creation around 7,000 BC?

[cassini]

The experiment termed “M & M” revolved around the hypothesis that a universal medium called the “Aether (Ether)” existed. The experiment used the speed of light to test the existent of the aforementioned concept. The result, as you admit, was both famous and completely null. Because the speed of light went unaltered, the medium was essentially disproved. This conclusion is stated directly in the peer-reviewed paper following the experiment. Light does not need a medium to travel through, thus a new model for the Universe was necessary. Years were spent in the dark until Einstein gave his two cents, with some prodding from others, that led to the Theory of Relativity.

.

Not quite accurate Logos, I never said anything about a ‘completely null’ result. That is an invention to get rid of ether.

The Null/Nill Fraud

‘As a test of relativity, however, the slightest apparent shift in the fringe would be of great moment…The results [of the M/M test] were seen as a ‘cloud’ in the otherwise clear sky of physics. Numerous explanations were put forward in an attempt to show how the existence of aether was compatible with the null result….
As they [Michelson/Morley/Miller] completed this work, Einstein’s papers were becoming recognised for what they were and setting the scene for the reinterpretation of the ‘null’ result as one of the most significant findings of experimental physics.’ —Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.

Collins and Pinch go on to confirm that a null interpreted as a nil was the foundation for Einstein’s papers. Einstein could then declare ether did not exist and postulate absolute motion and absolute rest cannot be detected by any experiment. Nearly a hundred years later the null/nill illusion is still bandied about here and there by revered physicists. Here is one version of the nil interpretation many will have read:

‘In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School for Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion with that at right angles to the earth’s motion. To their surprise, they found they were exactly the same!’ — Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, 1988, p.20.

In 1914, nine years after Einstein’s STR with its dependence on no ether came yet another empirical indication that ether may well exist.

‘M. G. Sagnac, a French scientist, mounted a light source, a set of mirrors and an interferometer on a spinning disc. He showed that the time for a light signal to traverse a closed path, in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the disc, differed according to whether the signal travelled with or against the direction of spin. W.M. Macek & D.T.M. Davis (1963) confirmed the Sagnac effect to great accuracy, by repeating the experiment using ring lasers —A.G. Kelly: A New Theory on the Behaviour of Light, The Institution of engineers of Ireland, Feb. 1996, p.3.

According to Einstein then, ether does not exist. According to his theories of relativity it does not exist. But according to the results of experiments ether probably does exist. Here we have what they call in modern physics a ‘paradox’. In other words, there can be two truths, one necessary for Einstein’s theories of relativity and earthmoving, the other to keep modern physicists in their jobs. And as if this was not enough to send Einstein’s theories packing, Al Kelly tells us of another experimental falsification.

‘The A. Michelson & H.G. Gale test (1925) measured the effect of the rotation of the Earth on the behaviour of light. That test will be shown to conform with the Sagnac test, where the cross-section of the Earth, at the latitude of the tests, is considered to be a spinning disc. Recent ring-laser tests on a stationary circuit by H.R. Bilger et al, (1995), have also confirmed the M/G results with great accuracy.’ – (pp.3-4)

Here we have to disagree with Dr Kelly. We say such results do not necessarily confirm a rotation of the earth but only in the biased thinking of an entrenched Earthmover. The resistance found, could be caused by an inertial effect of a spinning universe around a static earth for example. But Kelly too had a theory of his own to ploy, he wanted to have his heliocentric cake and eat it.

‘In this paper, a theory is put forward that conforms to all of these tests. This theory states that light, generated upon the Earth, adopts to the orbital movement of the Earth, but not to the daily spin upon its axis.’ – (p.4)

Mr Kelly - who simply could not entertain the possibility that the M/M experiment could be interpreted geocentrically with an inertial field moving east/west around the earth, offers us a relativity goose having thrown out the relativity gander. Now while certainly falsifying Einstein out of empirical sight, Kelly’s own theory was as speculative as the one he was falsifying.

‘As the interferometer experiments came to be seen as a test of relativity, rather than measures of the velocity of the earth, what had been done appeared less than complete.’

So, in the early 1920s Miller - now obsessed with the quest to resolve this problem - rebuilt the interferometer, and in Sept. 1924 ‘found a persistent positive displacement’ and concluded, ‘the effects were shown to be real and systematic, beyond further question.’ Nevertheless, on and on went Miller, taking readings at different dates and various heights and at different venues. In 1925 Miller claimed that he had found an interference fringe of 10kps. This was still, of course, far short of the 30kps needed.

continued

 

[cassini]

