[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Sparkey]

So then, in order to believe you, we must revert to antiquated ideas? Aether wind? Nature abhors a vacuum? Can you not at least think about the advances made in science over the past two (2) centuries?

What's next? Do automobiles exist?

I have no problem with the idea or concept you are trying to establish but learning isn't evil. God is pouring out knowledge onto the face of the whole earth even now.

Regarding your thought that there MUST be something through which light travels, would you not agree that the same thing applies to gravity? Do you think there is a graviton? Is it particulate? The concept you're struggling with has been attempted by various genius level thinkers - how does a force (any force) exert itself over distance? Einstein was working on a Unified Field Theory (somethimes called The Theory of Everything - TOE) in his attempt to explain the how of what we observe. According to Michio Katu, a theoretical physicist at City College, City University of New York, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God."

Is it not okay to simply admit that we don't know everything?

 

[jasoncran]

It's impossible to make a perfect vacuum.

Can I just ask you guys.....

Do you think space is a perfect vacuum with no particles in it?

Logic would point to space being made up of something, what does science say?

29.9 mm hg is for all intents and purpose a purfect vaccum and lights wouldnt able to travel in that according to your idea, but yet it does.

turn on a light, yup that filament is in a vacuum. listen to music or use an older amp, yup that electron is working in a vacuum and producing light.

and of course space isnt a perfect vacuum ,as the busard ramscope wouldnt work.

 

[Strangelove]

So then, in order to believe you, we must revert to antiquated ideas? Aether wind? Nature abhors a vacuum? Can you not at least think about the advances made in science over the past two (2) centuries?

Just because they are antiquated doesn't mean they are false Sparra'.

If you think there have been advances in science and you can bring them forward as evidence to contradict a stationary Earth then do so.

You havn't brought anything to the table yet. Just a lot of talk about Einstein and theory's.

 

[Strangelove]

29.9 mm hg is for all intents and purpose a purfect vaccum and lights wouldnt able to travel in that according to your idea, but yet it does.

turn on a light, yup that filament is in a vacuum. listen to music or use an older amp, yup that electron is working in a vacuum and producing light.

and of course space isnt a perfect vacuum ,as the busard ramscope wouldnt work.

Ya but they are not perfect vacuums. There is stuff inside. Thats undeniable.

 

[Strangelove]

Airy's Failure

Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World.

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World (with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance) was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration idea of 1728. This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical motion of the star Gamma Draconis, as observed by James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux, over a fairly long time period commencing in 1725.

What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the experiment is usually referred to as 'Airy's failure' for this reason.)

Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight, as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no motion of the World around the Sun.

Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.

From "www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm"

 

[Strangelove]

Aether drag hypothesis (Fresnal Drag)

The aether drag hypothesis dealt with the question, whether the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. Most notably, two versions of the aether drag hypothesis existed: One founded by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in 1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter. While the first theory apparently was confirmed by the Fizeau experiment (1851), the second theory apparently was confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradicting situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895, 1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging, and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of special relativity doesn't contain the aether concept at all.

From wiki - "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis"

You can see how real, testable, observable science is replaced by Einsteins theory.

 

[lordkalvan]

It's impossible to make a perfect vacuum.

Well, whatever fills a hard-vacuum type vacuum tube or a vacuum chamber in the lab, it's certainly a great deal less than luminiferous aether theories proposed. From Wiki:

...by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.

Source: Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think space is a perfect vacuum with no particles in it?

Logic would point to space being made up of something, what does science say?

On one level (10^-35m) a foaming mass of quantum activity. On another, widely spaced-out atoms of hydrogen, helium and other gases.

Not really anything that sounds like the classical description of the luminiferous aether and certainly nothing that makes a stationary Earth seem more likely.

Why the big font?

 

[lordkalvan]

Interstellar medium....

Sounds alot like aether.

Not to me, but if it helps float your boat, call it what you wish.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ya but they are not perfect vacuums. There is stuff inside. Thats undeniable.

Nothing that corresponds to the idea of luminiferous aether, however, and the point was to demonstrate that your argument about light being unable to transit a vacuum without a 'medium' to transport it is, quite simply, wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

Airy's Failure...

I have snipped the rather controversial description of Airy's experiment and what it allegedly 'proves', especially as even according to the article Airy did not believe this to be the case (I note the rather loaded use of the word 'admit' to imply that Airy actually knew this all the time, but refused to say so). What I am rather taken aback by, however, is the contention that not only is Earth not orbiting the Sun, but it is not even rotating on its own axis. Is this part of your argument as well?

By the way, the quoted reference actually explains nothing, it simply asserts that the experiments in question proved that Earth does not move.

 

[lordkalvan]

...You can see how real, testable, observable science is replaced by Einsteins theory.

