I think some people give the consistencies of space and time too much credit. The current system of physics, and the knowledge that we have about the particles that make up the universe on both a cosmic and nuclear scale, is an irreconcilable mess. The community of scientists are split on these subjects and can't seem to come to an agreement about how to mold all of these things into a single unified theory. Maybe things are circumstantial, with the rules bending according to other rules. Like, "Light goes this speed unless it goes this other speed in accordance to this other previously unproven influence".
Physicists in particular tend to keep their mouths shut unless they really have a reason to open them. In a field built on concrete laws, presenting any data that seems to shatter preconceptions are normally delivered with an apologetic expression. After all, if it is a mistake and they present it as fact, their reputations are in the shitter.
So they sit at monitors all day hoping something would happen that changes things in a way that advances understanding, so that physicists can finally come to an agreement on things like dark matter vs. modified newtonian dynamics, and then when something does happen they hope they can prove it's just a mistake for fear of making their colleagues really, really uncomfortable or inciting ridicule if proven a mistake after-the-fact. And if they can't, but can't quite prove it's a fact either, they have to present the data with an air of "sorry for mucking things up further, lads, but here you go..."
Physics is a touchy field to mess with, but the fact is that's the only way we will be able to reconcile all the laws, even not taking into account this speed of light fiasco. It's like having a puzzle laid in front of you but we only have half the pieces and a vague idea of how they fit together, let alone what fills the gaps we don't have. Math is a miraculous tool, but that's only half the battle. Something would have to happen to give us more pieces, or someone would have to look at what we have in a new, unique perspective, if we are going to fit it all together. Einstein started out not as a master mathematician but as a dude with crazy-scientific daydreams. We need another one of those, I think.
Physicists in particular tend to keep their mouths shut unless they really have a reason to open them. In a field built on concrete laws, presenting any data that seems to shatter preconceptions are normally delivered with an apologetic expression. After all, if it is a mistake and they present it as fact, their reputations are in the shitter.
So they sit at monitors all day hoping something would happen that changes things in a way that advances understanding, so that physicists can finally come to an agreement on things like dark matter vs. modified newtonian dynamics, and then when something does happen they hope they can prove it's just a mistake for fear of making their colleagues really, really uncomfortable or inciting ridicule if proven a mistake after-the-fact. And if they can't, but can't quite prove it's a fact either, they have to present the data with an air of "sorry for mucking things up further, lads, but here you go..."
Physics is a touchy field to mess with, but the fact is that's the only way we will be able to reconcile all the laws, even not taking into account this speed of light fiasco. It's like having a puzzle laid in front of you but we only have half the pieces and a vague idea of how they fit together, let alone what fills the gaps we don't have. Math is a miraculous tool, but that's only half the battle. Something would have to happen to give us more pieces, or someone would have to look at what we have in a new, unique perspective, if we are going to fit it all together. Einstein started out not as a master mathematician but as a dude with crazy-scientific daydreams. We need another one of those, I think.