i happen to have attended universities to study physics and was taught about all these. i can't comment on whatever education or lack of education with regards to non-newtonian physics that a civil engineer in the UK receives (the author of zone's link) -- but my guess is that relativity theory has very little bearing on the day to day science of a civil engineer, so it makes perfect sense to me that he never learned much about it. the man has a degree in building parking lots and bridges, not in particle physics or rocket science.
If we're teaching children the theory that Earth orbits the sun is fact (and that the sun happens to be much larger than it appears), surely this warrants also teaching about such experiments as the aforementioned, unless there is something to hide? With regards to university education, my guess would be yours was the exception rather than the rule. Not that anyone should put great store in institutional education, as most (if not all) are centres of indoctrination, but civil engineers are required to deal in hard, empirical evidence (or the bridge/building will fall, despite all the fancy theories invented to say it shouldn't). For this reason, I would venture Malcolm Bowden's education is more suitable than most to provide criticism on the theory of heliocentrism (if education is to be a qualifying factor for critics).
they are experiments regarding ether not about wether the earth is the center of the universe or not. geocentrists like to teach that the existence and/or relative motion of ether is one and the same with the idea that the earth is the penultimate reference frame, but this is not true and not at all what any of the scientists quoted here either believed or set out to show.
My understanding is that the existence of ether is not mandatory for geocentric theory (it can exist and probably does, but is not required). I also understand that for heliocentric theory, ether must not exist. Are you saying this is incorrect?
the Michelson-Gale experiment is essentially the same as the Sagnac experiment on a larger scale, using the earth itself as the 'ring'
both results on the surface support a "stationary ether" but it has been shown many times, even before Sagnac performed his experiment, that the same result is consistent with no ether and Special Relativity.
Both results are also consistent with a stationary Earth, right?
Airy's experiment attempted to measure a difference in the aberration of stellar light through the medium of water and through air. what he found was that there is no measurable difference - leading to the conclusion that stellar aberration occurs prior to the light of distance stars entering his telescope. this is inconsistent with ether-drag, but consistent with Special Relativity.
And also consistent with the Earth being still and the stars rotating around it, as we observe. Such an explanation has the benefit of requiring a lot less conjuring of unscientific (untestable and unprovable) theories as "Special Relativity".
Michelson-Morely's null result shows that a stationary ether isn't valid either. later, more precise experiments showed a 2nd order fringe result that is entirely consistent with Special Relativity, but much to small to be accounted for by any known ether theory.
Again, the Michelson-Morely result is consistent with a stationary Earth. The speed of light in the direction of Earth's (alleged) orbit was the same as the speed perpendicular to Earth's (alleged) orbit. Note also that here, belief (or not) in ether doesn't trouble the geocentric theory, but would require further explaining (i.e. additional "theories"/hypotheses) for a heliocentric theory.
these experiments are support for Special Relativity (specifically, Lorentz contraction, which precisely predicts the effects of both the Sagnac / Michelson-Gale experiments, Michelson-Morely). not a stationary earth. every one of them assumes and makes use of a model where the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. every one of them was an attempt to demonstrate theorized properties of an ether, not a stationary earth. every one of the results is satisfied by Lorentz contraction.
I think the experiments are as much support for a stationary Earth as for Special Relativity. A stationary Earth has the advantage of being consistent with scripture, and not requiring the imaginary shrinking of experimental apparatus (Lorentz contraction!? Lol.
) to explain results. Note that if one assumes heliocentricity to begin with, one will interpret one's results around this assumption. This in no ways makes the original assumption (e.g. heliocentricity) correct.
none of this is 'evidence for geocentricity' -- all of it is 'evidence for special relativity'
Has Lorentz contraction ever been proven, or is it only imagined?
as is pointed out, and i myself way earlier in this madhouse of a thread, in light of relativity a consistent mathematical framework can be developed where any point is stationary relative to an observer.
Agreed.
all this "evidence for geocentricity" may as well be evidence that the 4th moon of Neptune can be treated as the center of the universe. the logical fallacy is that this means the 4th moon of Neptune actually is the center of the universe. the problem is that there is no theory of gravity to explain why all the rest of the universe rotates around the 4th moon of Neptune in the way that it would appear to move if an observer was standing on that moon and making calculations with the premise that he is the only fixed point in the universe.
Incorrect. If it were possible for you to stand upon, or follow, the trajectory of 4th moon of Neptune, you would experience significant acceleration as it moves. We experience no such acceleration on Earth, as Earth is stationary.
if you want to travel around on the earth, you treat the earth like it is stationary.
So if we want to go overseas, why can't we treat the Earth as rotating, and use a balloon? Or is that where heliocentric theory can't meet practice?
if you walk around inside an airplane or a boat travelling at any speed in any direction, you treat that boat or plane like it is stationary.
If a boat or an airplane accelerates, the passengers can feel it. If the Earth is constantly accelerating by gravity around the sun (as required by heliocentric theory), why can't we feel it?
if you send a rocket to mars, you treat thesun like it is stationary.
if you send a generation ship alpha centauri, you treat the milky way like it's stationary.
I'm not convinced either of these are possible, but as I've tried to explain, a stationary Earth is more than just a frame of reference (although according to Einstein and Relativity, this would be quite acceptable). Stationary Earth means absolutely stationary, not relatively stationary with respect to Earth.
