## On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether - (Part #2)

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
lucidjoenahhas wrote: Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
These two experiments used a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)
These measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light

When these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point
(There can be reference point) and (there can be a reference orbit)

The data can be shown as errors of Earth is moving around the Sun

The distance C = 299792458 meters = distance error of Earth is moving around the Sun
"Beam measurements" is not "Physics"
Stellar measurements is a measurements of physics lab physical motion and distant point (stellar objects) = reference point and Earth's orbit around the sun is a reference orbit
I can prove that relativity theory in its entirety (special and general) = errors of Earth is moving around the Sun
C = Holy Ghost astrologer Copernicus search of "Heaven above" that created this Bizarre idea of a Solar "system" of the System of someone (mortal) moving around another (wholly or immortal)
Is "Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

No.

Absolutely not!

PERIOD.

Is "Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

Well . . .

It depends on what, EXACTLY, the phrase "measurement of physics lab physical motion" is supposed to mean, here.

Did Roemer &  Bradley use, in these experiments, as a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)?

Nah!

Impossible . . .

By its very definition, Earth's motion, around the Sun, and motion, generally, cannot be used as a reference frame for anything.

PERIOD.

Do "these measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light"?

Of course not . . .

That is impossible.

Firstly, because Earth's motion can never be used as a frame of reference for measuring, calculating or doing anything else.

And secondly, because  defining "the distance of 299792458 meters scale", in the absence of the speed of light, is idle and useless.

That is TOO much for now . . .

Let's leave the rest of it for next time.

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
AAF24 wrote:
lucidjoenahhas wrote: Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
These two experiments used a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)
These measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light

When these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point
(There can be reference point) and (there can be a reference orbit)

The data can be shown as errors of Earth is moving around the Sun

The distance C = 299792458 meters = distance error of Earth is moving around the Sun
"Beam measurements" is not "Physics"
Stellar measurements is a measurements of physics lab physical motion and distant point (stellar objects) = reference point and Earth's orbit around the sun is a reference orbit
I can prove that relativity theory in its entirety (special and general) = errors of Earth is moving around the Sun
C = Holy Ghost astrologer Copernicus search of "Heaven above" that created this Bizarre idea of a Solar "system" of the System of someone (mortal) moving around another (wholly or immortal)
Is "Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

No.

Absolutely not!

PERIOD.

Is "Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

Well . . .

It depends on what, EXACTLY, the phrase "measurement of physics lab physical motion" is supposed to mean, here.

Did Roemer &  Bradley use, in these experiments,  as a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)?

Nah!

Impossible . . .

By its very definition, Earth's motion, around the Sun, and motion, generally, cannot be used as a reference frame for anything.

PERIOD.

Do "these measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light"?

Of course not . . .

That is impossible.

Firstly, because Earth's motion can never be used as a frame of reference for measuring, calculating or doing anything else.

And secondly, because  defining "the distance of 299792458 meters scale", in the absence of the speed of light, is idle and useless.

That is TOO much for now . . .

Let's leave the rest of it for next time.
Is it, ASTRONOMICALLY, correct to say that "when these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point"?

Not a least of a chance!

First and foremost, the FINITE speed of light makes it, ABSOLUTELY, impossible, for you, to do any kind of measurements in real time, even if the things to be measured are right under YOUR nose; let alone the Sun and the orbit of the earth.

Also, this conjecture: "(Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth)" is, seemingly, inconsistent & self-contradictory; because Earth's motion can't be actual & wrongly assigned, at the same time; i.e., it's either actual & correctly assigned, OR it is not actual & wrongly assigned.

It's as simple as that . . .

Now, what about the "motion in 27.321 days"?

Well . . .

It appears, at first glance to be close enough to the numerical value [27.321662 days] for the lunar sidereal month:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

And, of course, as we all know, both the earth & its moon make one revolution, around their common gravitational center, every 27.321662 sidereal days.

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
AAF24 wrote:
AAF24 wrote:
lucidjoenahhas wrote: Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion
These two experiments used a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)
These measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light

When these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point
(There can be reference point) and (there can be a reference orbit)

The data can be shown as errors of Earth is moving around the Sun

The distance C = 299792458 meters = distance error of Earth is moving around the Sun
"Beam measurements" is not "Physics"
Stellar measurements is a measurements of physics lab physical motion and distant point (stellar objects) = reference point and Earth's orbit around the sun is a reference orbit
I can prove that relativity theory in its entirety (special and general) = errors of Earth is moving around the Sun
C = Holy Ghost astrologer Copernicus search of "Heaven above" that created this Bizarre idea of a Solar "system" of the System of someone (mortal) moving around another (wholly or immortal)
Is "Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

No.

Absolutely not!

PERIOD.

Is "Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

Well . . .

It depends on what, EXACTLY, the phrase "measurement of physics lab physical motion" is supposed to mean, here.

