Author Topic: Poll: Is Geocentrism Necessary to the Faith (Read 12408 times)

Cassandar · « **Reply #210 on:** September 28, 2016, 11:07:51 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

I doubt we went to the moon--fall a little short of saying I'm 100% certain that we didn't as I don't think anybody can do so and be fully cognizant and honest in doing so except perhaps a few "elites."

An obstacle to having this doubt convincing is the Russian silence re the USA Moon landing(s).
Reaching the Moon first was a bitter race between US and Russia. Why would Russian intelligence fail to detect a US landing scam...or fail to tell the world of the US conspiracy?

But.....none of your other assertions can be dismissed.

Quote from: Matto

I am not drawn towards belief in a flat earth as I am to the belief in a round geocentric earth.

Not surprising...there's no Magisterial support for FE as there is for GC

Quote from: happenby

.... Sheba was literally at the ends of the
earth in relation to Palestine, because our Lord said (Matt. xii. 42) that
“the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth” (“a finibus
terræ,”) to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

That is, the ends of the Earth as known in Solomon's time - Ethiopia or Southern Arabia.

Quote from: noOneImportant

1- The fact of the matter is that it is, by definition, impossible to tell what the center of the universe is given our limited observational capacity. You can't tell what the center of something is if you can't see the whole thing from the outside and define its edges.

2- Also, motion is measured (again, by definition) relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. It's equally possible to come up with a model of the universe that has the earth rotating around the sun and one that has the sun rotating around the earth. And those models would be completely equivalent. The only merit, from a scientific standpoint, that one can have over the other is the simplicity of the calculations.

1- This is the geometrical interpretation of GC - a strawman for the passive meaning of GC given by the Magisterium.... viz., the focus of all processes and activity in the universe.
This diversion distracts from the core meaning of Scripture ... geofixism - an Earth at rest/immobile.

2- Here is correctly described a branch of mechanics called kinematics - the study of physical measurement using distance, speed, acceleration....and time. Relative motion in kinematics is as certain as 2+2 = 4.
BUT... Dynamics is the branch of physics that PREDICTS future motion based on kinematics, mass and forces. In dynamics the laws of motion (Newton and Maxwell) only correctly predict future motion if the Earth (lab/ground) is used as a reference frame for an observer! Newton's Bucket anomaly and his 2nd law are examples of the uniqueness of the Earth in applying the laws of natural motion.
It is dynamics that reveals the Earth as the only immovable platform from which trajectories can be foretold...
Although this uniqueness is easily made manifest, the mainstream demagogues of physics ignore the facts in fear of the consequences:
- the Church was right and Galileo/Copernicus were wrong
- the Big Bang and relativity -special and general - are a colossal hoax ...bigger than 9/11
- the centrality and immobility of Earth can mean only one thing... the God denied by the modern atheists EXISTS.

Quote

1- The literal sense necessarily includes flat earth. ... That geocentrism was always bound up with the flat earth becomes evident.
2- If a 71 page docuмent is necessary to "explain why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible," then the declarations are not infallible.

1- These claims are gratuitous - no credible evidence is offered that might sway a rational mind. The Bible doesn't address FE..and neither does the Magisterium.

2- The statement itself... is it infallible because it's less than 71 pages?
How short must a docuмent be - to be deemed infallible?

Quote from: mw2016

the problem for geocentrism is that the closer it hews to the heliocentric model of the universe (merely trying to place earth at the center, but everything else is the same) actually negates geocentrism as a physical impossibility. The problem is in the acceptance by geocentrists of any part of "modern science's" decription of the model of the universe, because it is ALL wrong.

Another example of the danger of giving GC a physical/geometrical meaning not intended by Holy Writ.
Accepting mainstream science's Big Bang model as compatible with Biblical GC is pure confusion.. the BB center is not even the Earth!
One should be aware that criticism of GC based on the Ptolemaic model is a calculated misdirection. Four centuries ago Ptolemy's physical version of GC was replaced by the Tychonian model of Tycho Brahe, which removed all the observational differences between the Copernican HC and the Ptolemaic GC world views.

