Your link does not work, so your accusation remains a calumny. Again, I simply referred to a conclusion drawn by Michelson and Morley in the paper they published. How is this 'bearing false witness', other than to point out that whatever inferences you draw from their work are not necessarily the same as they drew themselves?
Here is Michelson's own words:
How do you reverse all of this to mean that Michelson thinks his experiment shows the Earth moves?
How do you interpret them to mean that Earth does not move in an orbit around the Sun, especially in light of the fact that Michelson and Morley reported that their experimental results showed a (less than expected) velocity in respect of Earth's motion in orbit?
Ah there we go. Some truth at last.
If motion through ether cannot be detected, yet nevertheless orbital velocity can, the most likely inference to be drawn is that the ether is wholly imaginary.
No the experiment did not show that.
And yet Michelson and Morley appear to think that it did. Whose opinion should I prefer? Theirs or yours?
Ok your free to state that aether doesnt exist but your false statements above are pure lies.
How quick you are to accuse someone of lying because they do not agree with the interpretations you draw from particular experiments and papers. Have you never heard of the concept of an honest difference of opinion? Throwing accusations of lying and falsehoods around could be considered ad hominem attacks. How Christian is this?
As to the non-existance of a medium for light to travel through in space being completely against all logic, I offer this informative paper tackling the issue. Please find error in it.
Your link does not work. In the lab we can create vacuums, place a light-source in that vacuum and observe that light travels from one side of the vacuum to the other. What is the medium that allows light to travel through this vacuum? Perhaps you could explain the logical foundation of this?
We'll deduce from that then that you have no documentation.
Deduce what you like, but I'm still not running around after you. Your comment stands in the much same way as I have noted that you have no explanation to offer of, for example, the various 'massive assumptions' you have accused me of making
No I would regard it as a valid individual result. Just like a measured velocity would be a valid individual result. Then you apply statistics to all the results and base your conclusions on the outcome. Is this too hard for you to grasp?
Is
statistics a magic word that you can shake at anyone who disagrees with you? I asked you how you concluded that this result that you don't particularly like was a statistical error? Michelson and Morley don't seem to have considered it to be a statistical error or they would not have referred to Earth's motion in their paper.
It's quackey when two points of the triangle (Earth and a star) are real and the third point (the assumptive position of the Earth on the other side of its unproven orbit)....is imaginary. Like I said....quack quack.
This is a theoretical exercise designed to make you explain to us what perceptible difference there would be in the position of Polaris if (a) Earth was stationary or (b) Earth was orbiting the Sun at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. One can only assume that you realize exactly what that difference would be, but will exercise whatever evasive flummery you need to to avoid admitting that the evidence you advanced in respect of Polaris supporting a stationary Earth is, quite simply, nonsense.
It's a simple exercise in false geometry.
And more bluster designed to conceal the fact that you have no reasoned response to make. Geometry is geometry; as a no doubt fearless seeker after truth, I would have thought you would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that geometry can be used to show that if Earth was orbiting the Sun at 150 million kilometres then the perceived position of Polaris would change throughout the year.
How about other notables? Not Bowden, other people of standing?
I note that none of your authorities is actually quoted as saying that Earth does
not orbit the Sun. What should we conclude from that?
Are you cleverer than these people Kalvan, that you can definatively state that real experimentation shows that the Earth moves? No offence but I think not.
Like you, I'm just another poster on an Internet forum. Stellar aberration, stellar parallax, the Doppler effect and observation of other non-stellar solar system bodies all lead to the same conclusion, i.e. that Earth moves around the Sun. As I have seen you offer no serious argument against these observations, as none of your authorities seem to be quotable as saying that Earth does not orbit the Sun, and as I have seen you offer no persuasive evidence that Earth is stationary, I think I am at least as clever as you are, which is all that counts here.
I'm just asking for your interpretation of that verse.
To what purpose?
The part I quoted Pauli......Is simply showing that Pauli accepted that any scientific attempts to show the Earth moved have failed.
I don't think Pauli is saying exactly this, which is simply your spin on Pauli's comments as indicated by the qualifying 'which allows us to' after which you have snipped the remaining words and substituted your own, dare I say, less than unbiased commentary. Can you show us anywhere where Pauli says Earth does not orbit the Sun?
Yet again your link does not work.
:
2
