Flat Earth

[odolvlobo]

^^^ M&M was simply a failed experiment to detect the aether. It has nothing to do with suggesting that the Earth is flat or a globe. Whose density are you... "Back to the Future" 1984?

The premise of the M&M is that the speed of light would be different in perpendicular directions because the Earth is moving. Because the result showed no movement according to the premise, the M&M experiment is strong empirical evidence that the Earth is stationary. This was explained away by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which claimed that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. How convenient!

It turns out that one can't just dismiss Einstein's theory because there is plenty of other evidence that confirms that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. As a result, the M&M experiment cannot be considered good evidence that the Earth is stationary because the premise (that the speed of light is not constant) is contradicted by strong evidence.

[1714934452]

1714934452

[1714934452]

1714934452

[1714934452]

1714934452

[1714934452]

1714934452

[1714934452]

1714934452

[notbatman]

^^^ Cats Meowing Loudly -- https://youtu.be/wrdAEmNvEj4 *** RECOMMENDED VIDEO ****

Dufour & Prunier conducted a replication of the Sagnac experiment that took rotating frames of reference into account thus, falsifying relativity and removing all objections to the static aether.

You're dismissed.


ref:

"Georges Sagnac , born on October 14 , 1869 in Périgueux and died on February 26 , 1928 is a French physicist who left his name to the Sagnac effect , a phenomenon that is the basis of interferometers and gyrolasers developed from the late 1970s. He was also the discoverer of fluorescence. X" -- wiki

"Alexandre Dufour is a French physicist who succeeded Georges Sagnac as lecturer in physics for the PCN certificate ( 1st year of medical studies) at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Paris in September 1920. He obtained the title of professor without a chair on April 1 , 1927 , then was appointed full professor on October 1 , 1931 .

He was the inventor of the cathode oscillograph , which he described the process from 1914 1 , before publishing the detail of the device in 1920 2 ." -- wiki

"Fernand Maurice Daniel Prunier is a French anti-relativist engineer, born on October 21, 1897 and died on September 21, 1971 1 , 2 ." -- wiki


"Summary : In a first series of experiments, here accessories, but which nevertheless had to be realized, we used an entire optical circuit integral with the rotating platform as in the previous works of Sagnac. In these conditions we have found that the observed fringe displacements are the same to within 6%, that the light source and the photographic receiver are involved in the rotation of the platform, as in the Sagnac experiments, or that they remain fixed in the laboratory. The second series of experiments described here was intended to study the movement of the fringes due to rotation, under completely new conditions characterized by the fact that the optical circuit of the two superimposed interfering beams is formed of two parts in series, one of which remains fixed relative to the laboratory while the other is secured to the platform in rotation. The displacement of the fringes, obtained under these new conditions, has been that which can be foreseen by classical theory. In the case where the optical circuit is entirely integral with the rotating disk, as in the Sagnac experiments, the observer does not have the means to make a choice between the interpretations of the placement of the fringes obtained respectively given by the theory. classical and by relativistic theorists. But, in the case where there is a part of the circuit which remains fixed in relation to the laboratory, the relativistic theorist can not remain in agreement with the classical theorist, nor with the results observed, supposing, as he had done so far, here, that the center, where it is supposed to be placed to make the calculation of the experiment, can be chosen arbitrarily on the rotating platform. This center must be confused with the center of rotation of the platform." -- On a displacement of fringes recorded on a platform in uniform rotation, with Alexandre Dufour (1940)

[Astargath]

^^^ Cats Meowing Loudly -- https://youtu.be/wrdAEmNvEj4 *** RECOMMENDED VIDEO ****

Dufour & Prunier conducted a replication of the Sagnac experiment that took rotating frames of reference into account thus, falsifying relativity and removing all objections to the static aether.

You're dismissed.


ref:

"Georges Sagnac , born on October 14 , 1869 in Périgueux and died on February 26 , 1928 is a French physicist who left his name to the Sagnac effect , a phenomenon that is the basis of interferometers and gyrolasers developed from the late 1970s. He was also the discoverer of fluorescence. X" -- wiki

"Alexandre Dufour is a French physicist who succeeded Georges Sagnac as lecturer in physics for the PCN certificate ( 1st year of medical studies) at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Paris in September 1920. He obtained the title of professor without a chair on April 1 , 1927 , then was appointed full professor on October 1 , 1931 .

