This should be easy enough to understand
Any fiction can be understood, however proving it real requires demonstration.
High pressure cannot coexist mingling with vacuum (low pressure, in reality), the laws of thermodynamics (and many others) prevent it.
This is exactly what Auguste Piccard described on the first high altitude balloon flight ever conducted. Just by the by.
Fascinating.
I couldn’t find any description of the crux of this device - the bee-hive shaped optical amplifier.
Also, this whole thing seems like a hoax. If the accompanying building was built at the same time as this art exhibit, it cost millions (likely 10’s of millions) to build. It is hard to imagine who would fund this, for an overgrown videocall without sound…
It is clear from the drawings, most likely made by the modern artist and not his supposed “insane great grandfather”, that they conceived the earth to be spherical. Though I’m certain that had any of this nonsense been real, like all other large tunnels and bridges, it was going to be constructed as flat as possible with no consideration for “curvature of the earth”.
There is none. It’s a hoax.
It’s extremely well advertised, whatever you care to call it.
To literally get people to waste their time with it.
Then it would be engaging and entertaining, but generally speaking - it is neither. The vast majority, including yourself, are neither engaged nor entertained by it. If its purpose is “wasting peoples’ time” (like virtually all mass media is, by the by), then whoever is spending so much advertising it is wasting large amounts of money.
So stop promoting it.
I don’t! I promote earnest discussion and diligent research of the topic it is funded to suppress. Most people, including yourself, are utterly incapable of objectively evaluating the simple question “what is the shape of the earth” without abject appeal to authority and, typically, frequent ad hominem.
They mindlessly parrot things they were erroneously taught (“teacher told me so”), like that Eratosthenes and/or Columbus proved the world was round - both of which are laughably untrue and easy to objectively disconfirm with minutes worth of research. In general this is due to conditioning by rote, under the guise of education, from childhood.
I promote against the lazy parroting of erroneous “facts” and against belief masquerading as knowledge. I promote critical thinking and autodidacticism.
post proven hoaxes.
As I said before, we are in agreement that the flat earth psyop is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) hoax.
The primary purpose of the psyop is to prevent earnest discussion or research into the topic (because it is valuable to study), just like many (if not most) things labeled “conspiracy theory”.
Your view that it is funded to undermine white achievement only makes sense if it actually convinced people the world was flat and space were a hoax. In reality, it overwhelmingly does the opposite because it is designed to. It comes across as so flagrantly and offensively stupid by design.
The only one who spams your copypasta nonsense is you.
I was the one trying, vainly, to get you to recognize it for spam and to stop :(
Nah, drink bleach.
Spoken like a true thinker. Never change tallest shill, never change.
as proven by every single instance of the experiment being run
Can you really not read? You know what else can’t read… bots :(
Please go back and reread my answer. Eratosthenes’ procedure cannot, does not, and was never intended to prove anything about the shape of the world. It merely assumes the world is spherical (and several other things) and then seeks to estimate a circumference ASSUMING that is correct. Assuming cannot equal proving. Aren’t you the one always mindlessly babbling about “truth”? What truth is there in mistaking mere assumption with “proving”?
Look up gish gallop.
I’d be happy to end yours at any moment.
Only cowards fear learning, and only the belligerent want to stifle learning in others. Surely you don’t want to be either of those things… Right?
When it’s done.
It’s done (https://communities.win/c/flatearthresearch/p/19Ae3vDlJM/discussion-with-tallestskil--que/c). I guess you can just go ahead and remove those 2 questions from your copypasta list (and then we can move on to the rest of them, one by one), but I thought you might want to respond to the answers given first.
There is no point in continuing if you can’t learn anything :(
[buzzwords only paid jewish shills have ever said]
I know “gish gallop” is a bit obscure, but when you don’t know what something means, you should just look it up! Don’t choose to remain ignorant shouting “jewish shill” at the top of your lungs instead. It’s bad for your continuing education.
To anyone with earnest interest in the subject (including vehement hatred of it), please join us on c/flatearthresearch to exchange views!
More than likely, it isn’t what you think it is / have been advertised to believe it is.
I’ve answered two of these and created a thread for them.
Awaiting your earnest response before moving on to the rest of your copypasta Gish gallop.
The hebrews believed the world was flat. The Christians that came after them inherited that view.
It isn’t surprising that Jews, now and in the past, believe in the worldview their holy texts clearly describe. The surprising bit is that the modern Christians are so detached from their holy texts that they refuse those same biblical views…
Even though the simplest answers are "trade", "hoax", and "theft" - they sort of miss the bigger picture here. Therianthrope iconography is quite real, and does span across these cultures and time.