Nope, science simply progresses and some hypotheses are weakened and discarded and others become strengthened as knowledge and understanding improve on the back of observed, measured and analysed evidence.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, whatever fills a hard-vacuum type vacuum tube or a vacuum chamber in the lab, it's certainly a great deal less than luminiferous aether theories proposed.

Seeing as the term "luminiferous aether" is just a generalized term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light then it can pretty much be ANYTHING. Just as long as its SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.

On one level (10^-35m) a foaming mass of quantum activity. On another, widely spaced-out atoms of hydrogen, helium and other gases.

Not really anything that sounds like the classical description of the luminiferous aether and certainly nothing that makes a stationary Earth seem more likely.

Like I say Kalvan....they didnt know what luminiferous aether was so its anything that acts as a medium for light. As you've said there is something there that acts a medium. You can call it a luminiferous aether or anything you want really , it doesn't matter. If theres something up there then the experiments that I'm documenting are valid.

 

[Strangelove]

Nothing that corresponds to the idea of luminiferous aether, however, and the point was to demonstrate that your argument about light being unable to transit a vacuum without a 'medium' to transport it is, quite simply, wrong.

Luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. It's a very general term so it does correspond no matter how many times you say it doesnt.

Show me an experiment of light travelling in a perfect vacuum without a medium.

 

[Strangelove]

What I am rather taken aback by, however, is the contention that not only is Earth not orbiting the Sun, but it is not even rotating on its own axis. Is this part of your argument as well?

Lolz....you only just realised this?

Yes its very much part of my argument and I cant wait for you to bring forth real scientific evidence that the Earth spins on its axis.

You can start by explaining to me why, if you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

 

[Strangelove]

Nope, science simply progresses and some hypotheses are weakened and discarded and others become strengthened as knowledge and understanding improve on the back of observed, measured and analysed evidence.

OR:::

False Science simply progresses and some real testable hypotheses are weakened and discarded and others become strengthened as theories and musings improve on the back of un-observed, un-measured and un-analysed non existant and totally theoretical evidence.

Yeah...that sounds more like it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Seeing as the term "luminiferous aether" is just a generalized term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light then it can pretty much be ANYTHING. Just as long as its SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.

Like I say Kalvan....they didnt know what luminiferous aether was so its anything that acts as a medium for light. As you've said there is something there that acts a medium. You can call it a luminiferous aether or anything you want really , it doesn't matter. If theres something up there then the experiments that I'm documenting are valid.

How very Humpty-Dumptyish when a word can mean whatever you want it to mean, including a foaming mass of quantum activity. So the aether can be pretty much anything you want it to be including virtually nothing at all and, indeed, nothing at all like those who were trying to find it thought it was.

 

[lordkalvan]

Luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. It's a very general term so it does correspond no matter how many times you say it doesnt.

Show me an experiment of light travelling in a perfect vacuum without a medium.

So now it's a 'perfect vacuum' and not just a 'vacuum'? How 'perfect' do you want it to be? It still remains the case that the contents of a hard-vacuum type vacuum type and a vacuum chamber in a lab most definitely do not contain anything like the imaginary aether that, no matter how hard it was searched for, could not be found. How closely do the contents of these vacuums correspond with this description again?

...it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets.

Source: Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lordkalvan]

Lolz....you only just realised this?

Yes. Unlike the Red Queen I find it hard to assimilate two impossible things before breakfast, never mind six.

Yes its very much part of my argument and I cant wait for you to bring forth real scientific evidence that the Earth spins on its axis.

By 'real scientific evidence', I guess you mean nothing that would contradict your assertion? I guess you don't like the Foucault pendulum?

You can start by explaining to me why, if you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

Bizarre. How do you suppose that, when one of the Apollo missions was travelling to the Moon at nearly 40,000 kph and the astronauts floated free in the capsule or juggled with various pieces of kit, the kit didn't zip across the length of the spacecraft and they didn't get smeared into paste against the rear bulkhead?

 

[lordkalvan]

OR:::

False Science simply progresses and some real testable hypotheses are weakened and discarded and others become strengthened as theories and musings improve on the back of un-observed, un-measured and un-analysed non existant and totally theoretical evidence.

Yeah...that sounds more like it.

Except that it corresponds with no version of the general thrust of scientific research and investigation.

 

[Strangelove]

How very Humpty-Dumptyish when a word can mean whatever you want it to mean, including a foaming mass of quantum activity. So the aether can be pretty much anything you want it to be including virtually nothing at all and, indeed, nothing at all like those who were trying to find it thought it was.

By Jove! I think you got it. Its just....... "stuff" that acts as a medium for light. Rather than..........nothing.

I mean.....do you think that scientists 100 years ago went up into space and took a sample of it and analysed it before they did their experiments. No. They just knew "it" was there becasue light travels in space.