He was the inventor of the cathode oscillograph , which he described the process from 1914 1 , before publishing the detail of the device in 1920 2 ." -- wiki

"Fernand Maurice Daniel Prunier is a French anti-relativist engineer, born on October 21, 1897 and died on September 21, 1971 1 , 2 ." -- wiki


"Summary : In a first series of experiments, here accessories, but which nevertheless had to be realized, we used an entire optical circuit integral with the rotating platform as in the previous works of Sagnac. In these conditions we have found that the observed fringe displacements are the same to within 6%, that the light source and the photographic receiver are involved in the rotation of the platform, as in the Sagnac experiments, or that they remain fixed in the laboratory. The second series of experiments described here was intended to study the movement of the fringes due to rotation, under completely new conditions characterized by the fact that the optical circuit of the two superimposed interfering beams is formed of two parts in series, one of which remains fixed relative to the laboratory while the other is secured to the platform in rotation. The displacement of the fringes, obtained under these new conditions, has been that which can be foreseen by classical theory. In the case where the optical circuit is entirely integral with the rotating disk, as in the Sagnac experiments, the observer does not have the means to make a choice between the interpretations of the placement of the fringes obtained respectively given by the theory. classical and by relativistic theorists. But, in the case where there is a part of the circuit which remains fixed in relation to the laboratory, the relativistic theorist can not remain in agreement with the classical theorist, nor with the results observed, supposing, as he had done so far, here, that the center, where it is supposed to be placed to make the calculation of the experiment, can be chosen arbitrarily on the rotating platform. This center must be confused with the center of rotation of the platform." -- On a displacement of fringes recorded on a platform in uniform rotation, with Alexandre Dufour (1940)

So why should we believe that exactly? Because it's written there? If I write: the relativistic theorist can remain in agreement with the classical theorist, would you believe it? Have you done the experiment yourself or are you trained enough to even understand the experiment? No you aren't, you read a summary on the internet that said something and you believed it, 0 critical thinking.

[BADecker]

^^^ Cats Meowing Loudly -- https://youtu.be/wrdAEmNvEj4 *** RECOMMENDED VIDEO ****

Dufour & Prunier conducted a replication of the Sagnac experiment that took rotating frames of reference into account thus, falsifying relativity and removing all objections to the static aether.

You're dismissed.


ref:

"Georges Sagnac , born on October 14 , 1869 in Périgueux and died on February 26 , 1928 is a French physicist who left his name to the Sagnac effect , a phenomenon that is the basis of interferometers and gyrolasers developed from the late 1970s. He was also the discoverer of fluorescence. X" -- wiki

"Alexandre Dufour is a French physicist who succeeded Georges Sagnac as lecturer in physics for the PCN certificate ( 1st year of medical studies) at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Paris in September 1920. He obtained the title of professor without a chair on April 1 , 1927 , then was appointed full professor on October 1 , 1931 .

He was the inventor of the cathode oscillograph , which he described the process from 1914 1 , before publishing the detail of the device in 1920 2 ." -- wiki

"Fernand Maurice Daniel Prunier is a French anti-relativist engineer, born on October 21, 1897 and died on September 21, 1971 1 , 2 ." -- wiki


"Summary : In a first series of experiments, here accessories, but which nevertheless had to be realized, we used an entire optical circuit integral with the rotating platform as in the previous works of Sagnac. In these conditions we have found that the observed fringe displacements are the same to within 6%, that the light source and the photographic receiver are involved in the rotation of the platform, as in the Sagnac experiments, or that they remain fixed in the laboratory. The second series of experiments described here was intended to study the movement of the fringes due to rotation, under completely new conditions characterized by the fact that the optical circuit of the two superimposed interfering beams is formed of two parts in series, one of which remains fixed relative to the laboratory while the other is secured to the platform in rotation. The displacement of the fringes, obtained under these new conditions, has been that which can be foreseen by classical theory. In the case where the optical circuit is entirely integral with the rotating disk, as in the Sagnac experiments, the observer does not have the means to make a choice between the interpretations of the placement of the fringes obtained respectively given by the theory. classical and by relativistic theorists. But, in the case where there is a part of the circuit which remains fixed in relation to the laboratory, the relativistic theorist can not remain in agreement with the classical theorist, nor with the results observed, supposing, as he had done so far, here, that the center, where it is supposed to be placed to make the calculation of the experiment, can be chosen arbitrarily on the rotating platform. This center must be confused with the center of rotation of the platform." -- On a displacement of fringes recorded on a platform in uniform rotation, with Alexandre Dufour (1940)

The problem with the whole rotating idea by these guys ^^ is that the rotation of the Earth is so extremely much slower than their rotating tables or discs, that the idea of Earth rotation, or lack of rotation, can't be determined. Earth rotation is way too slow to even notice, to compare it with what these guys are doing.