I have three guesses for the root cause of this. In reverse order of plausability.
- Creatures like this really existed and were likely the product of some sort of genetic engineering (the platypus supports this)
- The iconography is symbolic, not literal - it could be anything from mundane characteristic - swift, graceful, eats by pecking with a beak - to perhaps something more abstract and interesting such as those people depicted had the ability to fly (most likely by mechanical means).
- Ornate headdresses and costumes like we still see today across many primitive tribes.
The fiber optic cable is in fact moving.
Wild.
Only the top part of the paralellogram moves from right to left. The base is stable.
Another moving interferometer? So these are both attempts to study linear vs rotational sagnac?
I mean the air is moving the wave over at the same speed of Earth's rotation then.
Just to clarify - you think the interference pattern found in stationary rlgs and the gale pearson are due to wind far above the detector? If so, would you not expect the interference pattern to vary when the wind speed (inevitably) does?
So how could there be a noticably difference between a rotating Earth with rotating lower atmosphere and no rotation measured with this?
If you are saying that no interference pattern is detected with the wacky spinning spindle rlg - then that is certainly interesting. I wonder if the pattern returns as you slow down the rotation of the spindles - since without that rotation, this seems to be a standard rlg setup.
But from what I understand MMX was designed to look at earthbound rotational motion as well.
Perhaps, but it failed to find it in any case - presumably due to its configuration (straight legs, right angles)
Not sure how much vabration was in the system, ask Mr Wang who made it.
Perhaps it cancels out / affects both paths equally - but it would certainly affect the fringes.
The device is intended to observe Sagnac and look at how much linear motion contributes to the effect over a standard rotational only setup.
And what was the result?
If the device I cited looks odd I would first study the mechanisms behind a fiber optic gyroscrope
I think i have a pretty good grasp on the rlg and interferometery in general. That said, the device still looks a little odd to me. Are the arrows showing the fiberoptic cable moving or is that just the direction of the light?
those light beams take different paths around the circle in opposite directions, they then recombine.
Just like a standard rlg.
They have it moving linearly with the same velocity as the fiber optic cable it is measureing.
So they are moving the cable? Wild, if so.
So I think it is the parallelogram experiment that actually rules out the detector motion
Again, i may be confused about what you are saying. Unless i am very much misunderstanding the diagram - the device will ONLY show interference pattern when the device is moving (and air is irrelevant). Right?
So detecting any effects of rotation would not be possible with mmx if Sagnac is invoked.
But that is precisely what the gale-pearson (and every rlg, routinely) detected!
You're missing what I'm saying.
Very possibly.
So of course there can not be a fringe if the air is moving the wave over.
I don't think i understand what you mean by this. How do you think air is causing a fringe pattern in a stationary rlg (in a room with no wind)?
But it turns out it has nothing to do with being circular.
But this is the core difference between mmx (detected no cosmic linear motion) and gale pearson (detected local/earthbound rotational motion)
MMX just assumed the perpendicular effects are not cancelled out, but in fact they also are (at least in air).
But even if the mmx was "perpendicular blind", in a right angle configuration - one of the legs would be parallel with the motion and one perpendicular - creating the fringe pattern...
See this aparatus which did just that...
That is certainly an interesting apparatus. However if that loop is intended to spin on the spindles that is certainly going to introduce vibration (and hence fringe) in and of itself... What is the device intended to observe?
The difference being one is moving with the medium, the other perpendicular to it.
In the mmx - ideally anyhow - the medium is stationary (in the local frame of reference).
For Sagnac (including those showing linear motion, not only rotation) we see a fringe.
The fringe occurs because of motion. The fringe that didn't appear in the mmx (or rather, didn't appear outside the range of error / vibration for the device) is the measurement of that lack of motion.
That includes when the detector is NOT in rotation (some have tried to argue that this is the causal mechanism, but it is not).
The sagnac i am familiar with is basically on a spinning kitchen dolly. When stationary - a circular/curved path - would be expected to exhibit a minor fringe pattern for the same reasons the circular gale pearson (also stationary) did.
Therefore when the air is moving perpendicular to the light and with the detector as in the MMX aparatus, we would expect a null result.
It's the motion of the detector that is registered though, not the air. All the rlg's lasers go through fiber optic cable which surely doesn't have much gas within it nor would moving air affect its measurement (except, notably - through vibration).
They also rotated the apparatus many times to try and determine the "true" direction of motion of the earth around the sun. This ought to have dealt with that "perpendicular blindness issue" - right?
