🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:36:20 UTC No. 16495002
Isn't the speed of light being the limit evidence for and not against absolute reference frame?
The absolute frame of reference being the electromagnetic field itself.
And speed of things being limited because as you go faster and faster you keep catching up to your own radiation and since physical and chemical interactions of matter are mediated by this very same radiation things start to go "bad" due to experienced frequencies getting close to infinity...
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:33:02 UTC No. 16495336
>Isn't the speed of light being the limit evidence for and not against absolute reference frame?
>The absolute frame of reference being the electromagnetic field itself.
You are stuck in the 1880s. This is exactly the idea of the ether as being some medium in which EM waves propagate and which defines an absolute reference frame. The Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to find the motion of the earth with respect to this absolute reference frame but found no evidence of an "ether wind" in any direction. The idea of special relativity is that you can get rid of the idea of an absolute reference frame associated to the ether and still have the speed of light being constant as long as you change the basic laws of physics.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:11:02 UTC No. 16495468
>>16495336
Michelson-Morley experiment is like trying to measure speed of a car using Doppler effect while both speaker and receiver are attached to the very same car.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:26:07 UTC No. 16495493
>>16495468
In an oversimplified way, sure. What's your point?
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:37:58 UTC No. 16495596
>>16495002
probably.
gravity waves are the exact same as aether waves
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:56:00 UTC No. 16495620
>>16495002
Also, isn't it curious that velocities of macroscopic objects are mostly locally uniform in the universe?
Like you don't usually see large objects passing each other closely at relativistic speeds.
Shouldn't they be fairly common since space is mostly empty and such fast moving object wouldn't have enough "time" to get gravitationally attracted into crashing into another?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 04:26:17 UTC No. 16495857
>>16495336
Don't waste my time with your retarded parroting. You don't even understand the most basic concepts. You are not better than ChatGPT.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 04:40:07 UTC No. 16495869
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 04:55:36 UTC No. 16495878
>>16495620
That's one of the arguments against the current Big Bang model. When looking billions of light years out there's too much large scale structure, which needed a ton of time to collapse into patterns we can point out.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 13:31:27 UTC No. 16496150
>>16495336
Michelson Morley actually proved the Earth isn’t moving just like airy’s failure did before it. Einstein just made up some crazy pseudoscientific nonsense because he was philosophically committed to The Copernican principle.