|
|
Post by dostojevski on Nov 26, 2022 20:22:52 GMT
Boškovićevo povezivanje s teorijom relativnosti treba gledati u ovom kontekstu (a ne u kontekstu njegovog eksperimenta kojim je utvrđeno mirovanje Zemlje) : repozitorij.nsk.hr/islandora/object/nsk%3A118/datastream/FILE0/viewŠto se tiče Airy's failure eksperimenta, taj eksperiment je samo dodatno potvrdio ono što su Arago, Mascart, Hoek i drugi već prije utvrdili svojim eksperimentima, tj. da Zemlja miruje. Airy se nadao da će uz pomoć Boškovićevog (sofisticiranijeg) eksperimenta dobiti pozitivan rezultat za Zemljino kretanje i proslaviti se kao onaj koji je prvi eksperimentalno dokazao da se Zemlja kreće. Na njegovo veliko razočaranje i njegov (tj. izvorno Boškovićev) eksperiment je pokazao da se Zemlja ne kreće. Nakon toga dolazi Michelson koji je imao ista očekivanja (proslaviti se kao onaj koji je prvi eksperimentalno dokazao da se Zemlja kreće), ali i ovaj puta je stvar završila neslavno po Michelsonova velika očekivanja o slavi kojom bi ga takav (pozitivan) rezultat njegovog eksperimenta ovjenčao. Svi relativistički (i ne samo relativistički) lažovi (heliocentristi) nisu u stanju odgovoriti na jedno jednostavno pitanje (već više od 130 godina) : Kako je uopće moguće izvesti interferometrijske eksperimente ako eter ne postoji? Zašto je ovo pitanje važno? Zato što je Einstein na kraju balade morao potpuno odbaciti eter kao hipotezu. Druga je stvar što je to isto kao da je odbacio hipotezu svojeg vlastitog disanja. Znači, kažeš da zrak koji udišeš ne postoji, ali ne daješ objašnjenje za to kako onda uopće dišeš (što udišeš), ako zrak ne postoji. Einstein je morao odbaciti eter ujedno tvrdeći da ako bi se ikad dokazalo da eter postoji njegova teorija se ruši kao kula od karata. Međutim, osim što je razvidno da eter postoji iz same činjenice da se interferometrijski eksperimenti mogu uopće izvoditi, to je još više razvidno iz činjenice da su svi ti eksperimenti davali pozitivne rezultate, koji su doduše daleko od očekivanih vrijednosti, a zašto je to tako objasnit ćemo kasnije. Znači, sama mogućnost provođenja interferometrijskih eksperimenata, plus pozitivni rezultati tih eksperimenata su dovoljni da se Einsteina spremi u ludnicu. I Lorentza koji je svoju slavnu formulu (temelj Einsteinove teorije) bio predložio u šali, da bi na kraju tu šalu ponudio kao nešto ozbiljno, a znanstvena zajednica tu ludost prihvatila kao svoj temelj. Ali idemo dalje, Sagnac provodi eksperiment kojim DIREKTNO dokazuje postojanje etera. Sagnac efekt je danas neupitna znanstvena činjenica. O značenju te činjenice najbolje govori najgrandiozniji interferometrijski eksperiment ikad izveden (12 godina nakon Sagnacovog eksperimenta), tj. Michelson Gale Pearson eksperiment (1925.). Taj eksperiment je dokazao da se eter giba oko nepomične Zemlje točno onom brzinom kojom se Zemlja navodno rotacijski kreće oko svoje osi. Tim eksperimentom je zakucan zadnji eksperimentalni čavao u heliocentristički lijes. Taj eksperiment je ujedno i odgovor na pozitivne rezultate većine interferometrijskih eksperimenata (tj eksperimenata MM tipa) kojima se pokušavalo eksperimentalno potvrditi Zemljino ORBITALNO gibanje. Dakle, rotacija etera oko nepomične Zemlje (daleko sporija od navodnog orbitalnog gibanja Zemlje) je uzrok pozitivnih rezultata svih interferometrijskih eksperimenata MM tipa (ORBITALNO gibanje Zemlje). Još nešto : EDIT : U slijedeća tri videa je puno toga lijepo objašnjeno : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 1 : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 2 : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 3 : Dodajmo i ova dva videa : 130 years have gone by since Michelson Morley experiment : NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION : Ajde kad već stavljam videe da zaokružimo cijelu priču : COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 1 : COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 : HALTON ARP - Destruction of Modern Cosmology : |
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Dec 7, 2022 16:35:23 GMT
ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT admitted long time ago : “I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.” No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph. The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever." “ Fred Hoyle has argued that a subtler understanding of Einstein’s theories reveals they may actually slightly favor an Earth-centered model. Had Galileo had Hoyle at his elbow, he might have produced the book that would have pleased the pope and not have been tried for heresy!….There is another criterion by which theories are judged, and, for better or worse, it shows that modern scientists do have a certain kinship with those recalcitrant seventeenth-century scholars they so disdain. When new theories and the implications of new discoveries disagree with the way a scientist personally feels the universe ought to run, he or she is reluctant to accept them.” Kitty Ferguson, science writer Evo što o tome misli forumas Rob-Roy (Luka Popov) (dr fizike) : www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=39587853&postcount=717The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. Albert Einstein
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, *Stephen Hawking*
“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, *J. L. E. Dryer*
“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, *Hans Reichenbach*
“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, *Carl E. Wulfman* “Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, *Fred Hoyle*
"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - *Max Tegmarck* 2011
"Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - *Y.P. Varshni* in Astrophysics and Space Science
"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - *Y.P. Varshni* in Astrophysics and Space Science
“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...” Physicist, *Julian Barbour*
"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - *Galileo Galilei* in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Dec 7, 2022 16:37:06 GMT
"...Again, once more for the record : it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism." Astronomer, Dr. Bouw
"I have to confess that I was bothered by the fact that the Axis of Evil seemed linked to a special direction in our solar system...But now we have completely independent data...This is a hint of something really big." Astrophysicist, Max Tegmark
"Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?" Astrophysicist, Dragan Huterer
"The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called "evil" because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model...the Copernican Principle seems to be in jeopardy." Astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal
"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - *Jonathan Katz* in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe
"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - *Lawrence Krauss* 2006
"To date, there has been no general way of determining that we live at a typical position in the Universe" - *Chris Clarkson* et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008
"Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - *Lawrence Krauss* 2009
"One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard (Big Bang) model."
The European Space Agency, Planck Probe, 2013
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Dec 21, 2022 13:54:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mirko on Mar 4, 2023 10:17:52 GMT
Avion leti u kontra smjeru od smjera zemljine rotacije. Njegova brzina leta u smjeru zemljine rotacije je umanjena za brzinu kojom leti u kontra smjeru od zemljine rotacije. U trenutku kad taj avion naglo promijeni smjer leta (iz horizontalnog u vertikalni) za 90 stupnjeva atmosfera takav avion odjednom krene nositi u smjeru zemljine rotacije za onoliko brze koliko se avion prije promjene smjera gibao u kontra smjeru zemljine rotacije. To je slingshot efekt o kojem govorim. Medutim, taj efekt ne postoji u stvarnosti jer zemlja ne rotira, ali kad bi rotirala tada bi taj efekt postojao i svaki bi ga pilot koji izvodi loop manevar itekako osjetio (kao naglo ubrzanje) kao sto osjeca i G sile.
_-----------
AI odgovara :
Razumijem sada o kojem slingshot efektu govorite. Ipak, važno je napomenuti da se zemljina rotacija mora uzeti u obzir u mnogim situacijama koje uključuju promjenu smjera kretanja letjelice ili vozila. Na primjer, u situaciji koju opisujete, ako bi se zemlja vrtila, tada bi se relativna brzina aviona i zemlje razlikovala ovisno o smjeru kretanja aviona, što bi moglo uzrokovati efekt koji ste opisali. Međutim, zbog složenosti ovog problema i mnogih drugih faktora koji utječu na letjelicu u zraku, poput aerodinamike i gravitacije, to bi bilo vrlo teško predvidjeti i kontrolirati. Također treba napomenuti da je slingshot efekt najčešće povezan s gravitacijskom pomoći u svemirskim letovima, a ne s manevrima aviona u atmosferi. Nadam se da sam vam pomogla razjasniti ovu temu.