I appreciate the recommendation, I will look into it.
Please let me know your thoughts on it, and/or if you have trouble finding it. I've recommended it to others a few times too but haven't seen it in years. I think i ought to rewatch it myself and see if i still think as highly of it now as i did back then.
Sagnac and linear Sagnac effect. It's a popular talking point among certain "kooks", but it is an established phenomenon.
If those effects weren't real, then the mmx would be meaningless as a measurement of motion.
As I said, the model was able to explain what the previous model struggled with.
That is incorrect, but it is a popularly taught/assumed misconception. Heliocentrism was not chosen over geocentricism for that reason, and the available models at the time of the choice had equal descriptive/predictive accuracy.
In order for me to consider geocentrism I'd need to see compelling reasoning of why the failings of that previous model need not apply under some new version of it.
The point is that the models are always wrong. They are merely tools for limited use, doomed to expiration.
Wether you want to consider that the world may be stationary, or further that it may be the center of the observable universe as well - is completely up to you.
Consider this : when the geocentric model was prevailing - did that make the universe geocentric?
The failings or strengths of models are irrelevant to reality, and to what actually is. Science is empericism; it is about measurement - not models.
The mmx measured that the earth wasn't moving through space the way our cosmology/mythology said it was. God knows there are plenty of ways to rationalize that measurement in order to, paradoxically, reconcile it with "astronomical" motion as well - but it is important to recognize that this is primarily a philosophical decision, and further - one fueled by bias, not science.
The idea that the world was stationary was so philosophically abhorrent to the scientists/educated of the time that they arbitrarily discarded that as a possibility. Many of them admitted to that in their own words. Einstein would go on to believe that there was no optical apparatus that could ever be built to detect the motion that he just knew in his bones had to be there. From a few steps back, it is obviously bias and desperate delusion - whether or not the world is truly perpetually traveling at astronomical speed or not.
I can explain MMX with Sagnac then I have no need to jump the shark and turn cosmology completely on its head.
Explanations abound. It's the core of mythology, and largely - its purpose. I can "explain" the lightning as zeus throwing bolts.
Besides, you can't explain the mmx with sagnac. They are basically the same thing (except the sagnac apparatus was rotating). Interferometery works to detect motion, that we have well established. Mmx measured that our motion through "space" was negligable. Wether you want to believe that is a mistake and aether was dragged or any other contrived rationalization is again up to you.
I'm glad you mentioned that book is Catholic propaganda, in which case I'd need to read a different book.
It's a documentary, not a book. It also has lots of great historical information in it, and some of the most celebrated modern astrophysicists and cosmologists speaking in their own words on the subject.
However i (highly) recommend it with that caveat to make clear that the documentary is particularly biased. That doesn't mean it isn't well worth a watch or two!
the only issue is (and it is a large issue) is that the model for a stationary geocentric universe already fell apart.
This is a popular (and popularized) misunderstanding. There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from using a geocentric model or creating a new one from scratch. Models are meaningless. They are merely tools used for limited purpose. They are always wrong, and the reality to study is out here! (not in some model - a crude and extremely limited approximation of that actual reality built from an even more limited dataset)
Having a model that works (limitedly!) doesn't have any bearing on what actually is, and vice versa. Even if what you were saying were true (which it isn't), a geocentric model "falling apart" wouldn't and couldn't establish that the universe isn't geocentric. I recommend the documentary "the principle" on the subject (bearing in mind that it is catholic propaganda).
All of that aside, the world can/could be stationary without the universe being geocentric! Right?
You change the geocentric model to heliocentric and those go away which is some compelling evidence.
Not really. The models are arbitrary. This is precisely what happened when we went from geocentric to heliocentric. We arbitrarily decided heliocentric was better because the math looked nicer - and this was the argument made to the pope at the time to make that switch. Check out "the principle". The world and the universe are whatever they are - they care nothing about our models (which are always wrong historically, by the by).
But I'm not against experiments to further confirm or deny that idea.
Arguably those exist, and the "mmx" (not an experiment, just an observation) is one of the quintessential ones. Not necessarily for geocentrism - but certainly for a largely stationary world.
"why doesn't the em wave fully absorb or even knock out that electron as they are known to do on contact with electrons?"
Perhaps because aether is not electrons?
matter is able to carry a wave forward.
In fact, there can be no wave without matter! There are no waves possible without media (aka matter).
There are experiments where this happens.
What did you have in mind? Generally - i don't need you to cite me a paper.
This indicates that perhaps air can act as a medium, or can carry some aether medium along with it.
