I'm not sure how to reply to this, or the video, at all. You, and the video presenter, simply state things that are false as if they are facts. Yes, the M-M experiment is the most commonly discussed of those experiments. No, it is not taught incorrectly. No, the other experiments are not ignored. (I haven't delved deeply into the Airy's failure, only the M-G experiment.)

No, none of those experiments proved geocentricity. In fact they did the exact opposite. Not sure what's so hard about just reading Wikipedia:

Regarding the M-G experiment:

"As it was already pointed out by Michelson in 1904, a positive result in such experiments contradicts the hypothesis of complete aether drag. On the other hand, the stationary ether concept is in agreement with this result, yet it contradicts (with the exception of Lorentz's ether) the Michelson-Morley experiment. Thus special relativity is the only theory which explains both experiments.[6] The experiment is consistent with relativity for the same reason as all other Sagnac type experiments (see Sagnac effect). That is, rotation is absolute in special relativity, because there is no inertial frame of reference in which the whole device is at rest during the complete process of rotation, thus the light paths of the two rays are different in all of those frames, consequently a positive result must occur. It's also possible to define rotating frames in special relativity (Born coordinates), yet in those frames the speed of light is not constant in extended areas any more, thus also in this view a positive result must occur. Today, Sagnac type effects due to Earth's rotation are routinely incorporated into GPS."

Regarding Airy:

"By means of a water-filled telescope, Airy in 1871 looked for a change in stellar aberration through the refracting water due to an ether drag.[12] Like in all other aether drift experiments, he obtained a negative result."

The original: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56114d/f79.table

Etc.

Where did NASA say it's not CGI?

So, if I wanted to study Astrophysics, at what point in my studies will I be pulled aside and let in on the worldwide Round-Earth conspiracy, and forced to perpetuate it? Does it happen in the first few years of my University Undergraduate program, or is it part of the PhD application/interview process?

Also, what would be my personal motivation for joining in this propaganda campaign? It can't be for the money-- I personally know 3 people, all with PhDs in Astrophysics, and none of them are rich. They went through many, many years of study, and are now professors or research
Scientists with pretty modest salaries. So, are you saying they are all living this lie for no reason? Or that all these YouTube videos completely discredit their independent scientific research? These are not people who are just being spoon-fed their so-called knowledge. They are discovering new planets and black holes and things I can't even understand. Are they all just crazy then?

lol i cant believe you guys are still feeding OP.... i didnt think 2+2 was so gullible.


yumyums

Which part? The actual Mars landing obviously is and no one says otherwise.

Not sure why you are bothering. He's thrown out random numbers left and right and has yet to provide one mathematical proof. I would've banned him by now.

its a LDO hes a long running troll lol

i cant believe people are dumb enough to keep pleasing him while hes rolling around in his chair laughing his balls off and eating all the delicious food people keep throwing him.

Why is it so hard for you to believe there are people who really believe this stuff? There are entire forums dedicated to it. Or are those all just hundreds of trolls talking amongst themselves? I honestly couldn't care less what OP actually believes, there's no convincing him either way, but it's still an interesting topic to me because I actually know someone irl who believes a lot of this crap, so I've heard these theories before and probably will again.

Citanul, i don't know why you're bothering. He doesn't actually understand on the most shallow level anything he's referencing, and as soon as this is pointed out, he just posts a new youtube.

I mean earlier he posted a video about how planes wouldn't be able to land on a rotating earth because the earth would rotate faster than the plane and the plane would miss the runway. You can't really argue against that kind of ignorance, especially by talking about things that are way, way, way over his head.

not saying those people dont exist, this guy just isnt one of them.

hes just trololololing

Weve gotten to a point where the simple, observable, understandable model of the universe is no longer en vogue and we have a gigantic universe and theories to accompany it. It all changed when Copernicus wanted to create a Heliocentric universe based on the infinitely distant stars of Hipparchus. The building blocks of those assumptions are faulty and without evidence and more and more math and theory are created to hold them up to where we're now at a point that the theory of relativity is the explanation and can barely be explained.

It's a lot like string theory where first it was one dimension, then 9, then 200+, etc etc. When the models get proven false new math is invented to make it all work. Your friends are working on models that rely on a lot of ridiculous math and ideas to hold everything together. They arent in the know, theyre just essentially working on make believe.

Please explain how the spin of the Earth has not been observed or measured when it should be easy to do so.

When something is proven to be false, or unverified, new models are created.

When your claims are proven to be false, or unsubstantiated, you bury your head in the sand and post a new youtube.

First let's talk about the plane thing - do you think that is a reasonable conclusion of a spinning earth? That planes would not be able to land?

So NASA uses CGI and digital alterations an overwhelming amount of the time, so much so that there's only two videos theyve released to claim to not be CGI. And that doesnt raise your eyebrows and make you put on your thinking cap?

Please explain why you believe this when the opposite is true.

How can I answer this question when the spin of the Earth cannot be detected at any level of plane flight? Mathematically adjustments could be made to account for a spinning earth and pilots could land to compensate, however those arent made as they arent necessary because there is no spin.

Post video evidence of it spinning. Like I said all experimental tests done to measure it proved no spinning. No visual proof, no scientific proof.

Ok, but this is a demonstrably false claim your video makes - that on a rotating earth, it literally would not be possible to land the plane due to the rotation of the earth. Hence, no rotation.

So do you believe that is a reasonable refutation of a spinning earth?

No adjustments are made because none are necessary.

Say you are on top of a moving train and you leap into the air. Do you fly backwards?

Now use that noggin of yours and try to see what I'm getting at here.

First of all, the "only two videos" part is demonstrably false.

As far as using CGI demonstrations, what's the issue? It takes billions in funding, decades of planning, and upwards of a decade of spacecraft travel time to reach other planets. We only started all this a few decades ago. Meanwhile, any CS student can whip up a CGI demonstration in an afternoon using readily available open-source tools and play it on their phone for their friends the next day. Are we really supposed to be surprised that CGI videos outnumber actual videos from Neptune? Sorry we didn't have an actual cameraman on the ground on Mars to film that landing for you.

If planes do not take into account a spin both while flying and landing what is more likely, that there is a spin or there isnt?

It's not whether it's possible to make it happen with a spin, it's whether they already do (which they don't).

No adjustments are necessary for the same reason that if you toss a ball straight into the air in a moving car that you don't need to move your hand backwards to adjust for it being displaced by the movement of the car.

Conspiracy nuts are so interesting, they are obviously dumb at some level, but I'd guess they are actually above average (in their respective circles) because they do show curiosity, "critical" thinking etc for a brief period - and then succumb to whatever newsletter gets them first.

I feel a certain connection to them, like I do with religious people; it would be nice to just let go of reason and believe in something big out there. Would also feel pretty good to be a special snowflake again.