[CPT ArkAngel]

The fact that the causal order of events is the same for all observers, even though the events may not be in the same order seems to impose a reference as Alan says. I like to think that the space we perceive is from space-time while there is some kind of spatial relations which link everything within a Planck time. As there is no energy involved, it wouldn't break relativity of space-time. This could be useful to explain entanglement. Some kind of projections maintaining the calendar under the hood...

[CPT ArkAngel]

This space projections could respect the speed of light if all matter is within a Planck length without the projections, as the speed of light is Lp / Tp.

[cleanair (OP)]

I  look forward to an explanation of the historical context in which rain isn't wet.

It is about the meaning that is derived from that observation. Besides the fact that rain by itself does not need to be considered wet, when it affects the human world, it can be perceived as causing wetness and as such be referenced as wet.

The observation makes it possible to consider that rain is wet and that it is a hard truth.

At question is whether such observations can be a guiding principle for human progress, for example as a fundament for a synthetic biology revolution.

The idea that rain causes wetness is based on a observation, an actionable event of the past with a result that is documented and accepted in the human realism.

It may be that when nature would change, that rain does not cause wetness in the same way that previously has been observed.

If science would be used as a guiding principle by itself, there would be a potential flaw that could have disastrous consequences. It could cause unwanted attempts to stubbornly hold on to the idea of how rain should cause wetness, by creating dogma's (e.g. Dark Matter, Dark Energy and upon the discovery that the Hubble constant isn't constant, the suggestion for Dark Radiation) or by trying to change the physics of rain to meet that of how it was observed in the past, considering the new nature of rain to be a symptom of a disease.

How would science react to change of what it assumes to be hard truths that are used for fundamental concepts which may be part of a trillion dollar science endeavor (the synthetic biology revolution, while in it's infancy, is already at 400 billion USD per year in revenue or 2% of US GDP).

If nature would change in time, how would science continue in the best way?

[cleanair (OP)]

Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.

Tautology. Anything not based on observation is called "guesswork" or "lies".

What about imagination?

[alancalverd]

I think it was you who tried to convince me (or a least yourself) some time ago that there was no room for intuition in science. Three sides of the same coin: intuition - a guess that turns out to be right, imagination - a guess that can't be investigated, guesswork - a guess that turns out to be wrong.

[yor_on]

That was some interesting links cleanair. When it comes to Einstein I really doubt he would have let society decide how he thought. One reason being that his ideas still leave people disturbed, as you yourself is a example of.
=

Thinking of it again you should note what your first link state about 'c' " Above I mentioned that alpha is made up of three other constants: α = e2/hc where c is the speed of light, e is the charge of an electron and h is Planck’s constant. Both laymen and scientists alike always ask whether we have any idea whether it’sc, e or h that varies. This frequently asked question has a subtle and often misunderstood answer. But it’s interesting, so read on!

In fact, one can never experimentally distinguish between a varying c or e because these quantities are always measured in some arbitrary units like meters, kilograms, seconds etc. Consider measuring the time it takes light to travel between you and me on Monday and then again on Tuesday. Imagine that the two answers were different. What does this tell you? You might conclude that the speed of light, c, has changed between Monday and Tuesday or, equally well, you could conclude that time has slowed/accelerated or that your measuring rods (i.e. meter rules) have changed length. These three conclusions are all equally valid and can not be distinguished by an experiment! But alpha is special because it is a dimensionless combination of other constants: alpha is just a number, i.e. no units! We can therefore measure changes in alpha unambiguously.

Some confusion has arisen recently in the literature about this question. The problem is that there exist well defined theories called “Varying Speed of Light” (VSL) and “Varying Electric Charge” (VEC) theories. For example, in VSL theories, it is indeed the speed of light that is considered to vary. But this is just a mathematical convenience: one could easily convert any VSL theory into a VEC theory! The only reason one chooses to label one particular theory a VSL or VEC theory is because that theory might look simpler (mathematically and intuitively) when considering a varying c or e. Essentially, the confusion is that the (arbitrary) names given to these theories mask their inherent duality (or triality if you include h!). "

What is mind boggling here is that 'c' is a local constant, not a 'global'. We still use it as a 'global' as there is no locally defined and measured experiment I know of proving it otherwise. Wherever you are you will find 'c' locally, as defined from a uniformly moving platform (Earth f.ex). If you now use this and then reread your links I think relativity still holds.

[cleanair (OP)]

That was some interesting links cleanair. When it comes to Einstein I really doubt he would have let society decide how he thought.

It is remarkable that at the time, there was an alternative theory for redshift (tired light theory) that according to some scientists, is the most plausible theory today [1] [2]. I would expect that Albert Einstein's intuition could have predicted it if it would ultimately be proven to be an accurate theory.

The official story (in magazines) is that Albert Einstein was not a fan of his theory and was forced to admit that he made a mistake due to observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The existence of an alternative theory for explaining redshift combined with the recently recovered papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory (and in which he habitually misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble as Hubbel in 1931) could refute that.

Albert Einstein helped to promote the Big Bang theory which is a fact to consider.