Because of Miller’s credentials and prize-winning work, his ‘disproof’ of relativity again set the cat among the pigeons. Michelson - now a hero for ‘pre-demonstrating’ Einstein’s theory in 1887, years before Einstein proposed it - didn’t like the idea of Miller undermining his new found fame and so decided to show everyone once again that when he says null, he means nil. He went to the trouble of building an even bigger interferometer, ran a number of tests, one on top of Mount Wilson in 1930, and announced he still found a null/nil result.
Miller’s reply came in 1933 when he published a paper insisting that the case for ether had been demonstrated. The Relativists denied Miller his proof and counter-claimed they had proof that no ether exists and thus the speed of light is constant. Miller, without doubt, had the better case for many reasons.
Next to try his hand was Auguste Piccard, a Swiss physicist. He found an interference fringe of one and a half kilometres per second. Shankland et al (1955) list thirteen tests up to 1930, all concurring with the original 1887 test. In 1964, using infrared masers, Charles Townes tested to an accurate .9 kilometres per second, the smallest fringe on record. In hindsight then, not one test designed to detect ether showed a nil result, and not one test showed the 30kms expected. This suggests ether exists but that the earth is not passing through it at 67,000mps.
As it turned out, it really didn’t matter what they found, for as we have said before, the integrity of science means nothing to these fraudsters. The Earthmovers needed Einstein to keep the earth moving and that’s how it was, and this is no secret.

‘The sheer momentum of the new way in which physics was done – the culture of life in the physics community – meant that [all the interferometer results] were irrelevant.
We have travelled a long way from the notion that the M/M experiment proved the theory of relativity. We have reached the point where the theory of relativity had rendered the M/M experiment important as a sustaining myth, rather than a set of results… The null results passed from anomaly to ‘finding’ as the theory of relativity gained adherents… The meaning of an experimental result does not, then, depend only upon the care with which it is designed and carried out, it depends upon what people are ready to believe.’ —H. Collins and T. Pinch, op. cit., p.42.

 

[cassini]

JOHN PAUL II
Address at Meeting with Rectors of Academic Institutions

Torun, Monday, 7 June 1999

1. We are meeting today in Torun, in the “the City of Copernicus”, in the University named after him. The discovery made by Copernicus, and its importance for the history of science, remind us of the ever-present tension between reason and faith. Although Copernicus himself saw his discovery as giving rise to even greater amazement at the Creator of the world and the power of human reason, many people took it as a means of setting reason against faith. Which of these is the truth? Are reason and faith two realities which are necessarily mutually exclusive?

.

I presume Julia, this is supposed to be an answer to my request Can show me ONE official Church document that abrogates that outdated 1616 decree I will concede to it llike a good Catholic.’

Well I’m sorry, speeches to Rectors of Academic Institutions or the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for that matter, are not official Church documents, they are the opinions of a pope in this case and says nothing about the 1616 decree.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II, after Vatican II, is the greatest proponent of the suspected heretic Galileo’s ‘independence principle’ as Marcello Pera, professor of philosophy on leave at the University Of Pisa, Italy (now a Senator of the Italian Republic) calls it. The true Catholic position is that of Pope Paul V, Urban VII and St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s, the ‘limitation principle’. Pera argues correctly that no Catholic believer can accept John Paul II’s Independence Principle (now the accepted principle after Vatican II by most theologians and scientists) because it favours science and damages faith.

The above begins with fiction ‘The discovery made by Copernicus’ (Copernicus discovered nothing).
.
‘Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs of the time].’ A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers.

So, what then did Copernicus find that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from a geocentric perspective to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Yet most books on astronomy and popular history - such as in the opening quote of this chapter - have allowed us to think that Copernicus somehow proved the heliocentric theory true and thereby falsified the geocentric view we observe.

‘Although Copernicus himself saw his discovery as giving rise to even greater amazement at the Creator of the world and the power of human reason,’ JPII.

The truth is that Copernicus, a man who discovered nothing, would not rate at all if we were to list the giants of astronomy throughout the ages. The only footstep Copernicus imprinted on astronomy was the pagan magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. We know this because Copernicus admitted he favoured the heliocentricism because it, and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.’ Copernicus considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system ‘lacked elegance’, with its artificial equant, and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model - as can be seen in the dozens of drawings and hundreds of geometric proposals depicted through the six books of On the revolutions – was a solar system consisting of just as many, if not more, heads, arms, hands, legs, feet, and other appendages. Copernicus then, who could not be classed as an astronomer in the proper sense of the word, was first and foremost an idealist, an out and out Pythagorean, smitten by the magic of Hermēs.

‘By 1543, the same year Copernicus’s famous Revolutions was first published in Nuremberg, there were over fifty separate editions of the Hermetica circulating in Europe!’

Here then, for any who wish to see, is another who has fallen hook, line and sinker for the magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. This church-keeper, more than other men, was likely to be well aware that the Scriptures depict geocentricism, an interpretation held by all the Fathers of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, driven by the influence of Hermēs, he was still prepared to introduce an important equilibrium into astronomy, philosophy, theology and metaphysics – heliocentricism. Inserted in De revolutionibus, the most famous book on the cosmos ever written, a book that was read by many throughout Europe, by those who shaped world history, astronomy and science, Hermēs himself is named as a source. Copernicus places the central religious and mystical role of the sun as the Sermo Perfectus dictates, as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second god, placing it on that already occupied Holy Throne.