AMDG

noOneImportant · « **Reply #211 on:** September 29, 2016, 05:55:27 PM »

Quote from: Cassandar

Quote from: noOneImportant

1- The fact of the matter is that it is, by definition, impossible to tell what the center of the universe is given our limited observational capacity. You can't tell what the center of something is if you can't see the whole thing from the outside and define its edges.

2- Also, motion is measured (again, by definition) relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. It's equally possible to come up with a model of the universe that has the earth rotating around the sun and one that has the sun rotating around the earth. And those models would be completely equivalent. The only merit, from a scientific standpoint, that one can have over the other is the simplicity of the calculations.

1- This is the geometrical interpretation of GC - a strawman for the passive meaning of GC given by the Magisterium.... viz., the focus of all processes and activity in the universe.
This diversion distracts from the core meaning of Scripture ... geofixism - an Earth at rest/immobile.

2- Here is correctly described a branch of mechanics called kinematics - the study of physical measurement using distance, speed, acceleration....and time. Relative motion in kinematics is as certain as 2+2 = 4.
BUT... Dynamics is the branch of physics that PREDICTS future motion based on kinematics, mass and forces. In dynamics the laws of motion (Newton and Maxwell) only correctly predict future motion if the Earth (lab/ground) is used as a reference frame for an observer! Newton's Bucket anomaly and his 2nd law are examples of the uniqueness of the Earth in applying the laws of natural motion.
It is dynamics that reveals the Earth as the only immovable platform from which trajectories can be foretold...
Although this uniqueness is easily made manifest, the mainstream demagogues of physics ignore the facts in fear of the consequences:
- the Church was right and Galileo/Copernicus were wrong
- the Big Bang and relativity -special and general - are a colossal hoax ...bigger than 9/11
- the centrality and immobility of Earth can mean only one thing... the God denied by the modern atheists EXISTS.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that mass and force aren't included in kinematics? Where do you think the motions are being calculated from? Your statement that the laws of motion are only correct if the Earth is used as a reference frame is patently false. Shifting between frames of reference is trivial. There is nothing in "dynamics" as you call it which requires any given frame of reference.

Also, what you call dynamics is encompassed under my original statements.

Also, calling relativity a "colossal hoax" is colossally ignorant. There's a reason the theory of relativity is held up as virtually untouchable. It correctly predicted numerous previously unknown phenomena, many of which no one would have even thought to look for if they hadn't been predicted by said theory. The original example is the bending of light around the sun so that stars behind it can be seen "through" it during an eclipse.

There are many others like that. When a model correctly predicts complex phenomena, it's a pretty sure sign that the model is working, and so it becomes a scientific "law".

Cassandar · « **Reply #212 on:** September 29, 2016, 07:13:58 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

..... the "modern day" version of geocentrism (not the 16th century one) is a model of geocentrism that ACCEPTS nearly all aspects of the heliocentric model. It really is just a mere reversal of the position of the sun and earth.

As such, it does not, and cannot, work due to the laws of physics.

The modern model of the universe is not HC but BigBangism. It contradicts relativity in having a center of expansion which is at absolute rest.
Contradictions are no problem for establishment physics.... they are just 'exciting new discoveries'.

Quote from: cassini

science agreed on the principle of RELATIVITY.

1- ‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [heliocentrism] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved the earth is in motion.”’

2- Yes, since the beginning of the twentieth century, science has conceded that there is no empirical way of proving the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot verify for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine movements about it.

3- 'God may have created laws of the universe that man will never know.' Indeed the Fathers believed God uses His angels to keep the universe in perfect order, 'bringing days and nights, and seasons on earth.'

1- MS physics had forsaken HC as soon as galaxies were discovered. Modern cosmology is now infatuated with the BB model, but the Copernican HC model is trotted out occasionally to squelch naive GC believers.

2- The recent ALFA theory (Absolute Lab Frame and Fluid Aether) establishes scientifically - using scholasticism and the scientific method - that the Earth is that one firm place in space from which to predict future movements about it.
Aether is included in the laws of motion, explaining cosmic motions and replacing Newton's empirical law of gravitation.

