether was almost certain to be discovered. It took a while to come to terms with the result, demanding further tests until it was accepted. So the aether was very much established, underpinning Maxwell's equations.

Except that according to mainstream science, the aether does not exist. So either some of the smartest people to ever live are right, or some moron on the internet who calculates damage caused by projectiles without taking into account their velocity and doesn't know the difference between "compounding" and "confounding" is. It's quite the poser, really. Very confounding.

By your 'logic', the National Weather Service believes in a stationary Earth because they tell us the daily 'sunrise' and 'sunset' times for each city.

Wat??

As pointed out already, which you failed to follow as per the miserable pathetic troll you are, the MM result does not discount the aether. It is Einstein's second postulate that does. "Science" does not require an aether, but is not the same as aether not existing. For instance, a sea of neutrinos is a possible contender for the aether. Apparently Maxwell, the very person responsible for enabling you to troll the internet with your absurd ramblings, is not "one of the smartest people".