The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[JudgeRightly]

I know what this thread is about

You clearly don't, because you're responses have nothing to do with the topic currently being discussed.

because I started it

So what?

I can just as easily end it.

so please pay attention to what I post.

--Dave

Hypocrite.

First, remove the beam from your own eye, then you can see clearly enough to remove the mote in your brother's eye.

The topic is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity.

The topic is motion of objects relative to one another.

 

[Right Divider]

The topic is motion of objects relative to one another.

Simple stuff that any high school student can understand, but not Dave apparently.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So which atoms/molecules in solid form make up the earth, Dave?

This is faulty logic.

You have been shown stellar parallax, which shows the earth to be moving relative to distant stars, and the orbits of the planets in our solar system is INEXPLICABLE unless the sun is the center of our solar system.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

NO ONE is watching your videos, Dave, because every single one of them so far has been made by someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

That motion affects clocks has been proven.

So what's your point?

Again, Dave, SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

But again, how is this relevant to whether the earth moves?

The relevance is that the tests by Michelson to measure the movement of earth through "space" revealed the earth was not moving. That space contained an ether or not was irrelevant. Einstein proposed relativity in an attempt to explain why these tests failed to show the earth was moving.

How Einstein Made the Earth Move (When All the Experiments Showed it Wasn’t Moving)

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The relevance is that the tests by Michelson to measure the movement of earth through "space" revealed the earth was not moving.

Repeating your misunderstanding of this experiment is tired and wrong.

Please take a little time and READ about this, instead of ignoring it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

 

[Right Divider]

In 1887 he collaborated with colleague Edward Williams Morley of Western Reserve University, now part of Case Western Reserve University, in the Michelson–Morley experiment. Their experiment for the expected motion of the Earth relative to the aether, the hypothetical medium in which light was supposed to travel, resulted in a null result. Surprised, Michelson repeated the experiment with greater and greater precision over the next years, but continued to find no ability to measure the aether. The Michelson–Morley results were immensely influential in the physics community, leading Hendrik Lorentz to devise his now-famous Lorentz contraction equations as a means of explaining the null result.

 

[Bright Raven]

3800 replies. unbelievable.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You clearly don't, because you're responses have nothing to do with the topic currently being discussed.

So what?

I can just as easily end it.

Hypocrite.

First, remove the beam from your own eye, then you can see clearly enough to remove the mote in your brother's eye.

The topic is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity.

The topic is motion of objects relative to one another.

Everyone is free to make what ever comment they want on my thread.

As far as "motions of objects relative to one another" I think my answer is clear.

Things move or they don't move regardless of what may or may not be moving else where.

The problem that has been created is that of the "observer". That at any point in the universe every other point is moving is contradicted by all the other points that claim they are not moving and every other point is moving.

This is a clear contradiction.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Repeating your misunderstanding of this experiment is tired and wrong.

Please take a little time and READ about this, instead of ignoring it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

Sagnac experiments say the stars are moving, not the earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

3800 replies. unbelievable.

The original thread had over 5000.

 

[Right Divider]

Sagnac experiments say the stars are moving, not the earth.

--Dave

Another attempted misdirection from Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

In 1887 he collaborated with colleague Edward Williams Morley of Western Reserve University, now part of Case Western Reserve University, in the Michelson–Morley experiment. Their experiment for the expected motion of the Earth relative to the aether, the hypothetical medium in which light was supposed to travel, resulted in a null result. Surprised, Michelson repeated the experiment with greater and greater precision over the next years, but continued to find no ability to measure the aether. The Michelson–Morley results were immensely influential in the physics community, leading Hendrik Lorentz to devise his now-famous Lorentz contraction equations as a means of explaining the null result.

We all went with the flow we would all be atheists.

Research is about looking for the other side of the story.

Lorentz is, like Einstein, attempting to discredit the results of the test. That the earth does not move was the result of two tests by Michelson and one by Sagnac. The aether was affirmed by Sagnac but still the earth was not moving.

Aether is a medium fro the transmission of light, sound, electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Michelson was not looking for aether, he already believed it existed. Michelson wanted to measure the speed of the earth through it.

Tesla believed in the aether
"Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognising the existence of the aether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena..."

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

As far as "motions of objects relative to one another" I think my answer is clear.

Things move or they don't move regardless of what may or may not be moving else where.

Sorry Dave, but you're question begging.

By definition, motion requires a "frame of reference."

