Mosha
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,804 
Likes: 3,013
Member is Online
|
Post by Mosha on Nov 30, 2016 8:03:01 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Soutpeel on Dec 2, 2016 10:25:08 GMT 7
a bit simpleton on this sort of stuff, but it makes perfect sense to me that the speed of light is in fact a variable, simply because speed is function of time and its been proven that time is variable, therefore the speed of light cannot be constant |
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Dec 2, 2016 15:45:03 GMT 7
Of course Einstein was wrong. That's absolutely fundamental the the scientific process. A model is only temporary, and only stands until there is a weight of evidence that an alternative model is better. (And acceptance of that model usually takes time.)
Newtonian mechanics is absolutely find for every day life. Einstein only provided a refinement that is relevant only in extreme circumstances (e.g. close to the speed of light).
This new model may or may not be a refinement, and probably shouldn't be discounted. And in time there will be an alternative model that renders Einstein wrong - we just don't have it yet. And in time that alternative will be superseded.
See Thomas S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for further explanation. Read it back in the late '70s and it changed my understanding of scientific progress permanently.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Dec 2, 2016 16:09:30 GMT 7
Of course Einstein was wrong. That's absolutely fundamental the the scientific process. A model is only temporary, and only stands until there is a weight of evidence that an alternative model is better. (And acceptance of that model usually takes time.) Newtonian mechanics is absolutely find for every day life. Einstein only provided a refinement that is relevant only in extreme circumstances (e.g. close to the speed of light). This new model may or may not be a refinement, and probably shouldn't be discounted. And in time there will be an alternative model that renders Einstein wrong - we just don't have it yet. And in time that alternative will be superseded. See Thomas S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for further explanation. Read it back in the late '70s and it changed my understanding of scientific progress permanently. Your logic is not quiet straight here. 'Einstein was wrong', 'in time ... alternative ... renders Einstein wrong'. |
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Dec 2, 2016 16:55:50 GMT 7
Of course Einstein was wrong. That's absolutely fundamental the the scientific process. A model is only temporary, and only stands until there is a weight of evidence that an alternative model is better. (And acceptance of that model usually takes time.) Newtonian mechanics is absolutely find for every day life. Einstein only provided a refinement that is relevant only in extreme circumstances (e.g. close to the speed of light). This new model may or may not be a refinement, and probably shouldn't be discounted. And in time there will be an alternative model that renders Einstein wrong - we just don't have it yet. And in time that alternative will be superseded. See Thomas S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for further explanation. Read it back in the late '70s and it changed my understanding of scientific progress permanently. Your logic is not quiet straight here. 'Einstein was wrong', 'in time ... alternative ... renders Einstein wrong'. Unless your point is about "in time", there's nothing dodgy about the logic. All scientific theories are wrong because future, more refined, thinking (probably based upon more evidence and/or considering more extreme cases) will invalidate them. |
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Dec 2, 2016 18:37:56 GMT 7
Your logic is not quiet straight here. 'Einstein was wrong', 'in time ... alternative ... renders Einstein wrong'. Unless your point is about "in time", there's nothing dodgy about the logic. All scientific theories are wrong because future, more refined, thinking (probably based upon more evidence and/or considering more extreme cases) will invalidate them. 'are wrong' and 'will invalidate' Well since my crystal ball is on the blink I'll wait till 'now actually invalidated' occurs  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 20:18:51 GMT 7
Of course Einstein was wrong. That's absolutely fundamental the the scientific process. A model is only temporary, and only stands until there is a weight of evidence that an alternative model is better. (And acceptance of that model usually takes time.) Newtonian mechanics is absolutely find for every day life. Einstein only provided a refinement that is relevant only in extreme circumstances (e.g. close to the speed of light). This new model may or may not be a refinement, and probably shouldn't be discounted. And in time there will be an alternative model that renders Einstein wrong - we just don't have it yet. And in time that alternative will be superseded. See Thomas S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for further explanation. Read it back in the late '70s and it changed my understanding of scientific progress permanently. What are you saying AyG ? That he was "no Einstein" ?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 20:19:49 GMT 7
The Poynting vector after the big bang would have been a lot more dense, therefore any electro magnetic, radiant or luminous flux values would be significantly different than today.
Therefore my conclusion based on zero scientific tests or evidence is, indeed the speed of light being electro magnetic in nature, traveled at a different speed after the big bang.
It also cost me zero money to come to that conclusion.
Mango Luke - 2016
|
|
