Quote from: notbatman on November 18, 2018, 05:15:45 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 18, 2018, 03:52:30 PM

Quote from: notbatman on November 18, 2018, 02:45:29 PM

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever?

I'm just going to let you flail spastically on this.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on November 18, 2018, 03:42:51 PM

Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.

You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.

You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.

In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.

And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.

This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?

Michelson assumed the Sun was 93 millions miles away and tried to prove the Earth was in motion (like Airy), it wasn't any kind of conclusion based on experiment.

Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive; the conclusion reached by M&M was that it's consistent with a static aether and a motionless Earth. They (the Jews) claimed that M&M was consistent with both SR and a static aether thus making the claim of a static aether inconclusive. This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.

Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself.

Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M.

Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory.

Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn.

Quote from: presduterte on November 18, 2018, 03:23:46 PM

So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?

[img]https:// ... /multiverse-theory.jpg[/img]

The keyword here is "theory".

''Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive'' How do you know, were you there?

''This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.'' How do you know, were you there? Did you do it yourself?

''The keyword here is "theory" You mean this?:

''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''