Einstein's Biggest Blunder

[river]

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_24-11-2016-10-12-58

Also , if you get Netflix , go to documenties and view the doc. Called : Einstein's Biggest Blunder .

Fascinating

river

 

[paddoboy]

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_24-11-2016-10-12-58

Also , if you get Netflix , go to documenties and view the doc. Called : Einstein's Biggest Blunder .

Fascinating

river

from your article......
"Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test"

Let us know how this hypothetical turns out, OK?

 

[river]

from your article......
"Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test"

Let us know how this hypothetical turns out, OK?

Sure

But if you get Netflix , watch the doc. Go about 16 minutes in , then go from there.

river

 

[exchemist]

Actually, this is interesting because, so far as I am aware (open to correction by cosmologists of course), the only reason we have for thinking the laws of nature have been constant in time is Ockham's Razor, i.e. hitherto there has never been evidence to the contrary so it has been an unnecessary extra hypothesis to suppose they may have not been constant.

If there is now a testable prediction as to whether this may be true or false, it will be very interesting to see the answer. Imperial College is not a Mickey Mouse institution, so this is evidently quite a serious proposal.

But speaking of a "blunder" by Einstein is silly, since Ockham's Razor is a normal implicit practice in building scientific theories.

 

[timojin]

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_24-11-2016-10-12-58

Also , if you get Netflix , go to documenties and view the doc. Called : Einstein's Biggest Blunder .

Fascinating

river

He did not give acknowledgment to his wife , his wife was also a physicist

 

[river]

He did not give acknowledgment to his wife , his wife was also a physicist

Fair enough , but this gets away from the point of the video .

 

[river]

I did have to laugh in this video .

They have a chalk board in the bathroom for crying out loud

 

[river]

It could be that the speed of light was faster in the beginning of BB , than it is now .

Interesting thinking .

 

[river]

If the speed of light varies , then conservation of energy principle is broken .

 

[river]

The new theory could bring back Einstein's concept of lambda, the cosmological constant .

Making as a consequence , repulsive gravity .

 

[river]

The drop in the speed of light causes the BB .

Watch the video from netflix for more details .

 

[paddoboy]

Actually, this is interesting because, so far as I am aware (open to correction by cosmologists of course), the only reason we have for thinking the laws of nature have been constant in time is Ockham's Razor, i.e. hitherto there has never been evidence to the contrary so it has been an unnecessary extra hypothesis to suppose they may have not been constant.

And of course because, it has predicted many validated effects since that momentous year in 1905 that we call Einstein's "Annus mirabilis" year, which obviously is based on the consistency of "c",

If there is now a testable prediction as to whether this may be true or false, it will be very interesting to see the answer. Imperial College is not a Mickey Mouse institution, so this is evidently quite a serious proposal.

Interesting indeed.

But speaking of a "blunder" by Einstein is silly, since Ockham's Razor is a normal implicit practice in building scientific theories.

Actually anyway, his biggest blunder, in his own words was the CC in his GR theory of 1916, which now has been shown to possibly not be a blunder at all, with observations of DE.

 

[river]

And of course because, it has predicted many validated effects since that momentous year in 1905 that we call Einstein's "Annus mirabilis" year, which obviously is based on the consistency of "c",

Interesting indeed.

Actually anyway, his biggest blunder, in his own words was the CC in his GR theory of 1916, which now has been shown to possibly not be a blunder at all, with observations of DE.

We shall see , can you not get netflix pad ?

 

[river]

By the by ; the Universe does not come from nothing .

Not surprised ; but others will be .

 

[exchemist]

And of course because, it has predicted many validated effects since that momentous year in 1905 that we call Einstein's "Annus mirabilis" year, which obviously is based on the consistency of "c",

Interesting indeed.

Actually anyway, his biggest blunder, in his own words was the CC in his GR theory of 1916, which now has been shown to possibly not be a blunder at all, with observations of DE.

I think his biggest blunder was to say God does not play dice. He does, apparently.

 

[river]

I'm watching the video now , what happened " before BB " , Prof. John Webb , is using Quasars , the most distant objects we can see.

How though is light absorded through gas clouds ?

The light interacts with electrons , the spectra looked different from the most distant clouds .

The electrons were different or the speed of light was greater in the distant past .

 

[paddoboy]

I think his biggest blunder was to say God does not play dice. He does, apparently.

Einstein’s despite his own connection/s with the establishment of quantum mechanics, had trouble accepting the total, rather bizarre randomness and chance that quantum mechanics gave us, as opposed to the generally observed
measurable quatities of the universe/spacetime, explaining the above quote by exchemist..

 

[river]

Lamdba makes a come back ( time in the video , 41:47 )

The cosmological constant connects changes in the speed of light with origins of the Universe .

Lamdba ( cosmological constant ) pushes things apart rather than together .

Super Nova , thought that were evidence of a slow down of the Universe , however ; to the contrary ; the Universe is speeding up ; the balance is being upset .

A new force in the vacuum of space ; the data resurrects Einstein's cosmological constant ; spacetime is " humming " with energy ; the connection is the made with this energy and the speed of light ; the energy is dependent on the speed of light .

Light speed slows , the energy in the vacuum drops ; the second thing cosmological constant promotes changes in the speed of light , drops in value ; change in the vacuum can drop the speed of light ; this reduces the energy that the vacuum can hold ; forces energy out of the vacuum ; into ordinary matter and radiation ; is this the genisis of the Universe ?

What happened before BB ? Before BB is not nothing , it is the cosmological constant ; full of energy in a vacuum ; these energies change the speed of light , drops the speed of light ; the consequence is that the cosmological constant drops as well ; that energy goes into all the matter of the Universe ; causing another BB .

The speed of light is what causes a BB .

In the begining there was a void ; the void was not nothing ; there was light and the light changed ; the void pushs all things away . The void is not nothing .

The Universe , is infinite . One BB after another .

The experiment to prove all this is yet to come .

 

[paddoboy]

The experiment to prove all this is yet to come .

Agreed, otherwise still simply speculative physics at best, like so many others that have attempted to invalidate SR/GR and/or the BB.

 

[river]

Agreed, otherwise still simply speculative physics at best, like so many others that have attempted to invalidate SR/GR and/or the BB.

He just took Einstein's cosmological constant to a new level .

The speed of light could be variable .