Did Roemer &  Bradley use, in these experiments,  as a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)?

Nah!

Impossible . . .

By its very definition, Earth's motion, around the Sun, and motion, generally, cannot be used as a reference frame for anything.

PERIOD.

Do "these measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light"?

Of course not . . .

That is impossible.

Firstly, because Earth's motion can never be used as a frame of reference for measuring, calculating or doing anything else.

And secondly, because  defining "the distance of 299792458 meters scale", in the absence of the speed of light, is idle and useless.

That is TOO much for now . . .

Let's leave the rest of it for next time.
Is it, ASTRONOMICALLY, correct to say that "when these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point"?

Not a least of a chance!

First and foremost, the FINITE speed of light makes it, ABSOLUTELY, impossible, for you, to do any kind of measurements in real time, even if the things to be measured are right under YOUR nose; let alone the Sun and the orbit of the earth.

Also, this conjecture: "(Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth)" is, seemingly, inconsistent & self-contradictory; because Earth's motion can't be actual & wrongly assigned, at the same time; i.e., it's either actual & correctly assigned, OR it is not actual & wrongly assigned.

It's as simple as that . . .

Now, what about the "motion in 27.321 days"?

Well . . .

It appears, at first glance to be close enough to the numerical value [27.321662 days] for the lunar sidereal month:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

And, of course, as we all know, both the earth & its moon make one revolution, around their common gravitational center, every 27.321662 sidereal days.
Is it okay to say: "(There can be reference point) and (there can be a reference orbit)"?

It's okay!

But the next questions that come after it, NATURALLY, are these:

A reference point for what?  & a reference orbit for what?

In other words, Colleague Lucid should work a lot harder on the details, in order for him to be able to explain, more clearly, those ESOTERIC things, firstly, to himself, and, secondly, to others.

And once again . . .

Is it true that: "The data can be shown as errors of Earth is moving around the Sun"?

Well . . .

It might be true, in principle; but this one small piece of data: "The distance C = 299792458 meters = distance error of Earth is moving around the Sun", for sure, is NOT.

Am I mistaken?

And, of course, the same applies to this second one:  ""Beam measurements" is not "Physics"".

I mean, IF "Beam measurements" is not "Physics", THEN this thing called "Physics" is WHAT?

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
AAF24 wrote:
AAF24 wrote:
AAF24 wrote:

Is "Ole Roemer experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

No.

Absolutely not!

PERIOD.

Is "Bradley experiment = measurement of physics lab physical motion"?

Well . . .

It depends on what, EXACTLY, the phrase "measurement of physics lab physical motion" is supposed to mean, here.

Did Roemer &  Bradley use, in these experiments,  as a frame of reference (Earth's motion around the Sun)?

Nah!

Impossible . . .

By its very definition, Earth's motion, around the Sun, and motion, generally, cannot be used as a reference frame for anything.

PERIOD.

Do "these measurements frame of Earth's moves around the Sun defines the distance of 299792458 meters scale and it is not a measurement of the speed of light"?

Of course not . . .

That is impossible.

Firstly, because Earth's motion can never be used as a frame of reference for measuring, calculating or doing anything else.

And secondly, because  defining "the distance of 299792458 meters scale", in the absence of the speed of light, is idle and useless.

That is TOO much for now . . .

Let's leave the rest of it for next time.
Is it, ASTRONOMICALLY, correct to say that "when these measurements are read in real time it describes a motion in 27.321 days (Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth) measured from reference frame of Earth's orbit  (assigned orbit or visual orbit around the Sun using a distant object that can be taken as a reference point"?

Not a least of a chance!

First and foremost, the FINITE speed of light makes it, ABSOLUTELY, impossible, for you, to do any kind of measurements in real time, even if the things to be measured are right under YOUR nose; let alone the Sun and the orbit of the earth.

Also, this conjecture: "(Earth's actual motion wrongly assigned to Earth)" is, seemingly, inconsistent & self-contradictory; because Earth's motion can't be actual & wrongly assigned, at the same time; i.e., it's either actual & correctly assigned, OR it is not actual & wrongly assigned.

It's as simple as that . . .

Now, what about the "motion in 27.321 days"?

Well . . .

It appears, at first glance to be close enough to the numerical value [27.321662 days] for the lunar sidereal month:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

And, of course, as we all know, both the earth & its moon make one revolution, around their common gravitational center, every 27.321662 sidereal days.
Is it okay to say: "(There can be reference point) and (there can be a reference orbit)"?

It's okay!

But the next questions that come after it, NATURALLY, are these:

A reference point for what?  & a reference orbit for what?

In other words, Colleague Lucid should work a lot harder on the details, in order for him to be able to explain, more clearly, those ESOTERIC things, firstly, to himself, and, secondly, to others.

And once again . . .