‘In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a “visible god”; Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ — Nicolaus Copernicus, ‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium’ in 1543.

 

[edwest2]

The usual. … Again.

Look up the current year on the Hebrew calendar. Go ahead. It should be 5770.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Logos385]

I did not figure that missing word out, I simply reacted to the contradictary reasoning of it as ‘an already known fact (that the Earth MOVES) to test another theory,’ (that showed the earth back might not be moving after all.) 2+2=3 mentality.
Yes, I know the M&M experiment was a scientific experiment trying to detect ether by use of the earth’s supposed motion through space at 67.000 mph as it supposedly orbits the sun. I know its purpose was not to prove or not that the earth flies through space faster than a bullet, that as you said WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED AS PROVEN.

Now I contend that nobody has ever proven the earth moves through space, it is impossible to prove that. All science can do is FALSIFY any so called proofs for G or H.
In any scientific experiment that does not produce the required or expected results, ALL OPTIONS AS TO WHY IT DID NOT SHOUD BE CONSIDERED AS VALID UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.

#1- The Earth’s motion is the ONLY possible explanation for the cosmic dance the planets experience, as mapped and verified numerous times over the years, starting quite some time ago. Although geocentrism was accepted a ways back, the models kept getting more and more complicated for planetary orbit and oscillation, and eventually had to be thrown out in favor of a heliocentric model. This model perfectly describes everything we see in the night sky, whereas a geocentric model cannot. Thus, the Earth’s motion is “proven” (used in the colloquial sense: the 99.9% sure definition). Yes, science falsifies things, and engages in the process of elimination. But if you wish to use the argument that science can prove nothing, this discussion is useless. So please, let’s not go down that road.

'True science are the results of the Airy experiment and the Mitchelton & Morely experiments that were the only two scientific experiments ever conducted to determine the relative movements of the sun, earth and stars. These scientific experiments indicated the earth is fixed, not the sun and stars…

I understand where you are coming from, the problem is you are simply factually incorrect. Experiments are done constantly determining the relative motion of the sun, Earth and stars. All one must do is look to the night sky. ALL experiments done on this subject indicate a moving Earth.

‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M/M test results that could not find evidence for a 30kms/s movement]. Either [it showed] the earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or [it showed] the earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ — Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388

Note it was a Copernican who calls it a ‘failure’ and who concludedit was ‘highly unlikely’ that it showed a fixed earth. Yet a non moving earth is a perfectly valid scientific conclusion?
But NO, it was highly unlikely on ideological grounds, not scientific, a 2+2=3 mentality.

No. It was highly unlikely on evidentiary grounds. Because EVERY piece of evidence EVER gathered on the subject shows that the Earth is NOT fixed. Since we know that as conclusively as a fact can be known, we can use that as a standard for experimentation.

Asimov here repeats what the scientists and physicists of 1887 to 1905 HAD TO CONSIDER AS A SCIENTIFIC POSSIBILITY. And the revoluition came from Einstein the GOD of Copernicans. What did he do? HE ANNOUNCED, LIKE GOD, THAT ETHER DID NOT EXIST

. That’s how they got the earth moving again.There is no God of science. Please, realize what you are saying:

You are asserting that the foundations of cosmology, astronomy, emission spectroscopy, stellar physics, astrophysics, gravitation and more scientific fields are completely and utterly incorrect. You are asserting this based on a conclusion that has been falsified consistently, ignoring the correct conclusion, which has been proven through direct experimentation. You assert that there is a major scientific conspiracy, and assert that you are more intelligent than every scientist in any of the above listed fields.
You may see why I disagree. Your argument seems a little farfetched. I see no reason in continuing this debate, as you will never accept true scientific tenets, and must ignore mountains of evidence to hold your viewpoint which I am sure you have already been lead through multiple times. There is no point in attempting to guide you to scientific principles when I’m sure you have heard them numerous times, and ignore them baselessly. Have a goodnight, and I hope you come to objectively evaluate your viewpoints in the future.

 

[buffalo]

Woolly Mammoth DNA Yields Surprising Secret

Woolly mammoths and other large beasts in North America may not have gone extinct as long ago as previously thought.
The new view — that pockets of beasts survived to as recently as 7,600 years ago, rather than the previous end times mark of 12,000 years ago — is supported by DNA evidence found in a few pinches of dirt.
After plucking ancient DNA from frozen soil in central Alaska, researchers uncovered “genetic fossils” of both mammoths and horses locked in permafrost samples dated to between 10,500 and 7,600 years ago.

more…

 

[aragonjohn1]

The usual. … Again.

Look up the current year on the Hebrew calendar. Go ahead. It should be 5770.

Peace,
Ed

So, since Catholicism is the fulfillment of judaism this may mean something in fulfillment?

God bless