As a laymen my question was merely: if there was a good intend, what could that have been? Why could a "creation" story be essential for society and if a lie for the better was chosen, what alternatives could there be in the case of a infinite Universe?

[alancalverd]

From the standpoint of a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer, the earth is obviously flat and the stars revolve around it in a bowl. Everything we see is born and dies or is made by the hand of man, so it's pretty obvious that somebody made the earth, and most creation myths involve something like mammalian birth. Obviously whatever made the earth is bigger than the visible universe, otherwise we'd be able to see it. "Downwards" is all rock, so the creator must live "upwards". And there you have it - a completely rational explanation that still commands a majority opinion today.

[HelpMe929]

Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?
Only if they have a calendar to tell them what they should currently be.
To me, that seems unlikely

Using that argument then space must have a speedometer, otherwise how would know if its accelerating or not?

It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that. I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont. What's so special about stupid old energy  that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too? Maybe I should be asking a clown this question....?

[Kryptid]

It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that.

Entropy doesn't affect the laws of physics because it is a by-product of the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics, in particular.

I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont.

Depends on how you define "chaos" and "lawful". The way in which chaos is defined in terms of entropy requires no change in the laws of physics over time.

What's so special about stupid old energy  that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too?

Because entropy is defined in terms of energy specifically.

[yor_on]

ah F* . How come everyone want to bash Einstein? The problem with him isn't that he is wrong, it's the opposite. We still haven't found a way to pass his theory. And looking at your sources I didn't find anyone in the original paper stating he must be wrong. Do you really understand how revolutionary that would be cleanair? For Einstein to be proved wrong after a hundred years of searching?
=

and before you comment, he did try to find other ways himself, but failed. That was his fifth dimension that he hoped would unify gravity with those other 'forces' we define. He didn't succeed man.

[cleanair (OP)]

I merely cited the sources related to Albert Einstein's "biggest blunder" and the origin of the Big Bang theory as an example of a fundamental idea or belief that may be at question when it would be proven that the laws of physics change in time.

I am merely looking at the facts as a outsider. There are papers submitted to the University in Berlin that mysteriously went missing and that in 2013 were re-discovered in Jeruzalem. The papers show that Albert Einstein actively tried to restore his original theory and habitually called Edwin Hubble "Hubbel" (in 1931, 2 years after Hubble's discoveries).

Some scientists today state that tired light theory for explaining redshift is most likely correct. As a outsider I cannot judge it, but the theory was available at the time of Edwin Hubble's discoveries so when considering that Albert Einstein actively tried to restore his original theory, the fact that the tired light theory was available at that time and may be considered the valid theory today, could imply that Albert Einstein could have had reasonable ground to pursue his original theory at that time. At least it cannot be said that he was forced to admit that he was wrong due to early discoveries by Edwin Hubble.

Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"

However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing.

... (years later)

In putting it together [the paper that went missing] he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html

I merely wonder: if there was a motive, what could it have been? My first idea is that it could have been a good intention, e.g. social stability. In that case there would be other questions: why would a Big Bang theory or creation story be essential for social stability? And what alternative could there be that would be compatible with an accurate search for truth?

With regard to the topic: if it is proven that the laws of physics change in time, what would it imply for humanity? The Big Bang theory and thus a creation story could be at question. The history that shows that Albert Einstein may have made a choice that deviated from truth, may indicate that there is a value at stake.

What would the implications be, for humanity etc., if the laws of nature change in time?

[alancalverd]

The problem with "tired light" is that it doesn't stand up to any experimental test.

The underlying hypothesis is that photons lose energy by collision with space dust over zillions of years. If this were the case, we would see a broadening of spectral lines from all distant sources, since some photons will have interacted with more or less dust than others in transit. Sadly, what we see is usually a red shift with no broadening, and occasionally a blue shift (for which TL has no explanation), again with no broadening.   

What we observe in controlled experiments, to a remarkable degree of precision, is doppler and gravitational shifts "exactly as Einstein predicted". Indeed the predictions are so precise that we trust our lives to them every time we get into an airliner. "We" of course excludes flat-earthers who are scared of falling off the edge, but it does include creationists who, knowing that the earth and everything in it was created in perfect form in 4004 BC, know that it is perfectly safe to fly since airliners have been around for over 6000 years and all that crap about the Wright Brothers is misinformation put about by atheists and devil-worshippers.

Meanwhile, back on the subject, the effect on "humanity etc" (as if humanity was the important bit of the universe!) of a change in the laws of physics would be to pique the interest of physicists and scare the bejasus out of everyone else. Depending, of course, on the nature, sign and magnitude of the change.

[cleanair (OP)]

The problem with "tired light" is that it doesn't stand up to any experimental test.

There appears to be recent evidence that the tired light theory for explaining redshift is correct. The theory is referenced as "new tired light", possibly a modified version of the theory.