Is it true that: "The data can be shown as errors of Earth is moving around the Sun"?

Well . . .

It might be true, in principle; but this one small piece of data: "The distance C = 299792458 meters = distance error of Earth is moving around the Sun", for sure, is NOT.

Am I mistaken?

And, of course, the same applies to this second one:  ""Beam measurements" is not "Physics"".

I mean, IF "Beam measurements" is not "Physics", THEN this thing called "Physics" is WHAT?
So, is it accurate to write down that; "Stellar measurements is a measurements of physics lab physical motion and distant point (stellar objects) = reference point and Earth's orbit around the sun is a reference orbit"?

Not quite . . .

Here is the EXACT formula:

The sine of stellar aberration angle (b) = [tangential speed of Earth in its orbit (v) / speed of light (c)] TIMES the sine of the measured angle for the apparent position of the star (theta) on the celestial sphere; i.e.,

sin(b) = sin(theta' - theta) = [v/c]*sin(theta);

where theta' is the angle of the true position of the star, in question.

O.K.

One more question . . .

Is it, actually, possible for our colleague Lucid to "prove that relativity theory in its entirety (special and general) = errors of Earth is moving around the Sun"?

Very unlikely . . . very unlikely . . .

Sorry, Lucid . . . but that is, exactly, how I feel about it right now . . .

And, finally, is it wise to say that: "C = Holy Ghost astrologer Copernicus search of "Heaven above" that created this Bizarre idea of a Solar "system" of the System of someone (mortal) moving around another (wholly or immortal)"?

It was very WISE to utter something like that during the good-old DAYS of Father Master Giancito Stefani; but, certainly, NOT nowadays:

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/article ... ious-world

I tend to presume!

Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 6:53 am
I can prove that 500 years and 5000 physics laws and 5 million physical scientists and 50 million science data (NASA/CERN) in its entirety = errors of Earth is moving around the Sun

Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 6:53 am
Have you every calculated the numerical errors between two non Synchronous motions (27.321 days, 365.256 days) coming up next?

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
lucidjoenahhas wrote: The 12 men saw Earth but did not see Earth is moving around the Sun
Give me 1 just 1 "Incontestable" proof that Earth is moving around the Sun

I can do 5000 incontestable proofs that Earth moves in 27.321 days wrongly assigned to the Moon and not around the Sun and the Sun moves in 365.256 days wrongly assigned to Earth
Earth's motion in 27.321 days is embedded in all 5000 physical sciences laws of physics, astronomy, physical chemistry, physical biology, physical engineering and technology.

I can challenge anyone/all and win (done the duels in private since 1977) that
Newton's equation F = G m M /(r. r) and experimental data is an expression of 27.321 days motion (physics lab physical motion or Earth's actual motion) and so is all 5000 laws of physical sciences.
Talk to Andre Michud who refuses to let me post anything since 2012 and I will post it and you can try and disapprove it.

Earth does not move around the Sun
Physics textbooks = 5000 laws and not 1 incontestable proof = MacDonald Physics
The errors between (27.321 days, 365.256 days) = Relativity theory experimental numbers
Meaning: I can take any physics formula and produce Einstein
Einstein = 5000 times (27.321 days, 365.256 days) error that I Joe can produce 5000 times using any of 5000 physics laws along with all other "MacDonald physics" of expanding Universe, time travel (time errors), big bang, dark energy, Etc

Let us have a meeting with this group
Name the place and the time

Hello, Lucid:

Is it accurate to say that: "The 12 men saw Earth but did not see Earth is moving around the Sun"?

No.

Absolutely not!

Because these '12 Men Who Walked on the Moon':

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12379/12 ... alked-moon

NOT only saw the earth, high in the sky;  but also saw it, along with its moon, making a large arc, in the sky, around the STATIONARY Sun.

And so, now, is it, even remotely, REASONABLE, to say, after hearing the eyewitness testimony of  those '12 Men Who Walked on the Moon'"Give me 1 just 1 "Incontestable" proof that Earth is moving around the Sun"?

Obviously not ...

That is because this eyewitnesses testimony, itself, is a strong and incontestable PROOF  that "Earth is moving around the Sun".

There can be no doubt about that.

Even millions & millions of religiously pious people, all over the world, who used to believe that the Moon is composed of a holy substance, which no one can touch and walk on, gave up that  unfounded belief, at once, upon seeing those '12 Men'  walking on the Moon.

And likewise, our colleague Lucid should, upon encountering such a POWERFUL  & incontestable proof, give up, without hesitation, his unsupported hypothesis that "Earth does not move around the Sun"; shouldn't he?

O.K. . . . that is enough . . .

The rest is next time!

