Australian astronomers have combined all observations of supernovae ever made to determine that the strength of gravity has remained unchanged over the last nine billion years. (1)
But is this really the case?
How solid is such a conclusion?
Digging a little deeper makes things more clear…
The original paper can be found here.
The first thing we notice is the excessive use of key words like “assumption”, “assume”, “assumed” etc.
The paper (an every paper in science) is based on specific assumptions.
That is not something bad, unless you assume things which affect the thing you are supposed to investigate.
The researchers admit that “The validity of the SNIa standard candle depends on the stability of G and the stability of f, the fraction of the Chandrasekhar mass turned into energy. We have considered the former in this paper and derived a constraint on the gravitational fine structure constant […]” (!)
How can you take for granted the very thing you are supposed to investigate?
How can you analyze something without taking for granted anything?
Our assumptions will always be there to haunt us.
It would be unwise to hide them under the rag…
The wise choice will be to stare them in the face and choose them into oblivion.
See the world without assumptions, without prerequisites.
See the world as constant or ever changing.
Your assumptions matter not.
Cause reality, like fluid, can fill in any void.
In eternity, everything is constant and everything is changing.
In eternity everything is eternal, because they are ephemeral.
G or no G, Parmenides is written with P!