3- I came to this belief also, by reflecting on the role of the angels - beyond worshiping God and carrying messages to us.
The boundary between the spiritual and physical world , the undifferentiated aether of free space, can be identified as prime matter. When informed by substantial form, prime matter/aether forms physical objects (particles, atoms, molecules, people...), the bound states of aether which interact according to their essence/nature.
The angels are delegated by God to maintain and enforce the natural laws and motions He created, since they exist - like us - in the physical and spiritual worlds.
But what revelation supports this thesis? What actually powers the universe is revealed by Dan 7:9-10. A stream of fire(= power/energy) goes forth from the throne of the Ancient One, ...but Daniel says not where the fire goes!
It conserves all creation in existence, mediated by His angels - my conjecture.
Aether is the unformed clay and angels the workers that maintain the natural world order in the hylomorphic model of reality. This is the 'Opera Angelorum'.

Quote from: mw2016

The Bible says ALL will see Him and this would only be possible on a flat earth.

This denies God's nature as including ubiquity..... flirting with heresy?

Quote from: cassini

... Newton's theory geocentrism is possible just for argument's sake. I do not even entertain this as it actually gives a little credibility to Newton's 'heresy.'

Proof by contradiction is said to be a valid logical argument. Assume the opposite of what is believed and show the premises logically lead to a contradiction.
Or... attack the premises and show the metaphysics is in error... then using false premises in any argument is useless.
Relativity can be disproven either way.
The two postulates of Special Relativity are
1) Speed of Light(SoL) is constant = c in all reference frames
2) The laws of motion are equivalent in all inertial ref. frames...inertial covariance.
Consider the second logical method ...
#1 is false- from the results of any gas(non-vacuum) interferometer test.
Sol = c +- v, where v is the aether speed
#2 is false from the 2005 Wang Fiber Optic Conveyor test. The results are only valid in the lab/Earth frame ..and aether is dragged along with the conveyor. Sol = c +- v is only true in the lab frame.
Both SR premises are experimentally proven false, so no further consideration of SR is possible. Doing so would be worse than just being wrong.

A proof by contradiction would assume the two SR postulates are true, and use one of many applications to show that either one leads to a contradiction.
BUT... this allows - however temporarily - that the SR assumptions are valid. The scientifically unwashed may be confused and think that SR was proven true...or that everything was proven false. This is confirmed by my own classroom experience with Proof by Contradiction.
Another point: PbyC doesn't indicate the source of error; it could be in the premises or in drawing the conclusion.
If the premises are false then any argument must fail ...so the PbyC proves nothing!

Moral: Disprove the premises whenever possible..using PbyC gives only temporary credibility - as Cassini noted - to the theory.

AMDG

Cassandar · « **Reply #213 on:** September 30, 2016, 09:42:49 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

1- the flat earth model does not have ANY gravity.

2- You cannot take the modern science definition of gravity and divide it up into "types" of gravity, because modern science does not do this. There is no "Newtonian gravity" vs. another type of gravity - there is only gravity, and it is supposedly responsible for objects falling and objects in space orbiting around other bodies in space.

3- The key part of the modern science definition is that gravity is a FORCE. It has the power to pull objects downward.

4- ....The idea that gravity is powerful enough to pull an earth to a sun, but yet light enough to let a butterfly fly above the flowers is absurd. A force cannot distinguish between objects and "apply itself" accordingly - that is nonsensical!

5- Objects fall when dropped due to their weight/mass/density and the buoyancy or lack thereof of the medium they are in.

6- So, this negates your version of geocentrism.

1- then FE has no credibility....

2- Actually....no. There is pulling gravity, like Newton's, and pushing gravity, like Fatio and LeSage. There's gravity with no medium (Newton) and with aether. The LeSage theory of ultramondane particles supplies a mechanism that produces the inverse square law and mass dependence of the force of gravity... Newton's theory has no mechanism that explains the cause of gravity ...which he admitted.

3- There's no evidence that gravity pulls rather than pushes ...both can produce attraction.

4- Gravitation depends on the mass/inertia product of the attracting objects. When one mass is enormous - like the Sun - the attractive force
is enormous. When mass is miniscule, like a butterfly, so is the gravity force.
Have you never studied Newton's gravity law?...apparently not.

5- Density is irrelevant to free fall properties.. random pieces of steel and wood have the same free fall properties.... Never heard of Galileo's Tower of Pisa experiment?

6- You are on the verge of another 'Ignored By' vote....for lack of due diligence in research.

