What is Gravity?

[Valo]

say it ain't so!

It ain't so. Sorry.

Q: 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?

Simple, 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.

and

Q: 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.

General 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.

If physicist did not make up fairytales for the wealthy to buy into they'd have no way of earning a paycheck.

[Valo]

Current physics is not a "convoluted mess of models". It's a lean and elegant structure with few assumptions. It only seems convoluted if you don't know enough math. It does have a big problem reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No mere phrases and images about aether annihilating will solve that problem.

Words and pictures are not theories. They are only crude descriptions of theories. You need to have equations. If you don't have equations, the problem is not that you're wrong. It's that you are not even saying anything. You are doodling spaceships with scribbly fire trails and thinking that this means you have a fleet of real rockets.

The equations of General Relativity can be solved to reveal concrete, numerically precise predictions. They say for example that planets will orbit the sun in ellipses that very slowly swivel around the sun, like a Spirograph drawing, at a rate that in the case of Mercury works out to 43 arc-seconds per century. And Mercury's orbit does do that. The tiny effect has been measured precisely.

The apparent position in the sky of a star will shift slightly over the course of a year as the path the star's light has to take to us passes closer or farther from the sun: General Relativity says exactly how much the star angles shift, and the Hipparcos satellite measured a whole bunch of such shifts and found agreement with GR to three decimal places.

The list is long. You Wicker Man fans are proud to claim a single prediction of a two-digit number; General Relativity has many much more precise predictions to its credit. Can your mumbo-jumbo about aether compete with that? Can it predict any observable effects to three-digit precision or more? Does it even reproduce the things we've known for centuries, like elliptical orbits under Kepler's Laws?

If you don't have equations then you do not have a theory. You just have fantasies about having a theory.

viewtopic.php?p=2861509#p2861509

[Physics Guy]

Yes, General Relativity needs some kind of improvement. Without equations, though, you are not going beyond General Relativity. You are failing to come up as high as its boot heels.

Can you derive Kepler's Laws from your theory? That would at least be a start, matching the physics of 1687. Then we can start seeing how well you measure up to the physics of 1916. Compute the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury—that's a good first test.

If you can reproduce all the successes of General Relativity, then you can start trying to explain how you go beyond it.

[Gadianton]

Simple, 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.

Here's something to think about just from a commonsense standpoint without knowing anything about physics. Do you really think that if these guys who were smart enough to come up with that experiment in the first place -- if all they had to do was imagine aether flowing into the earth, and that would resolve the contradicting results, that they wouldn't have thought of it? Or if not them, Hendrik Lorentz or others grappling with the problem? After all, they were trying to measure aether flow, they believed it moved with respect to earth, but DS is saying they were too stupid to imagine it flowing in a slightly different way than initially thought? If you thought the wind was blowing east, put a windsock in the air and it pointed west, would you be too stupid to conclude that maybe the wind was actually blowing west, consistent with the experiment?

Imagining ether flowing into the earth would NOT make it compatible with their observations. It's already been explained why, one of us will do it again if you don't get there first with your own reading. You should read the full wiki article about Michelson Morley. And then Lorentz-Fitzgerald.

Words and pictures are not theories. They are only crude descriptions of theories. You need to have equations. If you don't have equations, the problem is not that you're wrong. It's that you are not even saying anything. You are doodling spaceships with scribbly fire trails and thinking that this means you have a fleet of real rockets.

LOL! oh man, "real physics professor responds to self-proclaimed prophet." That's got to sting. I imagine the DS has a major fragile ego.

I have a bachelors degree in Applied Physics.

that's freaking awesome.

[Valo]

Yes, General Relativity needs some kind of improvement. Without equations, though, you are not going beyond General Relativity. You are failing to come up as high as its boot heels.

Can you derive Kepler's Laws from your theory? That would at least be a start, matching the physics of 1687. Then we can start seeing how well you measure up to the physics of 1916. Compute the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury—that's a good first test.

If you can reproduce all the successes of General Relativity, then you can start trying to explain how you go beyond it.

hahaha

I don't have to do s h 1 t in order to start trying to explain how to go beyond general relativity. All I have to do is be a BS detector.

Everything's a Scam

[Valo]

Yes, General Relativity needs some kind of improvement. Without equations, though, you are not going beyond General Relativity. You are failing to come up as high as its boot heels.

Can you derive Kepler's Laws from your theory? That would at least be a start, matching the physics of 1687. Then we can start seeing how well you measure up to the physics of 1916. Compute the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury—that's a good first test.

If you can reproduce all the successes of General Relativity, then you can start trying to explain how you go beyond it.

hahaha

I don't have to do s h 1 t in order to start trying to explain how to go beyond general relativity. All I have to do is be a BS detector.

Everything's a Scam

When problem solving, aim to always reduce complexity

Be deliberate in how you curate the media you consume

Think about life as a game – “It’s just another level, another boss, another battle”

Riva has a neon sign that reads “Everything’s a Scam” hanging over her living room

This helps remind her that you really don’t need to be an expert to do great things in life

As Steve Jobs said – “Everything around you that you call ‘life’ was made up by people who were no smarter than you”

“Social media gives everybody a voice”

You can gain notoriety and spread ideas simply by using Twitter well

[Physics Guy]

Can you derive Kepler's Laws from your theory?

hahaha

I don't have to do s h 1 t in order to start trying to explain how to go beyond general relativity. All I have to do is be a BS detector.

Everything's a Scam

I'm going to take that as a "No."

Isaac Newton derived Kepler's Laws from his theory of gravity in 1687. The Laws are named for Kepler because he recognised them in 1619, as consistent patterns shown in many years of observations of planets. If you can't derive Kepler's Laws from your theory, you are at least three hundred and fifty years behind the state of the art in gravitational theory.

[Valo]

hahaha

I don't have to do s h 1 t in order to start trying to explain how to go beyond general relativity. All I have to do is be a BS detector.

Everything's a Scam

I'm going to take that as a "No."

"Do as you please, there is no harm to lie a little."

Right?

Habits
https://youtu.be/OzRKVai3y2s?si=aL9dzpCzTWz7QwQ-

[Imwashingmypirate]

Q1Where does the word "edumacated" come from? I've only heard one other person use that word.

It's a made up word as far as I know.

Did you make it up?


The reason I ask is because this is the exact way my dad used this word. And I thought he made it up. But I know you aren't my dad. I've seen your linked in and you are nowhere near him. So I'm just curious if it is a word that is used generally when I've never heard anyone else say it.

[Valo]

It's a made up word as far as I know.

Did you make it up?

No, it was something that came to me in the moment and I went with it!

Question: What is the history of the word "edumacated"

Chatgpt: The word "edumacated" is a playful or colloquial variation of the word "educated." It is often used humorously to imply that someone is educated in a less conventional or formal manner, or to mock someone's level of education.

The exact history of the word "edumacated" is difficult to trace, as it likely emerged gradually over time through informal usage in spoken language and popular culture. It is a humorous alteration of the word "educated," and its use may be influenced by regional dialects, slang, or humorous speech patterns.

The term "edumacated" is often associated with dialects or speech patterns that emphasize humor or exaggeration, and it is commonly used in informal or comedic contexts. Its usage can be found in various forms of popular culture, including comedy sketches, literature, and internet memes.

While the word "edumacated" may not have a specific documented history or origin, its playful and humorous connotations have made it a popular term for describing education in a light-hearted or sarcastic manner.