Ok, sure, maybe I left out a word. Simply insert the word “proving” between “with” and “the” and my statement becomes completely accurate. And I’m sure, if you are so well-versed in “coherent debate,” as I am, according to you, not, that you could have figured that out for yourself. Since you did not, it leads me to believe that you have no desire in this coherent debate you profess to strive for. You did not respond to my argument, you simply attempt to object to my omission of a single word. If you would like to turn this into a grammatical or rhetorical exchange, I assure you I could hold my own.
deleted to next post.
In order to show that the Earth is stationary, you need much more than the M & M experiment. You would need to prove that the Aether exists first to even use the null result you are trumpeting, and then disprove the entire foundation of cosmology and many other scientific fields. If you wish to do so, start now: It’s gonna take a while.
And, as another poster noted, your last post does nothing to help your argument, standing, or intellectual integrity. You failed to provide any form of argument, insulted me, and attempted to put yourself on a lofty intellectual pedestal which simply does not exist. I’m a “2+2=3” type of person? I would beg to differ.
OK Logos, you deserve a reply after that.
‘If you would like to turn this into a grammatical or rhetorical exchange, I assure you I could hold my own.’
No logos, that is the last thing I would criticise anybody for and I dare say you could hold your own.
'And I’m sure, if you are so well-versed in “coherent debate,” as I am, according to you, not, that you could have figured that out for yourself. ’
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.
Let me put up your corrected statement again
‘The M/M experiment has nottttthing to do with PROVING the motion of the Earth. The experiment used an already known fact (that the Earth MOVES) to test another theory,’
Now here is what I said when introducing the M&M experiment.
And please Logos, I know science is ideologically driven in this area and of course they would never concede to a possible universal flood. Ever heard of the M & M experiment that showed the earth does not orbit the sun? Do you think they accepted this science> Not on your Nelly. They preferred to accept Einstein’s ABSURD Special theory of Relativity instead.
If you read me again see i do not say the M&M experiment proved the earth is fixed. I said it was an experiment that showed the earth does not orbit the sun.
and '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…
The Airy was directly testing the relative movement of the earth and stars, the M&M looking for ether by way of the movement of the earth around the sun.
Why I even gave you an example of one recognition of this valid conclusion quoting one famous science and science fiction writer:
‘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.
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.
