eclectron wrote:Absolutely, it is highly probable that it is functional, even if it means offending the established facts of the past. The beliefs of yesteryear, then.
it is absolutely not embarrassing to "offend the established facts". All science was built like this. The only thing is
a) that the "established" facts (or supposed to be so) must be replaced by other facts even better established. (and not by blah-blah-smoke-screen-uncontrollable-videos-conspiracy-sites etc etc ...)
b) until then, there has been no exception to the fact that physical laws obey principles. That is, if a principle is violated, it has always been replaced by another principle. For example the simultaneity of Newton's time is not correct, but it has been replaced by another principle, the invariance of the speed of light.
So for example if you want to replace the second principle with something else, you have to say what. The second principle gives you a clear prescription of what is permitted and what is prohibited; if we go from A to B, it is allowed if S (B) ≥ S (A) and it is forbidden if S (B) <S (A), and it gives you the formula to calculate S (B) - HER). (And there is also in addition the first principle which imposes on you that U (B) = U (A), conservation of energy).
You have the right to challenge it, but only if you offer something else instead: how do you know if something is allowed or prohibited, if you don't believe in the 2nd principle?
if you have nothing to offer instead, it's not science, it's wind. And the only people who have an interest in making believe in the wind, they are the crooks and the manipulators.