Quote from: mw2016

Gravity is considered as a force or a phenomenon. Per Wiki:
Quote
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential....

2 issues:
Gravity is best described as a change of state in the fluid aether model....density or pressure or speed.

re Wiki:
Like the mass media, academia, jurists, politicians, bankers, ad nauseam..... Wiki is controlled by the liberal cabal of NWO globalists.
Editing by the public is subject to review by a panel of gatekeepers who censor and eliminate anything not conforming to their agenda.
Just from my experience in modifying a science topic:
basic scientific data that is neutral to the agenda is published. But any deviation from the party line is usually given death by attrition - an endless cycle of exchanges involving rewrites and objections until the issue is dead.
Just so you know..

Quote from: cassini

Of importance to the subject matter is that one knows what was defined as formal heresy and what was not. It was a fixed sun that is the formal heresy because it contradicts Holy Scripture and its reading by all the Fathers. ......

1- We see here then the heresy is confined to the belief in a fixed sun. The position of the earth does not have any heretical complications, only right or wrong in faith.
The term geocentrism is given to the universe with the earth at the centre around which the sun, moon and stars turn. In other words it does represent the biblical moving sun as well as the earth at the centre of the universe.
The term heliocentrism is given to the universe that has the sun fixed around which the earth and planets orbit. In other words it represents the order that contains the heresy and the 'errors to faith.

2- So why Cassander(sic), do you you say the term geocentrism is a red herring.

3- Moreover, to be at the centre does not mean a mathematical centre, simply at the centre of the working universe.

4- What I would like is an explanation as to what exactly is "erroneous in faith.”

1- Judging by the initial postings, the theme of this thread seems to be more a concern over personal guilt re GC than its heretical import.
I doubt any reader has read the GF verses, rejected their truth and promoted GC to the faithful as contrary to the deposit of faith.
Anyway, the role of the intellect and will in determining the degree of sinful culpability re GC has already been covered in a previous post.

2- ge·o·cen·tric (je'o-sen'trik) adj.
G- the middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circuмference or surface....the Geometrical/mathematical meaning
A- the point from which an activity or process is directed, ....the Active sense
P- the point upon which an activity or process is focused, .....the Passive sense

Wisdom 13:2 says,

Quote

.....but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the CIRCLE of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.

This would imply that the Earth is the center of the stellar circle, a mathematical intent.

But the geometrical G sense only became an issue with the Copernican revolt
...the G meaning is much more common in dictionaries than the A and P sense. 'geofocussed' would be a better choice than geocentric for the Earth's centrality, containing all 3 semantic contents. Or 'geocentral'...
central adjective
- of, at, or forming the center.
- of the greatest importance; principal or essential.

As used today GC ignores the A and P meanings and implies only a physical center which is ambiguous and a category error.
'geocentric' also does not include immobility, whose verse permeate Scripture. Immobility and centrality are indepenent concepts; a car wheel's axle can be moving....or not.
What scientific test would affirm that Earth is the center of tthe universe?
All in all ...a red herring
Geovariance - the discovery that the laws of motion are only obeyed on Earth - supports the Earth's immobility and centrality - in the Passive sense.

3- Did the Magisterium define 'at the centre does not mean a mathematical centre, simply at the centre of the working universe.'?
Is the meaning of the 'working universe's center' the passive sense of 'center'?

4- 'Erroneous in faith'? What is the context for this Magisterial question?...I never used it, to my failing recall.

AMDG

happenby · « **Reply #214 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:59:10 PM »

300 Proofs earth IS a sphere. Flat earth debunked.

cassini · « **Reply #215 on:** October 01, 2016, 11:40:49 AM »

Wisdom 13:2 says,

Quote:
.....but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the CIRCLE of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.

This would imply that the Earth is the center of the stellar circle, a mathematical intent.

Excellent point Cassandar, it would indeed.

Cassandar · « **Reply #216 on:** October 01, 2016, 09:39:56 PM »

Quote from: geremia

Geostaticism is the term I've seen scholars (e.g., Galileo expert Maurice Finnochiaro) use.

This word can be confused with geostatistics ..and statics has a different meaning in physics than immovable.

There's no single word in common usage to correctly express the Earth's centrality and immobility.... the proper name to use is open to suggestions.

