andThe Wicker Man wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 10:09 amSimple, their experiment assumed that the Aether would just go around the earth. But it doesn't, it goes through the earth and into the earth and into the matter particles and is annihilated. So if their experiment does not assume the correct details they are not going to arrive at the correct results and they are not going to see what they expected to see.Valo wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 11:13 pmQ: How did the Michelson-Morley experiment disprove the lumineferous ether concept in classical physics?
CHATGPT: The Michelson-Morley experiment aimed to detect the motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, which was thought to be the medium through which light waves propagated. The experiment involved splitting a beam of light and sending it in two perpendicular directions, then recombining the beams to see if there was any interference pattern caused by the Earth's motion through the aether. However, the results consistently showed no interference pattern, suggesting that the speed of light was constant regardless of the direction of motion through the supposed aether medium. This contradicted the prevailing theory at the time and ultimately led to the rejection of the idea of a luminiferous aether.
How would you respond to the results of this experiment?
The Wicker Man wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 10:21 amGeneral relativity is pure bunk. Take the underlying equation for example, E = MC^2. If C is a constant then how can C be squared and have meaning. What if the speed of light is defined as 1 of something then E = MC^2 would be just E = M1. And besides the speed of light is not a constant. It travels faster in deep space because the aether is under more pressure in deep space. So E = MC^2 is just a useful approximation. In other words it is a very big number that was useful in creating the atomic bomb. E = MC^2 is otherwise meaningless.Valo wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 11:25 pmQ: Does general relativity explain the behavior of light at all known levels of magnification or in all known context?
Chatgpt: General relativity provides a comprehensive framework for understanding gravity and the behavior of massive objects, including light, on large scales such as planetary motion, galaxy dynamics, and gravitational lensing. However, on very small scales, such as those encountered in quantum mechanics, general relativity breaks down and is incompatible with quantum mechanics. This is where a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe the behavior of gravity and light at extremely small scales, such as those encountered near black holes or during the early moments of the universe. So while general relativity explains the behavior of light in many contexts, it is not the complete picture, and a unified theory that combines general relativity with quantum mechanics is still a topic of ongoing research.
If physicist did not make up fairytales for the wealthy to buy into they'd have no way of earning a paycheck.