Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 171: Line 171:     
:I will rethink his BradSmythe's block time in a little while (I accidently took in too much caffeine recently) though one contribution that was removed for being misleading and four talk entries do not make for a very substantial body of work to weigh against his problem edits.  And regarding BradSmythe's remarks, since even I was able to spot more than one potential equivocation in the Nobel prize website statement BradSmythe quoted, I am sure someone with a lawyer's grasp of language analysis like Andy can do the same even faster.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 04:03, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
 
:I will rethink his BradSmythe's block time in a little while (I accidently took in too much caffeine recently) though one contribution that was removed for being misleading and four talk entries do not make for a very substantial body of work to weigh against his problem edits.  And regarding BradSmythe's remarks, since even I was able to spot more than one potential equivocation in the Nobel prize website statement BradSmythe quoted, I am sure someone with a lawyer's grasp of language analysis like Andy can do the same even faster.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 04:03, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Changing the Speed of Light ==
 +
 +
"The speed of light is probably changing over time. But according to the formula, a mass at constant energy would change precisely in inverse proportion squared of any change in the speed of light!"
 +
 +
As <math>c_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}} </math>, a change in the speed of light will mess up magnetic and/or electric potentials, too: is this a logical flaw in [[Gauss's Law]]
 +
<math> \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E} = \frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}</math> ?
 +
 +
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:50, 20 February 2016 (EST)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023

edits

Navigation menu