Quote from: cassini

..........
1- Now from 1905 the world of science has admitted H was never proven nor G falsified.
....
2- Relative motion was the best science could offer, with H & G only scientific possibilities.
.....
3- But why did Churchmen continue 'accepting' heliocentrism and the error that the 1616 decree had been falsified after 1905?
.....

1- In my world of science there are many who deny HC was never proven (even though the Big Bang is the current favorite) or claim GC was falsified.
There are the liberal mainstream masters who revel in their power and control over what science is to be believed....and then the herd of sheep that follow them in invincible ignorance.
Contradicted by Revelation, philosophical realism and the scientific method, machts nichts - they slide further into the moral abyss.

2- Relative motion has been refuted for dynamical predictions from the laws of physics. Only GF is scientifically possible.

Why doesn't MS physics believe this?...after all, the experimental evidence satisfies the sci. method.
Because it would destroy the fable that Galileo proved the Church was wrong. Led by the prince of darkness they have chosen to love the darkness rather than the Light.

3- Intimidation certainly was a factor then as it is today. Christ and the early Christians stood up to mocking and ridicule; why can't the clerics of today?
In fact the early Christians lived every day, hiding in fear of the Jєωs.....cf. St.John
Same as they today, cassini.

Quote from: happenby

.....
Quote from: Cassandar

..speaking of debunking... the floating ships on the horizon, beyond the curvature horizon, are well- known optical effects of temperature inversion. A layer of warm air over a cold one bends the light path(refraction) to form images that are beyond the horizon.

Bahahaha! Not a prayer. Temperature inversion? Warm air over cold? Smoke and mirrors? What rock did you dig this up from under? It has long ago been proven by many (including me) in every condition imaginable that ships that seemingly disappear great distances from a viewer have not disappeared behind the curve, rather, cameras zooming in prove ships to be visible on the horizon long after they "disappear". Without the help of the camera, it is ASSUMED the ship went below the curve because the unaided eye is unable to see it beyond a certain point. This is the kind of easy to find information you should check first before attempting to discuss something like flat earth.

Logically FE would be ignored using realism and the scientific method...But the FE folks don't subscribe to objective facts or reasoning. And the attempt to associate FE with the Earth's immobility and centrality makes it an annoying pest that distracts from the truth.
Links to the truth can be given - as below - but FE fans would just ignore them.
Here's an easy to find fact that makes FE disappear over the logical horizon.
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/supmirg2.gif
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm

It really is true - Empty barrels make the most noise.

It seems time for turnabout - where's that Hide button?
btw: Kudos for winning the MIB award - Most Ignored By votes

AMDG

Cassandar · « **Reply #217 on:** October 03, 2016, 11:24:55 PM »

Quote from: Cassandar

.......
Here is correctly described a branch of mechanics called kinematics - the study of physical measurement using distance, speed, acceleration....and time. Relative motion in kinematics is as certain as 2+2 = 4.
BUT... Dynamics is the branch of physics that PREDICTS future motion based on kinematics, mass and forces. In dynamics the laws of motion (Newton and Maxwell) only correctly predict future motion if the Earth (lab/ground) is used as a reference frame for an observer! Newton's Bucket anomaly and his 2nd law are examples of the uniqueness of the Earth in applying the laws of natural motion.
It is dynamics that reveals the Earth as the only immovable platform from which trajectories can be foretold...
Although this uniqueness is easily made manifest, the mainstream demagogues of physics ignore the facts in fear of the consequences:
- the Church was right and Galileo/Copernicus were wrong
- the Big Bang and relativity -special and general - are a colossal hoax ...bigger than 9/11
- the centrality and immobility of Earth can mean only one thing... the God denied by the modern atheists EXISTS.

Quote from: happenby

1- Where on earth are you getting the idea that mass and force aren't included in kinematics? Where do you think the motions are being calculated from?

2- Your statement that the laws of motion are only correct if the Earth is used as a reference frame is patently false. Shifting between frames of reference is trivial. There is nothing in "dynamics" as you call it which requires any given frame of reference.

3- Also, what you call dynamics is encompassed under my original statements.

4- Also, calling relativity a "colossal hoax" is colossally ignorant. There's a reason the theory of relativity is held up as virtually untouchable.