FRB 150418 Confirms Predictions Made by New Tired Light

For the first time, in April 2015, both the Dispersion Measure (DM) of a fast radio burst, FRB 150418, and the redshift of the host galaxy were measured. This gave the opportunity to test the New Tired Light Theory and its predictions. DM in mainstream physics is found from the time delay between the arrival of different frequencies from a short, sharp cosmological source (FRB or pulsar). DM is related to the mean free electron density along the path, n, and the distance from source to observer, d, by the formula DM=nd. New Tired Light (NTL) is an alternative cosmological theory to the Big Bang.

...

In 2015 a fast radio burst was observed and for the first time we had the redshift of the host galaxy. This enabled the mean electron number density to be determined as 0.5 m^-3 exactly as predicted by New Tired Light theory. New Tired Light provides a mechanism by which redshifts can happen and using standard Physics we can now pick any galaxy and calculate its redshift from first principles and get it right!

We see that there is no need for expansion as it is simple optics.

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0380

I have no knowledge about physics and cannot judge whether the Doppler interpretation or the tired light theory are most plausible for explaining redshift.

I noticed however that scientists mention that tired light theory is probably the correct theory in publications from the past years. As a outsider I therefor can consider it as a potential valid theory and it is then to be considered that the theory was available at the time that Albert Einstein was presumably forced to admit that he was wrong due to observations made by Edwin Hubble.

If the tired light theory is proven to be correct, is it likely that Albert Einstein wouldn't have predicted it? The papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory for a static Universe in 1931 may provide a clue that he intended to follow a research path in which tired light theory would have found a part.

Boriev, I. A. (Russian Academy of Sciences) in Journal of Physics in 2018:

Such red shift (and reduction of energy) may be simply explained by natural dissipation of energy of electromagnetic waves while they are propagating through the filled by DM space, which is real material medium. As clear, such dissipation must increase with increasing space distance, what logically explains the observed red shift increase with space distance. This materialistic explanation of observed red shift, known as concept of tired light, is natural and evidently true since it eliminates both obviously mysterious ideas about Universe inflation, induced by physically queer assumption of Big Bang, and about physically unexplained reason of dark energy.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/996/1/012017/pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS.996a2014B

[alancalverd]

But it doesn't explain blue shift.

[cleanair (OP)]

But it doesn't explain blue shift.

I cannot provide a scientific argument (I joined the forum to ask a question) but I found the following expert answer:

There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies that have been observed. The blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group and are all bound to each other by gravity. Most are dwarf galaxies.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/observational-astronomy/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/539-why-are-there-blue-shifted-galaxies-intermediate

It raises the following questions:

1) considering that blue shifted galaxies are all in the 'local group' of the solar system within the Milky Way and appear to apply to a specific category of galaxies within that group, wouldn't that imply that the observed blue shift effect is likely tied to a specific type of galaxies in a nearby condition?

2) why would scientists who are expert on the matter claim that tired light theory is the valid theory to explain red shift? They don't mention anything about blue shift in the articles that I found (including a publication in Journal of Physics, 2018).

[alancalverd]

"Scientists who are expert on the matter" have been responsible for all sorts of disasters. Especially Russian experts. The other matter of concern is that degradation of the spectrum by scattering should not only redshift it, but also broaden the spectral lines, with the greatest broadening being associated with the greatest redshift. Does the evidence concur? 

[cleanair (OP)]

It appears that the creator of New Tired Light theory (NTL) is from the UK.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lyndon_Ashmore
https://independent.academia.edu/LyndonAshmore
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_E_Ashmore

As an outsider I simply ask the question: why wouldn't those experts mention blue shift in their articles? It appears that they find blue shift negligible.

Combined with the information that blue shift has only been observed in 100 galaxies that are tied to the solar system by gravity, and only for a specific type of galaxies (dwarf galaxies), it gives rise to the idea that blue shift may not be an argument to consider the Doppler interpretation of redshift to be logically true.

[alancalverd]

Blue shift is observed on earth, as is Doppler shift in both directions.

Everything is tied to everything else by gravity unless it is moving away from the barycentre at a greater rate than the escape speed.

Nothing in physics is "negligible" - our understanding advances through the exploration of anomalies. It's one of the first tests of a hypothesis.

So back to the second test: are the shifted lines also broadened to the extent predicted by the hypothetical shift mechanism?

[cleanair (OP)]

So back to the second test: are the shifted lines also broadened to the extent predicted by the hypothetical shift mechanism?

I cannot answer the question but it would be interesting to learn the perspective from an expert on New Tired Light theory.

Why would experts that suggest tired light theory as explanation for red shift not mention anything about blue shift? Why would they not feel obligated to address blue shift in their proposal for "New Tired Light" theory?   

According to Google, the following article contains 3 references to the word "blue".  Most other articles about "tired light" contain not a single reference to the word blue. The ones that do are often related to NUV-blue.

On the Interpretation of Spectral Red-Shift in Astrophysics: A Survey of Red-Shift Mechanisms

As Einstein commented to Lemaître: “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable” (Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable) [16].
The de Sitter universe is based on imaginary fabrication of a repulsive force varying directly with distance[17]

What could explain such a lack of addressing of blue shift by experts?