The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use it (SR), as their excuse to claim the experiment (M&M) is inconclusive.

The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use the excuse that, The Sagnac Experiment doesn't take rotating frames of reference into account to claim it (TSE), is not conclusive. The Prunier & Dufour replication took rotating frames of reference into account and the results are conclusive; SR is not consistent with experiment.

Did I do it myself? No we're arguing about established scientific experiments here!


If you change "A scientific theory is an explanation ..." to "A scientific theory is a possible explanation ..." then yes.

I'm just going to let you flail spastically on this.


Michelson assumed the Sun was 93 millions miles away and tried to prove the Earth was in motion (like Airy), it wasn't any kind of conclusion based on experiment.

Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive; the conclusion reached by M&M was that it's consistent with a static aether and a motionless Earth. They (the Jews) claimed that M&M was consistent with both SR and a static aether thus making the claim of a static aether inconclusive. This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.

Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself.

Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M.

Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory.

Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn.


The keyword here is "theory".

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

The adage of the Jew crying out in pain as he strikes you keeps getting reinforced here; you're all selling science but I'm the only one actually delivering.

Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory. The Cavendish Experiment doesn't deliver proof, electrostatic forces render it useless. Every argument against my scientific proof the Earth is motionless rests on Special Relativity's claim there is no aether however, Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment proves SR is not consistent with experimental results.

The five scientific experiments I offer as proof,

1. Aiy's Failure Experiment,
2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment,
3. The Trouton–Noble experiment,
4. The Sagnac Experiment,
5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment,

they've all been carefully documented and repeated by others. The results of the experiments are agreed upon by everybody. Why should my argument be dismissed when nobody is arguing the results? Any results from me attempting to replicate all those experiments myself would have less credibility than the existing documented results.

Am I "just trusting random internet websites"? No, these are established scientific experiments.

Finally you accuse me of being dishonest, fuck off you worthless sack of shit.


No I'm not wrong about aether, those five established scientific experiments I offer as proof are not wrong. Those experiments have been carefully documented, replicated by others and the results have been confirmed.


If you've been doxed, then perhaps you should be more careful about who you make false accusation about when you're screwing over their ability to trade and make money on this forum.

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

@Astargath, you're screaming in pain as you strike out at me "LIAR!".

Airy failed to detect the motion of the Earth, re-branding the experiment as a failure to prove the existence of the aether is a Jewish tactic and a lie; Airy set out to prove the motion of the Earth. Saying the experiment as an aberration in the heliocentric theory is Jewish word salad for "our bullshit theory is proven wrong so we'll give it fancy label and carry on".

AF is a simple experiment that almost anybody who's technically inclined can perform to prove there's a aether and, that the Earth is motionless. The results of AF are confirmed by the Michelson & Morley Experiment (also dishonestly re-branded as a failure to detect the aether) and, all arguments against both experiments involving Special Relativity are debunked by the Prunier & Dufour replication of the Sagnac Experiment. The P&D Sagnac replication takes SR into account and proves the theory is not consistent with experimental results.

---

---

I've got even more proof of a motionless Earth:

   "The Trouton–Noble experiment was an attempt to detect motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, and was conducted in 1901–1903 by Frederick Thomas Trouton (who also developed the Trouton's ratio) and H. R. Noble. It was based on a suggestion by George FitzGerald that a charged parallel-plate capacitor moving through the aether should orient itself perpendicular to the motion. Like the earlier Michelson–Morley experiment, Trouton and Noble obtained a null result: no motion relative to the aether could be detected.[1][2] This null result was reproduced, with increasing sensitivity, by Rudolf Tomaschek (1925, 1926), Chase (1926, 1927) and Hayden in 1994. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton–Noble_experiment

How am I liar, how does this make a liar? I'm quoting a wikipedia article (with sources) that I believe is factual (quoted text), how am I fucking lying?

---

---

6-Hour Gyroscope Test Debunks Spinning Earth - Flat Earth -- https://youtu.be/IGPSjgv9t3E

Shills claiming ring LASER and MEMs gyroscopes can measure a rotation are full of shit BTW, they're measuring the weak Coriolis effect caused by aether drift (measured by the M&M Experiment). If Earth was spinning at it would effect the gyroscope in the video.

---

---

The Earth is motionless and this is an observable, repeatable, testable, documented, empirical fact:

    Aiy's Failure Experiment. -- Empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

   The Michelson & Morley Experiment. -- Empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

   The Trouton–Noble experiment.  -- Empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

   The Sagnac Experiment. -- Empirical proof of the aether.

   Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment. -- Empirical proof the theory of Special Relativity is not consistent with experiment.

The obvious reality is that everybody is brainwashed not knowinly liars, the liars are actually few in number perhaps 1% of the population. You're dishonestly framing my arguments and should curl up in the oven with Vod for being a fag.