5- It correctly predicted numerous previously unknown phenomena, many of which no one would have even thought to look for if they hadn't been predicted by said theory.

6- The original example is the bending of light around the sun so that stars behind it can be seen "through" it during an eclipse.

7- There are many others like that. When a model correctly predicts complex phenomena, it's a pretty sure sign that the model is working, and so it becomes a scientific "law".
...............

1- Here's where I get my facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics

Quote

Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively "particles"), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion.

Dynamics (mechanics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_(mechanics)

Quote

Dynamics is a branch of applied mathematics (specifically classical mechanics) concerned with the study of forces and torques and their effect on motion, as opposed to kinematics, which studies the motion of objects without reference to its causes.

2- As posted before...and obviously ignored -

Quote

The geovariant law of dynamics solves the rotational paradox of Newton's Bucket , proposed in the 1687 Principia and unsolved....until now.
For a description of NB....but not a solution, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument

In the lab frame of Newton the centrifugal force law correctly predicts a curved water surface, since he sees the water moving in a circle.
The core of the NB anomaly is that an observer co-moving with the bucket (the bucket's rest frame of reference) will predict a flat surface , contrary to fact, using the Centrifugal Force law, since he sees the water at rest! So the laws of rotational physics - the CF law, in this case- only are valid in the lab/Earth frame!
This is GeoVariance, not covariance...and the exposing of relativity as only valid for kinematics...i.e., for measurement of relative motion.

GV also holds for linear dynamics...
A car heading north accelerates past a hitch-hiker.
The driver of the car (accelerating in the lab frame) feels inertial forces pushing him into the seat, as predicted by Newton’s 2nd law..F = ma.
We have all experienced this force.
BUT… the HH feels NO inertial forces, even though the HH is accelerating from the car driver's point of view, so F = ma applied in the car reference frame would predict – FALSELY – that the HH would feel inertial forces, too.

Newton's 2nd law applies only in the ground/Earth/lab frame, just like the CF law in Newton's Bucket.

The proof of geovariance and geostatism has always been right before our eyes, since Newton and Mach debated the philosophical and physical meaning of the NB test. The lovers of darkness, the dark energy and dark matter demagogues, have blinded themselves to the truth.

Contrary to the stiff-necked mavens of mainstream physics, the laws of physical motion ONLY apply for an Earth observer, demolishing relativity's claim as a hypothesis in agreement with testing...as the sci method demands. The immobility of the Earth and its primacy in the universe is restored to its original role, as revealed in Holy Scripture.

3- You have said nothing that distinguishes kinematics form dynamics...force and mass are not even mentioned.

4- Relativity is untouchable, a leper in science...logically, its contradictions make it so.
Relativity is a hoax foisted on the docile dupes by the liberal demagogues . As stated before -

Quote

The two postulates of Special Relativity are
1) Speed of Light(SoL) is constant = c in all reference frames
2) The laws of motion are equivalent in all inertial ref. frames...inertial covariance.
Consider the second logical method ...
#1 is false- from the results of any gas(non-vacuum) interferometer test.
Sol = c +- v, where v is the aether speed
#2 is false from the 2005 Wang Fiber Optic Conveyor test. The results are only valid in the lab/Earth frame ..and aether is dragged along with the conveyor. Sol = c +- v is only true in the lab frame.
Both SR premises are experimentally proven false, so no further consideration of SR is possible. Doing so would be worse than just being wrong.

5- Really? Name three ..and why they are unique evidence of relativity.

6- The Sun is enveloped in the photosphere- a gas of thin plasma which refracts light rays from the stars..
The same effect - refractive bending of light is caused by the Earth's atmosphere. There's nothing that classical physics can't explain about this phenomenon.
Extinction shift

7- When the premises of a theory are false..as shown above for Special Relativiy, then anything based on such an inconsistency is unpredictable. What is True may be T or F. What is F may be T or F...or both!

Suppose we add 1=2 to the rules of arithmetic...a false assumption, just like the false assumptions of SR.

if we add 1=2 and 1=2 we get 2=4 which is F
if we add 1=2 and 2=1 we get 3=3 which is T!

SR also can prove the same fact is T and F! This is perfect for our mainstream masters to weave deceptions and distractions in emulating the
prince of lies.
So experimental proof of SR is worthless!

AMDG