I don't think anyone has suggested you do this. Saying you don't yet understand the theory and supporting evidence is different, however, than saying that time isn't malleable.

 

I am not saying that time is not mallable.

 

I am only saying that I do not think that it is mallable. Different realities for different folke, doncha know.

I am suggesting that if I take on a position of "oh, why yes, of course time is mallable, because Einstien said so" that I would be little more than a parrot,

The purpose of school is to teach the wisdom of others. Without repeating their research, how can we but parrot what they say? We should not take what we learn at school as fact, but we should still try to use it without full acceptance.

The purpose of school is to teach the wisdom of others. Without repeating their research, how can we but parrot what they say? We should not take what we learn at school as fact, but we should still try to use it without full acceptance.

Oh, I agree to that. But one either believes that something is true, or one does not. I think that most people who are willing to say that time is mallable, really don't believe that it is, they just don't know how to disagree.

 

Kinda like a lot of Christians not believing that Jesus was who he said he was, they are just too afraid of censure to argue about it.

They split up a beam and sent it in perpendicular directions and the recombined the beams. If the speed had changed, there would be a particular interference pattern that depends on the speed change. Standard interferometry.

 

And this was supposed to prove........what?

And this was supposed to prove........what?

That we were not moving through the ether. See post 93.

Wikipedia is great. (It really helps to have a diagram).

That we were not moving through the ether. See post 93.

 

Well you know, that is the way I understood it too.

 

Or that the ether did not act as a carrier for light waves as does the air for sound waves?