ChatGPT Feb 13 Version. Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Mar 5, 2023 18:16:10 GMT
This is so simple (argument), because the truth is simple. Everyone (with half brain) can understand this argument (thought experiment) very easily. Imagine yourself as standing at the river bank, though not quite ordinary river. There is one special characteristic which discerns our special river from ordinary rivers : Besides the fact that it's speed is enormous (400 km/h), the air above our river is stuck to the river (flowing at the same speed above it) in the same way as in the HC model earth's atmosphere is stuck to the surface of the rigid earth. Your position (standing at the river bank) is equivalent to hypothetical position of someone who hovers above rotating earth (and above earth's rotating atmosphere), watching as the earth and it's atmosphere rotates 1000 miles/hour above the equator. Now, you watch some insanely fast plane as "rolls" (flows) "the runway" (going upstream) at the same speed at which river (and the air above it) flows. So, river flows 400 km/h to the left, and insanely fast plane "rolls" at the same speed (in counter direction of river's flow) to the right. Relative speed of an airplane wrt river is 400 km/h. In relation to you an airplane is stationary. Now, our insanely fast airplane is taking off and in the same moment (right after being detached from the river) a pilot is making loop maneuver, so that the direction of airplane's flight (geometrical position wrt air's flow) becomes perpendicular (in a second or so). What would you (from your stationary position at the river bank) see in the moment of airplanes' taking off (making loop maneuver)  All of a sudden, until recently stationary (wrt you/your position at the river bank) airplane, is being catapulted to the left (in a direction of river's/air's flow) in a very short time (almost instantly), due to the air's high drag coefficient (which makes the air very similar to the water (in comparison to a vacuum)). Now, care to explain to me, how is this scenario any different than hypothetical HC scenario which presumes rotating earth which is able to carry the earth's atmosphere all along it's rotating rigid surface??? Or if you can't point to any substantial difference between just depicted scenario and hypothetical HC scenario, then feel free to indicate anything else that (according to you) could successfully falsify my argument, that is to say : anything that would expose my thought experiment as scientifically invalid? The point of this experiment is in that the pilot in the moment of sudden maneuver (changing the direction of motion for 90 degrees a.k.a perpendicularly wrt the motion of the wind above river (rotating earth) which flows in the same direction as the wind (atmosphere) blows) has to feel one other (slingshot) effect besides G forces. However, since we live on stationary Earth no pilot ever experienced such an effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Mar 7, 2023 15:48:55 GMT
How about this : DOSTOJEVSKI :“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...” Physicist, *Julian Barbour*AI :Julian Barbour's statement is referring to the ongoing debate about the nature of motion in our universe. The question of whether the earth moves or not was famously raised by Galileo Galilei, who argued that the earth orbits around the sun rather than being the center of the universe. This idea was controversial at the time and led to Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition. Despite the many advances in physics and astronomy since Galileo's time, the question of whether the earth moves or not is still a topic of debate. This is because there are different ways to interpret the laws of physics that describe motion in our universe. For example, the theory of relativity introduced by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century suggests that motion is relative, meaning that there is no absolute reference point for measuring motion. In this framework, the question of whether the earth moves or not becomes a matter of perspective. Other physicists have proposed alternative theories that challenge the idea of a moving earth. For example, the "stationary Earth" theory suggests that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe and that the apparent motion of the sun and stars is due to the rotation of a celestial sphere around the earth. Overall, the debate about whether the earth moves or not reflects the ongoing quest for a deeper understanding of the laws that govern our universe, and the ways in which we interpret and apply those laws to different physical phenomena.  Regenerate response |
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Mar 12, 2023 13:54:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Mar 14, 2023 18:09:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lexi on Apr 6, 2023 22:27:14 GMT
I was brought here by a user from another forum (which is in English) so could you post your post again but in English?
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Apr 7, 2023 9:35:39 GMT
I was brought here by a user from another forum (which is in English) so could you post your post again but in English? Which post? This one (?) : Jack, don't make me laugh... We have been through all this numerous times... What would be the point of regurgitating everything once again? There is a saying that goes like this : You don't need to repeat simple and obvious facts to those who have brains in their head... However, i can repeat this to you once again just for fun since we all know beforehand it is going to be a futile effort : The Michelson-Gale experiment has been called by Beckmann and Hayden "the most grandiose optical interference experiment ever performed." Yet Hayden points out that an imposing list of more than a thousand books and papers on the subject of the velocity of light makes no mention of this experiment. The Sagnac effect is seen in many places, since it is an established fact that two beams of light heading in