Message from @Travis P
Discord ID: 595682242517270548
The Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to test drag through the Luminiferous Ether. The actual conclusion reached was that no such drag was detected. This concludes two things based on two different presumptions: 1) on a rotating earth, aether doesn't exist or 2) the earth is stationary and as such, no drag would be detected. For either conclusion to be reached, one would have to assume either a rotating or a stationary frame of reference.
@Citizen Z if you preform the Michelson moorely experiment on a train car moving, you will still get null results if you're on the cart.
It shows the Galeian view of relativity is insufficient to describe light's motion
I am doing the Michelson Moorely experiment in my optics class in a year I will get back to you with pictures if you want
I think its my optics class
If not I can probably just borrow the apparatus lol
That's pretty cool, Fran! I'd like to see the pics too, if they let you post 'em here.
👍
The earth caused Chernobyl nuff said
Like i said. Its inconclusive
```Actual results say the earth is at rest```
Those were not the results. The actual results say that the speed of light does not appear to change relative to the Earth’s motion. Any conclusions drawn from this presupposes a reference frame.
What's going on with these aether denying pseudoscientists brainwashed into the world of materialism
There are 2 true problems with flat earth
We have 2 celestial poles
And when you're in the south pole there are places when the sun never sets
the 2 celestial poles is my favorite proof
If you're on the perimeter of earth the sun should Always
it's devastating to flat earth
That said earth is a ball
Turned in
They do have lots of valid proof earth is better than they say
Flat earthers do
You have two spinny light shows in the sky whoopdie fucking do, how does that prove my flat floor isn't flat?
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STAR TRAILS NICE FLAT WALKWAY: https://imgur.com/A3jmBPX
Flatness is all due to perspective
Contrary to that Steven character who claims to be the reincarnation of a diety
Earth curves up after the perceptual split
You need a *cylinder* to simulate it, though.
hence, the rotation of a globular earth.
Simulate it? Cylinder? What do you mean
sorry, replying to sheeple
Nasa has yet to present valid evidence earth spins
Well it's proof there's more than one solution to the problem
Until we can scientifically validate stars.....
All we can do is interferometry on starlight
This isn't really a solution, though. This is something that, visually, is vaguely similar to the bi-rotation of the stars in that it demonstrates why looking north or south changes the direction of rotation. The actual movement is the real problem. The stars themselves could be pixies for all that it matters - their movement simply doesn't make sense on a flat earth when both the celestial poles are visible from the same plane. Sure, you could speculate whatever made-up reasoning for it, but on a globe earth, *the movement makes perfect sense*. On a globe earth, the sky can ONLY rotate the way that it does. I don't have to come up with what-ifs. It just works. It's exceptional evidence the earth is a globe.
For example, the north celestial pole rises higher in the sky the farther north you travel and vice versa for the south celestial pole. This wouldn't be the case if the sky were a rotating cylinder around a flat earth- the poles would remain at the horizon at all times.
Yet they are both visible at the same time from the same place on a globe?
What, both celestial poles? Not unless you're at the equator.
actually, at the equator, you wouldn't see either pole. They would be *almost* visible. Like this pic:
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9.jpg