I mean, if these guys could get there results in one rotation every 24 hours, then things would be equal. Then someone might be able to say that maybe the Earth wasn't rotating. But...

We are only just now getting scientific ability to photograph sub-fractional light changes in speeds as slow as a rotating disk that rotates once a day. When we finally get there, however, we will find that all kinds of "thing" will have to be taken into account that wouldn't have been with fast disks.

In other words, the above is useless for determining the movement/non-movement of the Earth.

[notbatman]

^^^ Shut up you fucking idiot, odolvlobo tried to make the no aether relativistic argument as an explanation for the results [a stationary earth] of the 1887 Michelson & Morley experiment, but he veiled the argument with the speed of light instead. The Sagnac Experiment proved that displacement of a static aether is occurring thus falsifying relativity. Relativistic theorists claimed since rotating frames of reference weren't accounted for in the SE that relativity was still a valid hypothesis. However in 1939 Dufour & Prunier's replication of the SE took rotating frames of reference into account and removed this last roadblock proving the static aether.

These other experiments are needed to prove the aether, it's the M&M experiment that proves the earth doesn't move you absolute faggot.

[BADecker]

^^^ Yet it is direct observation that shows the Earth a globe, and the movement of the stars as a turning Earth.

None of it has to do with a static aether. It might be a static appearing aether, but the aether is anything but static. Even you agreed with the idea of aether flow in one or more of your posts.

[notbatman]

The Earth does not move.

[BADecker]

^^^ Many others have shown the Earth to be a moving globe, both by experimentation and direct observation. So, why the discrepancy? We all might be missing some important points. A German mathematician has proven that Einstein's relativity doesn't work in microscopic things. Several electric plasma scientists have shown that electric plasma science fits stars way better than nuclear science does .

As long as you want to believe some scientists' calculations and not others, you are simply moving away from science. Rather, let's put the stuff all together, and find out what is really going on in the universe.

[notbatman]

M&M 1887 is the experiment and it is observed that the earth is not moving. Silvertooth replicated the M&M experiment in 1986 with modern equipment and confirmed the results.

BADecker and his claim the earth moves is just full of shit, I can't believe this has go on for 500 years now.

The current model of gravity and a spinning globe is based 100% on relativity. Relativity states that light will act independently of any medium by some unknown magic. The static aether model says light is wave in a medium and will act as such. The Sagnac experiment performed with an interferometer in uniform rotation confirms via direct observation (D&P 1939) that, light is a wave in a medium; the observed behavior of light is not consistent with relativity.

[BADecker]

^^^ Your problem is, as Astargath has often said, that you are unwilling to accept science other than whatever makes you feel good.

Obviously, no scientist has the complete truth about the way that the universe works. And, there are many scientists who are putting all kinds of things together to find out what the truth really is. The fact that Einstein's theories are still only theories after a hundred years, shows that other scientists have truly found flaws in them.

But the facts of actual viewing of globe earth, and radar and laser experiments directed at other planets, plus spacecraft fly-bys, show that FE is completely false, as well.

Since you seem to like the FE idea as much as you do, why don't you give yourself a little credit by stating that it is your philosophy/religion, and that you don't know if it is true. At least doing this will place you in line to find out the truth someday.

[notbatman]

^^^ It's not about what makes me feel good, it's about observed and documented results you absolute faggot.

Do I reject claims about earth based on observation of celestial objects that were made before the properties of atmospheric refraction were understood? Yes I do!

Do I reject an experiment where two heavy balls were observed through a hole drilled in a 17th century garden shed with a telescope, an observation of motion from a claimed force so small it would be utterly undetectable due to the nature of electrostatic forces? Yes I do!

Do I reject an experiment that claims to be influenced by earth rotation when it's got a built-in motor hidden purposely from the observer? Yes I do!

NASA produces images of astronauts hanging from wires and inside zero-G planes. The images of earth are paintings, composite images, photoshopped or high altitude pictures taken with a fisheye lens. NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything you cock smoker!

