DP: Let me say at the outset that I’d be happy to discuss the matter of the ether and the Michelson‐Morley experiment further on the Non Sequitur Show. This has been a central argument in the controversy. As I’ll lay out below, I don’t think this works out well for the geocentric viewpoint and I’d be willing to unpack that in another discussion.
RS: After reviewing your comments below, I think your whole case stands or falls on how you have interpreted the 1887 Michelson‐Morley experiment, and the related experiments, such as the 1913 Sagnac experiment, the 1925 Michelson‐Gale experiment, and the 2000s sapphire resonator experiments. Suffice it to say, I am now convinced beyond a doubt that you
misinterpret them.
I would ask that you please consider laying out a synthesis or some sort of summary or much shortened version (bullet points perhaps if that is feasible/practical) of this debate for people who are short on time in their ability to wade through the entire debate.
James, in brief it can be summed up like this…
– David Palm either doesn’t understand the difference between Michelson/Morley and Michelson/Gale and thus this entirely screws up his argument.
Or
– David Palm is deliberately being deceptive by dancing around or omitting the significance of Michelson/Gale.
– David Palm pretty much tries to rely solely on the reduction of fringe detection of newer MMX attempts to try and explain that this further proves the aether doesn’t exist. But he either can’t see, or deliberately refuses to admit, that the alternate explanation is that the reason the detection approaches closer to ‘zero’ is simply because the Earth isn’t moving at all. And considering this is not the case with MGX attempts that always return a positive result in line with the expected speed of a rotation, this only solidifies the Geocentric position as these experiments taken together show there is a rotation against aether, but nothing indicating a revolution around the Sun. The only solution to this data is a fixed Earth and a rotating aether.
– In summary, there’s nothing new at all from David Palm to see here other than tackling more recent attempts at MMX that basically tell us the same thing as nearly 100 years ago.
Also in brief…
– Palm’s further attempts refute the existence of the aether comes down to trying to critique Sungenis’ speculative views about what the aether actually is. But this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the fact of its existence and its detection.
– David Palm is also completely ignorant of the fact that Einstein and even modern science today has largely ‘taken back’ the aether it once rejected as a detectable substance and a credible explanation for various phenomena.
I have to say that it continues to be surprising that Palm, after so much supposed debate and personal obsession with Sungenis, remains ignorant about these basic things… to a suspicious degree… So he is either completely terrible at understanding any of the topic; while relying on extraordinarily outdated material. Or Palm is being dishonest and is only supplying a new portion to an audience that fits the criteria where ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time.’ And it is most likely the choir.