Comment: Probably because it was

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: why? (see in situ)

Probably because it was

Probably because it was pseudo science. He's basically hypothesizing, but a hypothesis is not the same as a theory. A theory in the scientific sense is not the same as a theory used in common language. A hypothesis only evolves into a theory after it has been extensively tested. This guy provided no such thing.

He basically states that the dogma's in science are flawed and this might indeed be the case. But you need to develop a theory (and not just a hypothesis) if you want to prove such a thing. One that is TESTABLE and VERIFIABLE.

Personally, I do not find it an improbable hypothesis that constants might change overtime. However, instead of gathering the data about changing constants himself (which should be perfectly possible in the world we live in today), he expected other people to do it for him.

And from what I gather is that science is a PROCESS. New insight allow for formulas and theories to be altered and perfected. It shouldn't be surprising that the constants in science books changed overtime, seeing as how scientific instruments measuring these constants (and other insights) become more sophisticated as time passes.

And regarding gravity being a constant, this is only being called a constant for convenience. Because we do know that the earth is slowly losing and gaining mass (nuclear emission in the core of the earth causing the earth to lose mass and space matter falling down to earth allowing the earth to gain mass).

But I don't hear any of the above arguments being used by him, giving me the impression that he doesn't understand science at all. Science is a work in progress. Most real scientist realize that the calculations today are probably inexact and they strive to increase the accuracy. But that he didn't even think of alternative explanations shows that he first made his conclusions even BEFORE he asked the question.

Make no mistake, I did find his presentation very interesting. And it's probably true that scientists are somewhat dogmatic. But I don't see him providing any meaningful solutions.