Why don't you just kill yourself instead of being suckered into believing a puppet show with actors is real? If you believe there are Masons flying around in heaven like superman above your head right now, then you need to put that shotgun to your head and pull the trigger!

[BADecker]

^^^ But you don't seem to understand that all your violent talk against people comes about because you aren't sure of yourself or what you are talking about.

I absolutely know that there is a lot about the aether that is not accepted by standard science. And you know it, as well. But how long will it take for you to realize that you don't know about FE science as well as you would like to think you do?

Standard science thinkers aren't all a bunch of dimwits, and neither are you. But if you don't recognize this, you are gradually pushing yourself in the dimwit direction. Your anger which, is shown by your violent speech, shows this about you.

The Earth is a globe, and M&M and Sagnac experiments show us that standard science hasn't understood everything about how globe nature works, yet. Rather than simply badmouthing everything that you don't like, work on figuring out how to combine the truths of the various sciences.

As an example of other sciences, consider the fact of Scalar Energy that Tom Bearden and others report about. Standard science doesn't accept Scalar Energy, but SE helps to explain the reasons why M&M and Sagnac don't easily mix with standard science. All you are doing is alienating yourself from science that could make you great.

[notbatman]

The earth is observably flat, it's not a globe.




^{Source: https://youtu.be/U7GIW0vJcic}

We can see too far, globe debunked.

[BADecker]

^^^ Blah, blah, blah. Water is supposed to seek its own level, too. But we need the Panama Canal because the water is a different height in the Gulf than it is in the Pacific. Yet, the waters all connect down the coast of South America around its southern tip.

You might be able to find some other anomalies somewhere that change the horizon from the standard. But in general, there isn't any set horizon distance. It all depends on (besides anomalies) the height of the viewer's ey or the camera lens.

You continue to blab about nothing, all the while trying to prove FE with it. Don't you realize that you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot? But if you missed, was it because you were pointing the gun 180 degrees in the opposite direction? There are many different reasons why people like you are in funny farms.

[Fernando532]

^^^ Blah, blah, blah. Water is supposed to seek its own level, too. But we need the Panama Canal because the water is a different height in the Gulf than it is in the Pacific. Yet, the waters all connect down the coast of South America around its southern tip.

You might be able to find some other anomalies somewhere that change the horizon from the standard. But in general, there isn't any set horizon distance. It all depends on (besides anomalies) the height of the viewer's ey or the camera lens.

You continue to blab about nothing, all the while trying to prove FE with it. Don't you realize that you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot? But if you missed, was it because you were pointing the gun 180 degrees in the opposite direction? There are many different reasons why people like you are in funny farms.

1. Launch a balloon with your own camera attached to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAifzh7_-cg

[Makkiveli]

I have not read the whole thread, but i need to ask a question i have always wondered about flat earth theory. When the earth is flat, then all of the satellite GPS system should render useless. I reckon millions if not tens of millions have to be fully aware that the earth is flat - all aerospace and military occupations - because it would not be possible to use a map to call in artillery barrage or a tactical airstrike.

[BADecker]

^^^ Except that the post directly above yours contains a link to a video that proves the earth is a globe.

[Astargath]

^^^ Blah, blah, blah. Water is supposed to seek its own level, too. But we need the Panama Canal because the water is a different height in the Gulf than it is in the Pacific. Yet, the waters all connect down the coast of South America around its southern tip.

You might be able to find some other anomalies somewhere that change the horizon from the standard. But in general, there isn't any set horizon distance. It all depends on (besides anomalies) the height of the viewer's ey or the camera lens.

You continue to blab about nothing, all the while trying to prove FE with it. Don't you realize that you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot? But if you missed, was it because you were pointing the gun 180 degrees in the opposite direction? There are many different reasons why people like you are in funny farms.

1. Launch a balloon with your own camera attached to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAifzh7_-cg

Watch notbatman rage about fisheye lens or some other weird invented optical illusion that makes the earth appear as round. He refuses to test anything by himself.

[notbatman]

You guys are fucking idiots.



"satellite"

[Astargath]

You guys are fucking idiots.



"satellite"

REEEEEE says the guy who believes anything he reads, except real scientists, fuck those guys, better believe 2 no name scientists and youtube videos even though you have never done any of the experiments yourself