From Wikipedia:

In physics, motion is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, and speed. Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame. If the position of an object is not changing with respect to a given frame of reference (reference point), the object is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position with reference to its surroundings. Momentum is a quantity which is used for measuring the motion of an object. An object's momentum is directly related to the object's mass and velocity, and the total momentum of all objects in an isolated system (one not affected by external forces) does not change with time, as described by the law of conservation of momentum. An object's motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force. As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined. Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be moving. Motion applies to various physical systems: to objects, bodies, matter particles, matter fields, radiation, radiation fields, radiation particles, curvature and space-time. One can also speak of motion of images, shapes and boundaries. So, the term motion, in general, signifies a continuous change in the configuration of a physical system in space. For example, one can talk about motion of a wave or about motion of a quantum particle, where the configuration consists of probabilities of occupying specific positions.

In other words, you cannot describe motion without an external frame of reference, which is why I said earlier that your statement "the earth is not moving because we feel no motion" was confirmation bias, that you're using the earth itself as a frame of reference for it's own motion, which is also circular reasoning.

Your assertion that, because we cannot measure absolute motion, that therefore the earth is not moving, is a non-sequitur, because by definition, there is no absolute frame of reference that we can use.

The problem that has been created is that of the "observer".

No, Dave, that problem is only in your head.

That at any point in the universe every other point is moving is contradicted by all the other points that claim they are not moving and every other point is moving.

That would be true if there was an absolute frame of reference which we could use.

But since there's not, there's no contradiction.

This is a clear contradiction.

--Dave

Saying it doesn't make it so.

We all went with the flow we would all be atheists.

Red herring.

Atheism has nothing to do with this discussion.

There are Flat Earthers who are atheists and FEers that are Christians, and even FEers that ascribe to other religions.

Research is about looking for the other side of the story.

No, research is about finding the truth.

Lorentz is, like Einstein, attempting to discredit the results of the test. That the earth does not move was the result of two tests by Michelson and one by Sagnac. The aether was affirmed by Sagnac but still the earth was not moving.

Aether is a medium fro the transmission of light, sound, electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Michelson was not looking for aether, he already believed it existed. Michelson wanted to measure the speed of the earth through it.

You've been answered on this already.

Repeating your argument doesn't advance the discussion.

Tesla believed in the aether

SO WHAT?!

If this isn't an appeal to authority, I don't know what is.

"Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognising the existence of the aether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena..."

--Dave

:blabla:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sagnac experiments say the stars are moving, not the earth.

--Dave

By definition, EVERYTHING is moving, as there is no absolute frame of reference, and since a frame of reference is REQUIRED to describe movement, therefore all frames of reference are ARBITRARY, not ABSOLUTE.

 

[Right Divider]

We all went with the flow we would all be atheists.

So childish Dave... so childish.

You QUOTE the article again and YET you ignore what it says.

Research is about looking for the other side of the story.

Another irrelevant and superfluous comment.

Lorentz is, like Einstein, attempting to discredit the results of the test. That the earth does not move was the result of two tests by Michelson and one by Sagnac. The aether was affirmed by Sagnac but still the earth was not moving.

Baloney Dave.... there is no "aether".

Aether is a medium fro the transmission of light, sound, electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Michelson was not looking for aether, he already believed it existed. Michelson wanted to measure the speed of the earth through it.

Tesla believed in the aether
"Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognising the existence of the aether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena..."

--Dave

Aether is mythology... like flat earth.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sorry Dave, but you're question begging.

By definition, motion requires a "frame of reference."

From Wikipedia:

In physics, motion is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, and speed. Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame. If the position of an object is not changing with respect to a given frame of reference (reference point), the object is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position with reference to its surroundings. Momentum is a quantity which is used for measuring the motion of an object. An object's momentum is directly related to the object's mass and velocity, and the total momentum of all objects in an isolated system (one not affected by external forces) does not change with time, as described by the law of conservation of momentum. An object's motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force. As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined. Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be moving. Motion applies to various physical systems: to objects, bodies, matter particles, matter fields, radiation, radiation fields, radiation particles, curvature and space-time. One can also speak of motion of images, shapes and boundaries. So, the term motion, in general, signifies a continuous change in the configuration of a physical system in space. For example, one can talk about motion of a wave or about motion of a quantum particle, where the configuration consists of probabilities of occupying specific positions.

In other words, you cannot describe motion without an external frame of reference, which is why I said earlier that your statement "the earth is not moving because we feel no motion" was confirmation bias, that you're using the earth itself as a frame of reference for it's own motion, which is also circular reasoning.

Your assertion that, because we cannot measure absolute motion, that therefore the earth is not moving, is a non-sequitur, because by definition, there is no absolute frame of reference that we can use.