Aether is all pervasive. There is no part of existence devoid of it, however it is non uniform (otherwise waves within it would not be possible, for one).
I think my question started from thinking about the Michelson Morley experiments which were later performed in vacuum by some people (so they say anyway).
I might be wrong, but i thought they pulled vacuum (of course, perfect vacuum is unattainable in any case) on the original michelson morley observation. In any case, the aether is absolutely depended upon for both the observation as well as its interpretation at the time (and today, if you ask me).
But if their vacuum had millions of particles in each cm3, how do they know matter isn't what helped keep the light beam in phase with itself? Seems like they don't.
It would certainly affect its speed (i.e. would slow it down), but as long as the air was uniform (in all legs of the interferometer) it shouldn't affect the observation (and didn't!)
So then this comes down to the question of stationary vs rotating aether as well as rotating Earth
Michelson did this later in the gale pearson "experiment". I say experiment in quotation, because in truth - both were merely observations with complex apparatus, as well as accompanying expectation and interpretation. Neither are experiments.
However, it is critical to understand (as they did at the time) that the observation itself - although observationally consistent with the expectation assuming a rotating earth - cannot distinguish between the motion of the earth and/or the motion of the aether itself. Either or both in combination are completely valid interpretations of the observation. There are other observations which further suggest that it is in fact the aether which is is rotating, and not the earth itself.
However, if MMX in vacuum didn't actually establish that, then perhaps we do have a stationary aether medium
Correct. This is what the original "mmx" (wether performed under partial vacuum or not) established. The preferred rationalization of this observation at the time (in order to be consistent with prevailing cosmology/mythology) was "frame dragging", where they could continue to believe the world was in constant motion at preposterous / astronomical speeds and the aether merely appeared stationary because it was being dragged with the earth as it moved. Very desperate stuff if you ask me. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one...
how do we know for certain light doesn't propagate via matter, without the need for aether?
It is a valid question. Firstly, we know (and much more importantly - can demonstrate) that matter slows down light propagation, and vice versa. The more we remove the matter, the faster the wave travels. This is in contrast to waves within matter (often called sound) which stop propagating when the matter becomes too diffuse. There are also plenty of types of matter which prevent light propagation altogether (
Here's the twist though. Aether is itself matter. It's described by some experimentalists as an ultra-fine fluid. So sound is a wave comprised of and exists within matter, and light is as well but in a different type of matter. Perhaps one day we will see all these pressure waves as one entity/continuum.
I'm just pondering these things.
You are not alone, and they are well worth pondering!
Light is a wave. Waves cannot exist without media.
The media of which light is comprised is called aether/ether.
It's true that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but the problem is even worse than that. Reality won't allow a vacuum to exist at all (nequaquam vacuum).
Even if you were able to remove all known matter from a given volume, it would still be full of aether - and possibly finer things than that to boot.
In the relativistic faith, the aether is the structure of reality itself. It cannot be purged in any way, though it can be warped/affected. The kicker being that, due to aether-mcarthyism, the faithful usually don't even know that fact :(
but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be
True, as long as the temperature is non zero kelvin.
Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
Same as the first answer. However, conceptualizing the gas molecules/atoms as darting about (aka billiard balls) is only one useful framework. It is not necessarily correct, or consistent with everything we observe. Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and is an alternative useful conceptual framework. Of course, in either conceptualization - constant motion of some sort remains.
Precisely what I mean.
Except that is explicitly not what you said. Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
then it wouldn't be resting on other particles.
Firstly, expansion occurs in all directions... Secondly, once expansion is no longer occurring (due to reaching equilibrium/rest/the confines of the container walls), the particles of course would be resting on one another (as they are during expansion as well...)
You seem to imagine that expansion precludes falling - or they are somehow mutually exclusive. Imagine a squished foam ball (or spring) being dropped...
Either gas is ever expanding or gas is at rest upon the particles below it. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
No one ever said that gas is ever expanding, that is purely your misunderstanding. Gas always expands to fit the container. Not "gas always expands forever with eternal limitless energy"....
In this art exhibit, yes.
In the (supposed; I personally think the entire thing is a hoax perpetrated by the artist and his investors) designs for the “telectroscope”, there is reportedly a beehive shaped collection of mirrors that is supposed to amplify the image so it can travel such a long distance and remain visible on the other end of the tunnel.
If this were a real device, such an amplifier (probably many of them over the length of the tunnel) would absolutely be needed. Although this amplifier is mentioned in passing, I couldn’t find a diagram or description of its inner workings. More evidence that this is a hoax.