What if constants are not really constants? What if they are constantly changing but everything scales down/up along with them and therefore we would never know?
>>16544039wow anon, you just discovered running constants! I hope you did so through your thorough study of the renormalization group in qft and not because you are a retarded contrarian!
>>16544039>anon discovers how to measure the curvature of spaceCongrats. I'm proud of you. Now to get out of this fucking gravity well so we can actually test this shit...>>16544077>and then there's THIS guy...
>>16544086the EFE have a non-changing constant, you fucking retard. It’s G. The Riemann tensor isn’t a constant; it’s a field.
>>16544100>I don't get itSorry for your loss, I guess. Some of us actually noticed the irrational numbers.
>>16544039Everything is OneThat's all you need to know
she cute
>>16544039But constants are by definition constant. They'd be variables if they weren't.
>>16544039You mean like if 1 were treated like a 1, but it was actually a decimal point followed by an arbitrarily large amount of 9s?
>>16545555 what about >>16546884 where one is actually something else entirely?
>>16544039This is part of why people care about dimensionless constants, because they're just ratios so they're independent of scaling.
>>16546368that's my point. Maybe they are variables but everything else varies accordingly so we never notice it. If you were to shrink 10% tomorrow you would know but what if everything else shrank too? From your pov everything is the same as it was
Something something lorentz transformation.
>>16544039That's what it means to be a constant, silly.Take the observed two-way speed of light for example.
>>16547372elaborate
>>16544039we just need to redefine them in term of one anotherFrom 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in [math]\frac{1}{299792458}[/math]of a second
