i will probably sound like an idiot, but...

[mtrotto7287]

sorry for what will probably be a very stupid question, but in researching geocentricity for a school project, i came across a source that says that the Sagnac effect, somehow proves that an aether exists in space<br /><br />is that as rediculous as it sounds to me?<br /><br />i thought, according to Einstein- there can be no aether???<br /><br />

 

[mooware]

How old is that text?

 

[mtrotto7287]

it is a website<br />(h t t p : / / w w w . m b o w d e n . s u r f 3 . n e t / G e o c e x p l . h t m ) <ignore the spaces />, which most likely explains the apparent lack of credibility, but it was supposedly updated june, 2004<br /><br />probably a bunch of BS- judging from some of the arguments- but i cant really tell

 

[nevers]

After reading about the Sagnac Effect I would probably still like a sound idiot question your trying answer to. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Knock, knock...<br />Who's there.<br />Aether.<br />Aether who?<br />Aether bunny. Knock, knock...<br />Who's there.<br />Andy.<br />Andy who?<br />Andy 'nother Aether bunny. Knock, knock...<br />Who's there.<br />Stellar.<br />Stellar who?<br />Steallar 'nother Aether bunny. Knock, knock...<br />Who's there.<br />Consumption.<br />Consumption who?<br />Consumption be done about all these Aether bunnies?

 

[mooware]

Yep, I would take that with a big grain of salt. Utter nonsense.<br /><br />

 

[mtrotto7287]

haha- ok, so i WASNT an idiot to question that!<br /><br />NEVERS- thanks for the joke<br /><br />its amazing how unwilling some people are to change their beliefs. . .<br /><br />check out the "Flat Earth Society's" website for a good laugh

 

[Saiph]

yeah, it's the dangereous kind of gibberish.<br /><br />At a glance, the things that slap up a red flag are:<br /><br />He dismisses Eclipses and Mercury's presecion as false evidence....Even thought we knew about both long before the aether ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nevers]

For those interested, here's the link: Flat-Earth.org

 

[afterburn]

That is great! Good thing I have arms on both sides of my chair or I would have fallen on the floor from laughing so hard!

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">..sorry for what will probably be a very stupid question,</font><br /><br />There is no such thing as a stupid question. Seeking knowledge is intelligent behavior and is immediately recognized as such by those who's commentary is worth reading.<br /><br />... and, if you came for a stupid answer, well, never fear. If I can't come up with one, then there isn't one to be had. The good answers have all been given. So, stupid answer #1 on the way!<br /><br />Stupid Answer#1: The Sagnac Effect is related , in both theory and scope, to the Coriolis Effect observed by the cavitation waves of two plastic whiffle balls rotating within a medium of clean soapy water. This was discovered in 2003 by a_lost_packet_ during the famous "Laundry Machine Incident." Sadly, it wasn't until much later, in 2004, that Science recognized this important achievement in the art of depleting one's wallet on repair parts at the expense of progressing the cause of Science.<br /><br />To be fair, here is an "answer" whether it is good or not:<br /><br />The main problem, in my understanding of various propositions of Sagnac effect and Geocentrism, is the frame of referrence used. Also, comparing of frames of referrence using entirely different systems of measurement and discovery is not equitable. It's apples and oranges. So, the arguement for geocentrism resting on Sagnac Effect is based on ideas that would yield the same result, given a different system of measurement, regardless of what was proposed. It's like proving you have an orange in your hand by pointing at an apple and arguing that "you" call it an "orange" in the country you come from. At least, from the very limited info I gleaned on the subject. But, don't quote me, do some "googling" to check it out. Successful hits were "Sagnac Geocentric" "Sagnac Geocentric Debunk" and "Sagnac Effect." Not alot of arguing going on there by the way.<br /><br />Ah, here's something I can answer:<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[mtrotto7287]

thank you- the show was indeed a very good slide-show<br /><br />it is helping me A LOT<br /><br />thanks also for the correction about Einstein- as well as the Sagnac links<br /><br />i think i am now beginning to understand it a little better

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">i think i am now beginning to understand it a little better </font><br /><br />Great! When you have it down pat, come back and explain it to me!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>