Joined: April 30th, 2010, 3:03 am
AAF24 wrote:
lucidjoenahhas wrote: The 12 men saw Earth but did not see Earth is moving around the Sun
Give me 1 just 1 "Incontestable" proof that Earth is moving around the Sun

I can do 5000 incontestable proofs that Earth moves in 27.321 days wrongly assigned to the Moon and not around the Sun and the Sun moves in 365.256 days wrongly assigned to Earth
Earth's motion in 27.321 days is embedded in all 5000 physical sciences laws of physics, astronomy, physical chemistry, physical biology, physical engineering and technology.

I can challenge anyone/all and win (done the duels in private since 1977) that
Newton's equation F = G m M /(r. r) and experimental data is an expression of 27.321 days motion (physics lab physical motion or Earth's actual motion) and so is all 5000 laws of physical sciences.
Talk to Andre Michud who refuses to let me post anything since 2012 and I will post it and you can try and disapprove it.

Earth does not move around the Sun
Physics textbooks = 5000 laws and not 1 incontestable proof = MacDonald Physics
The errors between (27.321 days, 365.256 days) = Relativity theory experimental numbers
Meaning: I can take any physics formula and produce Einstein
Einstein = 5000 times (27.321 days, 365.256 days) error that I Joe can produce 5000 times using any of 5000 physics laws along with all other "MacDonald physics" of expanding Universe, time travel (time errors), big bang, dark energy, Etc

Let us have a meeting with this group
Name the place and the time

Hello, Lucid:

Is it accurate to say that: "The 12 men saw Earth but did not see Earth is moving around the Sun"?

No.

Absolutely not!

Because these '12 Men Who Walked on the Moon':

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12379/12 ... alked-moon

NOT only saw the earth, high in the sky;  but also saw it, along with its moon, making a large arc, in the sky, around the STATIONARY Sun.

And so, now, is it, even remotely, REASONABLE, to say, after hearing the eyewitness testimony of  those '12 Men Who Walked on the Moon'"Give me 1 just 1 "Incontestable" proof that Earth is moving around the Sun"?

Obviously not ...

That is because this eyewitnesses testimony, itself, is a strong and incontestable PROOF  that "Earth is moving around the Sun".

There can be no doubt about that.

Even millions & millions of religiously pious people, all over the world, who used to believe that the Moon is composed of a holy substance, which no one can touch and walk on, gave up that  unfounded belief, at once, upon seeing those '12 Men'  walking on the Moon.

And likewise, our colleague Lucid should, upon encountering such a POWERFUL  & incontestable proof, give up, without hesitation, his unsupported hypothesis that "Earth does not move around the Sun"; shouldn't he?

O.K. . . . that is enough . . .

The rest is next time!
Now . . .

Can our colleague Lucid, REALLY, "do 5000 incontestable proofs that Earth moves in 27.321 days wrongly assigned to the Moon and not around the Sun and the Sun moves in 365.256 days wrongly assigned to Earth"?

Honestly, I, personality, think it would be a MIRACLE if he can come up with one ordinary & humble attempt at making one single 'sophistic' argument: [
https://www.thoughtco.com/sophism-rhetoric-1692113 ] in this regard; let alone doing  "5000 incontestable proofs that Earth moves in 27.321 days wrongly assigned to the Moon and not around the Sun and the Sun moves in 365.256 days wrongly assigned to Earth".

That is the truth.

Is it, even remotely, possible that "Earth's motion in 27.321 days is embedded in all 5000 physical sciences laws of physics, astronomy, physical chemistry, physical biology, physical engineering and technology"?

No.

Noway . . .

That is because "Earth's motion in 27.321 days" can never get embedded, CORRECTLY, inside anything, beside Earth's monthly rotation around the gravitational center of the earth-moon system.

It is as simple as that.

Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 6:53 am
You keep saying not!
You keep posting the same things that has no proof of Earth is moving around the Sun
5000 physics laws = 5000 errors due to Earth's motion
5000 physics laws = 5000 claims and not 1 proof
Name the place and the time
I live in the State of Michigan and can host hotel room and meals and a room with a board to duel it out
This is the duel
1 - Earth moves in 27.321 days
2 - Sun moves in 365.256 days
3 - The error = Einstein and all other "MacDonald Physics"
4 - Einstein = 5000 times error that can be produced 5000 times using any of 5000 physics laws
The challenge =  Newton's F = GmM/(r.r) = 27.321 days motion
The error derived from (27.321,365.256) using Newton's equation = Einstein
Earth's motion in 27.321 days data can be found 5000 times using any of 5000 physics laws
Talk to MacDonald Administrator Andre Michud
I will post it and you can see to to find 27.321 days 5000 times

Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 6:53 am
The 500 grand challenge (anyone wanna bet?)

1 - Earth moves in 27.321 days wrongly assigned to the Moon
2 - Sun moves in 365.256 days wrongly assigned to Earth
3 - The error = Einstein
Using Newton's equation
And Newton equation = 27.321 days cycle