Didn't he consider the Michelson-Morley experiment proof that the Earth is not moving?

Well, if he did say that, and I don't remember him saying that, I think that would be way out of character for him. If he did say it, I can almost be positive that he said it in the context wherein you cannot prove which system is correct from within the system. You have to go outside the system and take a look and see which one's working. He used to say that to me, and I couldn't disagree with him. That is correct. Because if you can show that both can work, then you've just consigned yourself to the fact that you will never be able to tell which one is the actual system. And you could put a lot of other experiments in there too. You could say, how about the Airy? That's another good one. If we were going to be forced to say, OK, what's your proof? We could point to them. What would we have to do to the rest of the experiment? Well, what you'd have to do is say that the experimental apparatus somehow contracted when you were doing the experiment, because that's what they use. The Earth contracted by 0.03 inches, the Michelson-Morley apparatus contracted by a couple of microns, so that the light beam didn't have as far to travel to the detector. And if it didn't have as far to travel, then it would look like the Earth was still moving. You can show that pretty easily to someone who wants to understand the experiment. And they insist that theirs is a legitimate solution to Michelson-Morley. Now, I look at that and I say, you've got to be kidding. That you really think that the apparatus itself decreased in length, decreased in its dimensions? Do you really believe that? And they really believe it, despite the evidence that their view is wrong. Here's another problem we have with being men. We have pride, prejudice, fame, fortune, prestige, status that all get in the way of these two eyes looking at reality. And it's a shame, but there are so many things that get in the way of us knowing what the truth is that I sometimes wonder how we ever arrive at truth or a semblance of truth. Because when I take a look at what some men do to escape the truth, so that they can have the fame, the fortune, the money, the prestige, the status, I hardly can trust a man to tell me the truth, really. When I think of all the things that bombard him to tell a lie. That's where the hard part comes in. It's not so much the experiments. It's the man himself. I have dozens of stories I can tell you. One of my favorites is Edwin Hubble, who's looking up at the telescope and he sees that there's a redshift in the galaxies. How are we going to explain that? So he says, how am I going to get out of this? So he tells you what his motivation is up front. It's to get away from the geocentric universe. So if that's his motivation, can you trust anything he says? No, is the answer. Because he's always going to make it come out to a non-geocentric universe. And he has the power to do it. He's got the position, the prestige, the money, the government behind him. He's got the math, the knowledge of physics, he's got it all. And he could twist it any way he wants. And that's what he did. And so that's why they believe in the Big Bang today. Very simple. The science will always come to the surface. It will always show itself, and it's just a matter of finding it, that's all. But the interpretation that's put on it based on the agendas that are behind it, that's what worries me.