[tim politicus]

"...tell us what is mistaken about our understanding..."

'Our' copious use of the 'royal "we"' exactly illustrates what is essentially 'wrong' here:

1#) The intoxicating saftey of "herd thinking".

2#) Making a royal priesthood out of those holding the merely (and always temporarily) dominant view in ***any*** field, in order to satisfy that primal inner longing for certitude.

3#) Self certitude in itself. That is religion. It has no place in science.

But to address your corporate concern, here is just one example of the mind-numbing, er ah, make that mind-blowing illogic which we/they/them no longer find a barrier to 'progress':

'We' (unfortunately not the royal one) are told that space itself is rapidly expanding [what a wonderfully unmeasureable phenomena!] in such a manner as to cause the matter in it to actually move faster than the light which it emits.

Seriously, were do I start? Please do reflect on this though: The fact that c is no longer universally understood as constant should by itself tell us that the scientific view is, even in its most assumed or enshrined form, changing. And not always (though usually) for the better.

[e.g., A number of ancient Greek scientists were aware of a heli-centric astronomy, but the view adopted and held for over 1500 years was the ptolemaic.]

But to return to my rant, even if one believed the idea that space ***itself*** expands in this manner, one would have to question why the 'waves' which travel through the assumed [but unproven] etheric (another old idea alternatively worshiped and abandoned) medium would not correspondingly expand, 'expanding' the speed of light along with them. I could go on. Honestly though, why should I have all the fun? Why don't you see if ***you*** could find anything to question in all this.

A final note: Folks, the religious ***only*** respond to rhetoric [call it ranting if you must]. Once someone has ***decided*** not to reason ***for themselves***, no amount of pristene logic will prevail. No amount.

But passion will sometimes get through. No light without fire.

[tim politicus]

An apology: In the above, while referring to the 'religious', I meant the 'religious per se'.

I myself am religious in a manner, but ***not*** in my science.

[mlo]

'We' (unfortunately not the royal one) are told that space itself is rapidly expanding [what a wonderfully unmeasureable phenomena!] in such a manner as to cause the matter in it to actually move faster than the light which it emits.

Wrong. The matter is not moving faster than light. The *relative* velocities of points that are extremely seperated may be faster than light.

Seriously, were do I start?

I suggest learning the subject, and not confusing your ignorance with superiority.

Please do reflect on this though: The fact that c is no longer universally understood as constant should by itself tell us that the scientific view is, even in its most assumed or enshrined form, changing. And not always (though usually) for the better.

c as a constant has not been changed. Read the article again. Regardless, why shouldn't the scientific view change with new information? That's what science does. That's the very thing that makes science a way to find the truth and not a belief system, as you so ignorantly characterize it.

[e.g., A number of ancient Greek scientists were aware of a heli-centric astronomy, but the view adopted and held for over 1500 years was the ptolemaic.]

This has what to do with the subject?

But to return to my rant, even if one believed the idea that space ***itself*** expands in this manner, one would have to question why the 'waves' which travel through the assumed [but unproven] etheric (another old idea alternatively worshiped and abandoned) medium would not correspondingly expand, 'expanding' the speed of light along with them.

The ether was never "worshipped", and nobody is assuming it now. That's a dumb thing to say.

Any such effect would be very small. The expansion is a tiny *local* effect, the expansion velocities increase with *relative* distance.

As I suspected, your ranting stems from you just not liking the answers, or at least not liking your misunderstanding of the answers.

I could go on. Honestly though, why should I have all the fun? Why don't you see if ***you*** could find anything to question in all this.

You could, but I'd advise against it. You're just going to make yourself look even sillier.