different directions are going to have a discrepancy in their speed. This is shown by the Sagnac correction that is built into the GPS system to make it work. EM waves going east-to-west go faster than EM waves going west-to-east, but the distance between the GPS satellite remains the same, and thus the GPS computers have to be adjusted by the Sagnac results to account for the anisotropy of the EM waves. The experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson, Gale and Pearson in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation). ---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth. Regarding this very topic : FES can't be anything else but controlled opposition since after 15 or 20 years of it's existence and countless presented proofs pushing forward such a ridiculous claim (that the earth is flat) is imaginable only if we presume that those who still keep promoting this idiotic theory are totally insane people. If they are right in their mind which i think they are then remains only one inference : They do it for fun and with one other (which is actually the main) purpose : derailing geocentric truth... |
|
|
|
Post by Lexi on Apr 7, 2023 18:18:43 GMT
I was brought here by a user from another forum (which is in English) so could you post your post again but in English? Which post? This one (?) : No. This one: (I have no idea what language that is in but someone told me it's Crotian) Boškovićevo povezivanje s teorijom relativnosti treba gledati u ovom kontekstu (a ne u kontekstu njegovog eksperimenta kojim je utvrđeno mirovanje Zemlje) : repozitorij.nsk.hr/islandora/object/nsk%3A118/datastream/FILE0/view Što se tiče Airy's failure eksperimenta, taj eksperiment je samo dodatno potvrdio ono što su Arago, Mascart, Hoek i drugi već prije utvrdili svojim eksperimentima, tj. da Zemlja miruje. Airy se nadao da će uz pomoć Boškovićevog (sofisticiranijeg) eksperimenta dobiti pozitivan rezultat za Zemljino kretanje i proslaviti se kao onaj koji je prvi eksperimentalno dokazao da se Zemlja kreće. Na njegovo veliko razočaranje i njegov (tj. izvorno Boškovićev) eksperiment je pokazao da se Zemlja ne kreće. Nakon toga dolazi Michelson koji je imao ista očekivanja (proslaviti se kao onaj koji je prvi eksperimentalno dokazao da se Zemlja kreće), ali i ovaj puta je stvar završila neslavno po Michelsonova velika očekivanja o slavi kojom bi ga takav (pozitivan) rezultat njegovog eksperimenta ovjenčao. Svi relativistički (i ne samo relativistički) lažovi (heliocentristi) nisu u stanju odgovoriti na jedno jednostavno pitanje (već više od 130 godina) : Kako je uopće moguće izvesti interferometrijske eksperimente ako eter ne postoji? Zašto je ovo pitanje važno? Zato što je Einstein na kraju balade morao potpuno odbaciti eter kao hipotezu. Druga je stvar što je to isto kao da je odbacio hipotezu svojeg vlastitog disanja. Znači, kažeš da zrak koji udišeš ne postoji, ali ne daješ objašnjenje za to kako onda uopće dišeš (što udišeš), ako zrak ne postoji. Einstein je morao odbaciti eter ujedno tvrdeći da ako bi se ikad dokazalo da eter postoji njegova teorija se ruši kao kula od karata. Međutim, osim što je razvidno da eter postoji iz same činjenice da se interferometrijski eksperimenti mogu uopće izvoditi, to je još više razvidno iz činjenice da su svi ti eksperimenti davali pozitivne rezultate, koji su doduše daleko od očekivanih vrijednosti, a zašto je to tako objasnit ćemo kasnije. Znači, sama mogućnost provođenja interferometrijskih eksperimenata, plus pozitivni rezultati tih eksperimenata su dovoljni da se Einsteina spremi u ludnicu. I Lorentza koji je svoju slavnu formulu (temelj Einsteinove teorije) bio predložio u šali, da bi na kraju tu šalu ponudio kao nešto ozbiljno, a znanstvena zajednica tu ludost prihvatila kao svoj temelj. Ali idemo dalje, Sagnac provodi eksperiment kojim DIREKTNO dokazuje postojanje etera. Sagnac efekt je danas neupitna znanstvena činjenica. O značenju te činjenice najbolje govori najgrandiozniji interferometrijski eksperiment ikad izveden (12 godina nakon Sagnacovog eksperimenta), tj. Michelson Gale Pearson eksperiment (1925.). Taj eksperiment je dokazao da se eter giba oko nepomične Zemlje točno onom brzinom kojom se Zemlja navodno rotacijski kreće oko svoje osi. Tim eksperimentom je zakucan zadnji eksperimentalni čavao u heliocentristički lijes. Taj eksperiment je ujedno i odgovor na pozitivne rezultate većine interferometrijskih eksperimenata (tj eksperimenata MM tipa) kojima se pokušavalo eksperimentalno potvrditi Zemljino ORBITALNO gibanje. Dakle, rotacija etera oko nepomične Zemlje (daleko sporija od navodnog orbitalnog gibanja Zemlje) je uzrok pozitivnih rezultata svih interferometrijskih eksperimenata MM tipa (ORBITALNO gibanje Zemlje). Još nešto : EDIT : U slijedeća tri videa je puno toga lijepo objašnjeno : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 1 : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 2 : GEOCENTRIC MECHANICS 3 : Dodajmo i ova dva videa : 130 years have gone by since Michelson Morley experiment : NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION : Ajde kad već stavljam videe da zaokružimo cijelu priču : COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 1 : COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 : HALTON ARP - Destruction of Modern Cosmology : |
|
|
|
Post by Lexi on Apr 7, 2023 18:34:01 GMT
Oh wait. I just read the full post and I'm pretty sure the user who made that post on theflatearthsociety brought me here via a link. However, I can't make an account due to registration problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by dostojevski on Apr 7, 2023 21:55:02 GMT
Correct, it is croatian, so google translate will do...
Problems with registration? Strange....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lexi on Apr 11, 2023 20:00:44 GMT
Correct, it is croatian, so google translate will do... Problems with registration? Strange.... Google has a habit of not translating it right. And yes, problems with registation. When I try to sign up the page doesn't work for me. |
|
