Example: the speed of light
Does anyone have an example of something produced that would consistent in time?
These days people are messing with the speed of light
Did not know that. Learned something new.
Keynesians are consistently wrong, if that counts.
proven physics theories
The physics establishment is quite corrupt, and most of the physics in the past 100 years has been all inputs, no outputs.
One may dare even say that even commonly held physics theories are not entirely true.
Village Idiot Question: If the gravitational force by the moon is so strong that it revolves around the earth, how come that force fails to pull a refrigerator magnet off the refrigerator. How is the force of a refrigerator magnet stronger?
Well, gravitational forces usually deal with huge, massive objects. It isn’t really studied when it comes to small objects that are both inside of the same atmosphere. And a magnetic force is a lot different because it isn’t determined by mass and radius. Magnetic forces are very strong because they’re determined by each object’s electric charge, whereas gravitation is the weakest of what physicists call the “fundamental interactions”. It’s kind of difficult to fully explain the constrasts between electromagnetism, gravity, and weak/strong interactions, but they just don’t affect each other the same way. It’s sad that I had to learn this stuff for medical school.
I would like to see evidence of black holes. Pun intended.
No one has a practical example of something that is consistent in time?
formal/logical truths?
Village idiot indeed.
To Prateek Sanjay,
The physics establishment is quite corrupt, and most of the physics in the past 100 years has been all inputs, no outputs.
One may dare even say that even commonly held physics theories are not entirely true.
Village Idiot Question: If the gravitational force by the moon is so strong that it revolves around the earth, how come that force fails to pull a refrigerator magnet off the refrigerator. How is the force of a refrigerator magnet stronger?
Quote
If I were you, I wouldn’t advertise the schools in which I studied physics. I’m not sure climate studies included any physics, but it is in climate data and reporting in which corruption primarily entered what is reported to be science, and is fairly limited to that area. One shouldn’t judge all science by the politicing surrounding climate studies. Do you also believe man never set foot on the moon?
Today there are 4 knownprimary forces: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, magnetism, and gravity. The formulas applicable to these forces include many other variables, such as distance and time, etc. All these formulas still hold true for the scales in which they were studied and to which they apply. By the way, the magnetic field force set up between the magnet and the refrigerater shell is stronger than the force of gravity on the magnet. That should be obvious. Forces differ in strength. The first two forces mentioned are stronger than the second two, and the third is stronger than the fourth.
In time new forces will probably be discovered; I hope we keep learning. But those future discoveries will be very unlikely to invalidate past proven theories.
Are you serious? I don’t see any sarcasm tags so I’m not sure what to make of this.
There’s plenty of things in the Physics communit to remain skeptical about because they are by nature, speculative. A lot their theories are entirely mathematical without direct observation and data like string theory, dark matter/dark energy, but if you don’t understand the difference between magnetism and gravity, I’m not sure what to tell you.
No such thing exists. “Consistent in time” = “lasts FOREVER”. Proving that something (anything) will last forever (never change, or never cease to exist in its current form) is impossible. Panta rei.
Z.
Heraclitus believed that the phenomenon of change was ‘ever permanent’
I thought about it the moment I wrote “Panta rei”. I guess concepts (like “change”, “something”, “not nothing”) could be thought of as “permanent”. Then again, isn’t their permanency dependent on the permanency of the minds/brains that conjure them?
Z.
Do you think there was no change in the universe until the first mind emerged from primordial soup? if so, how could a mind emerge from primordial soup?
I concede: Change IS permanent.
paradox !
fun with philosophy
Although, nothingness may be even more permanent than change. If everything disappears and there’s absolutely nothing, then even change ceases to exist.
[edit: And the plot thickens…]