[sinuhe69]

Michelson’s experiments only proved there is no “Aether”, a supposedly invisible medium to carriers light. It also proved that the speed of light isn’t affected by (relative) movements. In some sense, yes one can say the speed of light of is constant. But in the context of the cosmos, it strictly doesn’t say anything about the speed of light in the past.

[zmgsabst]

LIGO proved there is an aether and density ripples in it change the distance that light travels — as shown by a characteristic oscillation generated by dense objects colliding causing interference between the arms of LIGO.

The reason MM failed to show that light changes speed is because we’re not moving through the aether, but are ourselves aether stuff — and so our own perspective gets equally warped. Since us and the light both change with the relative motion, we can’t see the change.

[oneshtein]

However, LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant, which makes Michelsons's experiment obsolete.

[i_no_can_eat]

The LIGO/VIRGO experiments proved no such thing. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of these experiments.

That the speed of light is constant in vacuum is one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity. The results of LIGO/VIRGO are so far fully compatible with GR.

[oneshtein]

^ This is the problem we are looking for in this discussion.

[i_no_can_eat]

The problem in this discussion is that you don't have an understanding of the concepts involved. You haven't properly understood the LIGO experiments and you clearly know nothing of general relativity. There really is no point in continuing this further.

[oneshtein]

It doesn't looks like you wanted to discuss flaws in GR with a dissident, who, obviously, too stupid to understand GR and SR. You told me that. You did the job. Now, «shut up and calculate».

[i_no_can_eat]

You started this discussion saying "LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant". This is completely absurd, as anyone who works in the field will tell you.

I never said you're too stupid to understand. What I said, and maintain, is that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts involved. If you want to have a proper discussion, you need to first properly study general relativity, and refrain from making ridiculous assertions about things you are obviously not an expert on.