No, Dave, that problem is only in your head.

That would be true if there was an absolute frame of reference which we could use.

But since there's not, there's no contradiction.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Red herring.

Atheism has nothing to do with this discussion.

There are Flat Earthers who are atheists and FEers that are Christians, and even FEers that ascribe to other religions.

No, research is about finding the truth.

You've been answered on this already.

Repeating your argument doesn't advance the discussion.

SO WHAT?!

If this isn't an appeal to authority, I don't know what is.

:blabla:

In atheism there is no absolute frame of reference for anything.

God is the absolute frame of reference for those who are not atheists.

God created an earth that "cannot be moved".

Logically the antitheses of motion is motionlessness.

Everything that move is in contrast to what does not move.

Theoretical physics is irrational, space and time are not the same thing.

Let me add to this because you didn't seem to get it the first time.

That any point in the universe is motionless "relative" to every other point that is moving is contradicted by all the other points that claim they are not moving and every other point is moving.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

In atheism there is no absolute frame of reference for anything.

Stop the childish EQUIVOCATION Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Stop the childish EQUIVOCATION Dave.

call it what you want, it's still true.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

In atheism there is no absolute frame of reference for anything.

Equivocation, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

God is the absolute frame of reference for those who are not atheists.

Equivocation. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

God created an earth that "cannot be moved".

No, Dave, God created an earth that He "hangs on nothing." You can't "hang" something if it cannot be moved.

So, either God contradicted Himself, or "the earth will never be moved" is not to be taken woodenly literally.

To be sure, man could never move the earth, it's far too massive, the amount of energy required to move it at all would literally destroy all life on earth if unleashed, even over an extended period of time, due to the amount of heat generated.

Logically the antitheses of motion is motionlessness.

The terms you use are, by definition, based on arbitrary frames of reference.

Everything that move is in contrast to what does not move.

Faulty premise.

You're assuming that there is an absolute frame of reference that does not move and that we can tell motion by that frame of reference.

But such an absolute frame of reference DOES NOT EXIST.

And since it does not, any frame of reference is arbitrarily designated as not moving in reference to another.

Theoretical physics is irrational, space and time are not the same thing.

RED HERRING.

We aren't talking about theoretical physics, Dave.

We're talking about reality.

Let me add to this because you didn't seem to get it the first time.

That any point in the universe is motionless "relative" to every other point that is moving is contradicted by all the other points that claim they are not moving and every other point is moving.

Let me add this AGAIN because YOU didn't seem to get the answer to your above assertion:

ALL MOTION IS DESCRIBED USING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE, WHICH IS ARBITRARILY DECLARED "NOT MOVING" FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE MOTION OF THE FORMER OBJECT. Describing motion DOES NOT AND CANNOT designate an "ABSOLUTE frame of reference," a reference point which has absolutely no motion.

ALL THINGS ARE MOVING IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER. That some things are described as motionless for the purpose of describing motion of something else has NO BEARING on whether that object is moving.

 

[JudgeRightly]

call it what you want, it's still true.

--Dave

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION, Dave.

Stay on topic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That any point in the universe is motionless "relative" to every other point that is moving is contradicted by all the other points that claim they are not moving and every other point is moving.

The terms you use are, by definition, based on arbitrary frames of reference.



Faulty premise.

You're assuming that there is an absolute frame of reference that does not move and that we can tell motion by that frame of reference.

But such an absolute frame of reference DOES NOT EXIST.

And since it does not, any frame of reference is arbitrarily designated as not moving in reference to another.



Let me add this AGAIN because YOU didn't seem to get the answer to your above assertion:

ALL MOTION IS DESCRIBED USING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE, WHICH IS ARBITRARILY DECLARED "NOT MOVING" FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THE MOTION OF THE FORMER OBJECT. Describing motion DOES NOT AND CANNOT designate an "ABSOLUTE frame of reference," a reference point which has absolutely no motion.

ALL THINGS ARE MOVING IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER. That some things are described as motionless for the purpose of describing motion of something else has NO BEARING on whether that object is moving.

This is why saying, "The earth is not moving because we cannot feel it moving" doesn't work.

You would be using the earth as a frame of reference to describe it's own movement.

It's circular reasoning, and confirmation bias to say that, "because we on the earth cannot feel it moving, therefore it does not move," because by definition, we are fixed to that which we are trying to describe the motion of.

There's no external frame of reference by which to define movement, therefore ascertaining whether the earth is moving using only a point on the earth's surface is impossible.

Again, by definition, all objects are motionless relative to themselves, but not to other objects (external F.O.R.).