"The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you"

No you're a hippocrit who goes around accusing people of being liars while being the liar and copping out to authority. Go curl up inside a gas oven you worthless sack of shit!

You should kill yourself.

How is the experiment "trash"? The nature of electrostatic forces makes the Cavendish experiment inconclusive and a completely useless setup. You just calling AF trash because it failed to support the bullshit globe model is just an immature response from a butthurt loser who can't prove the official narrative.

SaltySpoon wanted an experiment he could perform himself and AF was the simplest one I could think of. Proof of the aether is available in the form of the Sagnac Experiment, however the setup is more complex. The Dufour & Prunier replication also debunks special relativity.


Yes Vod, the masses are full of truth and I'm the bastard...


The shortwave radio signals bounce between the ionosphere and the ground (a waveguide) and can reach any point on Earth.This works on both the globe model and in reality. If you're having trouble tuning into your assinged shortwave number station from within the US, it's probably because of atmosphereic conditions or, changes made by HAARP to block your espionage related actives.

Airy's experiment that failed to detect the rotation of the Earth (Airy's Failure) is simple enough most people could perform it, his experiment only requires two telescopes (one filled with water to slow lights speed). It provides scientific evidence for a stationary Luminiferous aether and that the stars are in motion. Save any arguments that involve special relativity, it's a debunkable theory.

Short answer, it's the stars in motion.

Longer answer, if you analyze the fluid dynamics of the flush closely enough you can derive a 23 hour and 56 minute cycle; sidereal time. This force is from an aether drift related to the projection of celestial objects and can be measured with the M&M experiment. The difference in rotation between the so-called "hemispheres" results from the curvature of the mirrored dome inverting the projected image after a certain angle. The Earth's dome is electrically polarized at extreme voltage and the holograms interact with the aether flow; the aether flows as solenoidal lines of force and as the stars move they "stir" the bowl.

Smart answer, the Coriolis toilet flush is an urban myth. There is an however an aether drift responsible for a very small measurable value.


When you calculate angular size based on a giant imaginary sphere and its calculated central point, you get shitty values compared with measuring them directly on a plane. Angular size is measured from the horizon vanishing point and is based on the human eye.



That's what your globe "eye" looks like, it's no wonder you're getting shitty values like 30' for your angular size of the Sun, it's measured at 32' and the Earth is flat my man.

It's a 1:1 ratio for minutes to miles, the mile is by definition 1 minute of arc; angular distance is in minutes and linear distance is in miles, the ratio is 1:1 for the human eye.

Angular size (diameter) is a scientific coverup (conspiracy), there is no bullshit argument that you can make like with curvature; it's a direct measurement and has to be covered up. The sextant proves the Earth is flat by virtue of measurement. Also the size of the Sun is measured at 32' not 30', this is off but it's no wonder since you have to calculate it on your globe illusion from an imaginary center that you're fucking hallucinating! Even Google says the Sun is 32' - why? -, because Google used a source that measured it instead of calculating it based on the worlds largest pile of bullshit!

Speaking of the devil, I hear the Google maps engineer has had all of his social media accounts suspended after stating openly the numbers NASA gives are bullshit.

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

The horizon line is a visual object that's observed not calculated; the image of a line is formed (emerges) due to optical convergence (and perspective) on a plane. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line where, an object (or area) is no longer visible due to its visual (apparent) size being too small to resolve with the eye; all the points on the plane form a line.

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye. One of the two objects is almost always the horizon line, but it doesn't have to be. Once you've measured your angles then you can use them with your calculations; your action could be a simple as measuring the time of day with the Sun or a complex navigational calculation with the stars. You can also measure size and calculate distances (with trigonometry); one minute is equal to one mile.

The vanishing point isn't calculated, it's observed; the horizon line goes in one of two mirrors when making angular size measurements. You asked for information and when I explained where to find a more detailed explanation than just "an emergent visual object" you imply I'm a liar? Go off yourself.


So a dense mass causes gravity and gravity causes a dense mass? Globe logic at its finest, nothing works quite like using an unproven theory in conjunction with circular logic to prove your point.

The explanation for this is complex, short answer it's an emergent visual object. The Jews will tell you all about perspective on a plane and the vanishing point, but only within an artistic context, and only in an advanced art class. If you don't want to pay the Jew school there's some resources online, look up perspective and drawing and you'll find some information that can also be applied physically.

Hitler spoke about the Jews and art in his famous book, you could also look that up too.

There's no vanishing point on a globe because it's hidden behind curvature. Who told me how to measure angular size? Well certainly not the Jews at wikipedia, those wikihow instructions are just the basics and don't cover angular size. Measuring angular size is covered up, it's a conspiracy (Jews control all information with few exceptions) and there's no readily available source that will discuss measurement because it's impossible to measure on a globe. I've explained how angular size measurement works, you should kill yourself instead of insisting it's impossible.