I think it most certainly WILL do that and is designed such that it is inevitable that scientists overcome their past and present biases. That's my faith in science, not in the accuracy of every current assertion, but on the way those assertions are tested and must relent to the evidence of the senses once demonstrated well.
it's a shame when it happens, but I don't think it's common. They get hung up on what's currently confirmable... that changes slowly, but mostly I think they spend their time looking to add to that set, and a big part of that is denying old interpretations.
I think how much science as a whole is dogmatic, depends of the groups of scientists or endeavors or listings or whatever one looks at. Perhaps some scientists are one of the most nondogmatic people we may for now know, but perhaps not. This is of course a mere technicality when it comes to that issue, I believe. The fact remains that even scientists can be dogmatic in even the most public of matters. It is a shame when that happens and it has happened before and after Galileo, as you both know.
a published paper about curved space? about what particular theory? about what phenomenon?
let's be specific. Curved space is a part of relativity, a lot of study has been done to see if space is curved, and a curved space geometry simply doesn't explain redshift, for example, you won't see it published because no one has a model that holds together when they themselves check it.
I said specifically "the implications of curved space bending light". Did I mention redshift? The doppler effect is fairly well understood.
It's true the present accepted Universal models contradict better established science. That's why they should not be accepted!
The popular cosmology is a de-facto fantasy, highly dependent on consensus. And by claiming that "they" have looked at it with out doing so yourself, you are participating in the perpetuation of the status quo for it's own sake.
tell me what you do mean, without that, I'll simply keep guessing and you'll get to say "did I say anything about that"... no, you did not yet say what particular implications of curved space bending light.
HOWEVER, I have seen many physicists talk about curved space, and light bending through it, so as far as I know they talk about it. So what do you mean, exactly, that they don't?
They never discuss the implications- that light might orbit or spiral as it travels through space- even though it must. What does this mean for the Astronomical models of the Universe? They're wrong.
they have considered this, as I say, and their opinion is that light bends in gravitational wells, and the random placement of these means it's quite unlikely for light to ever, for example, turn 180 degrees from bending (rather than reflection, or absorption-reimmission)... so it happen, but not that often.
What phenomenon do you think your model of this explains that they fail to explain with theirs?
and of course, they have also considered for a long time that space itself may be curved overall, so light would bend back on itself independent of gravity... but they have tested that in terms of their definition of what "curved space" would mean and have show the universe flat to a large degree.
That sounds like considering the implications of curvature to me... not to say you don't have a model they should consider yet again... but again, what does it model better than accepted models?
my reference? for the flatness of space its WMAP that has measured this. As to the definition of flat vs curved space, you can research that, it's a widely accepted definition. It's for you to offer a different one that doesn't violate the WMAP observations.
For the fact that curvature from gravitational wells will largely cancel out due to random placement of bodies, that's a matter of the fact that we see the bodies randomly placed and can do the path tracing, and have.
You need to be very careful with NASA projects making sure you understand the intent of the "research". And Even if WMAP is completely legit and accurate, you are misusing the concept of "flat". It does not apply in this context. And you are not properly considering the issue of the perceived scale of the Universe as it relates to our available perspectives.
one problem, patterns, is that I don't understand YOUR theory of the curvature... I do not understand what problem you are solving. All I know is you say scientists have not considered light curving, and I have learned about light curving not from you, but from scientists (via science class and science literature)... so they have considered it.
PERHAPS they have not considered it FULLY, but can you define what they should do to consider it more fully than they have so far?
I agree that you don't understand my theories. And there several that relate to these observations and their not simple in comparison to the WYSIWYG attitude.
What should be fairly accessible is an understanding that I see my theories as possibilities, while I have shown that the common notions clearly contradict rational science.
Succinct and precise as the best scientific thought or poetry. Great response.
TheCarruths 1 year ago
Thanks!
patternsinchaos 1 year ago
(stated)
10thdim 3 years ago
lol I went to click reply to say thanks, and clicked Remove. How ironic. rofl
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I think it most certainly WILL do that and is designed such that it is inevitable that scientists overcome their past and present biases. That's my faith in science, not in the accuracy of every current assertion, but on the way those assertions are tested and must relent to the evidence of the senses once demonstrated well.
pyrrho314 3 years ago 2
It's a shame that "scientists" are so hung up on dogmas. Even sadder that most don't even realize it.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
it's a shame when it happens, but I don't think it's common. They get hung up on what's currently confirmable... that changes slowly, but mostly I think they spend their time looking to add to that set, and a big part of that is denying old interpretations.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Ha! Try to get an Astronomer to consider the implications of curved space bending light! They will not look!
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I think how much science as a whole is dogmatic, depends of the groups of scientists or endeavors or listings or whatever one looks at. Perhaps some scientists are one of the most nondogmatic people we may for now know, but perhaps not. This is of course a mere technicality when it comes to that issue, I believe. The fact remains that even scientists can be dogmatic in even the most public of matters. It is a shame when that happens and it has happened before and after Galileo, as you both know.
MaBu888 3 years ago
with all due respect patterns, this is just where we dissagree... I think they have looked at that.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
I think you're misinformed, pyrrho314. Show me a published paper.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
a published paper about curved space? about what particular theory? about what phenomenon?
let's be specific. Curved space is a part of relativity, a lot of study has been done to see if space is curved, and a curved space geometry simply doesn't explain redshift, for example, you won't see it published because no one has a model that holds together when they themselves check it.
if you do, please present it.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
I said specifically "the implications of curved space bending light". Did I mention redshift? The doppler effect is fairly well understood.
It's true the present accepted Universal models contradict better established science. That's why they should not be accepted!
The popular cosmology is a de-facto fantasy, highly dependent on consensus. And by claiming that "they" have looked at it with out doing so yourself, you are participating in the perpetuation of the status quo for it's own sake.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
tell me what you do mean, without that, I'll simply keep guessing and you'll get to say "did I say anything about that"... no, you did not yet say what particular implications of curved space bending light.
HOWEVER, I have seen many physicists talk about curved space, and light bending through it, so as far as I know they talk about it. So what do you mean, exactly, that they don't?
pyrrho314 3 years ago
They never discuss the implications- that light might orbit or spiral as it travels through space- even though it must. What does this mean for the Astronomical models of the Universe? They're wrong.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
they have considered this, as I say, and their opinion is that light bends in gravitational wells, and the random placement of these means it's quite unlikely for light to ever, for example, turn 180 degrees from bending (rather than reflection, or absorption-reimmission)... so it happen, but not that often.
What phenomenon do you think your model of this explains that they fail to explain with theirs?
pyrrho314 3 years ago
and of course, they have also considered for a long time that space itself may be curved overall, so light would bend back on itself independent of gravity... but they have tested that in terms of their definition of what "curved space" would mean and have show the universe flat to a large degree.
That sounds like considering the implications of curvature to me... not to say you don't have a model they should consider yet again... but again, what does it model better than accepted models?
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Again "they" the all powerful "they" who tell you what to think. Again, where is your reference?
We do this ostensibly to get to what's true, do we not?
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
my reference? for the flatness of space its WMAP that has measured this. As to the definition of flat vs curved space, you can research that, it's a widely accepted definition. It's for you to offer a different one that doesn't violate the WMAP observations.
For the fact that curvature from gravitational wells will largely cancel out due to random placement of bodies, that's a matter of the fact that we see the bodies randomly placed and can do the path tracing, and have.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
You need to be very careful with NASA projects making sure you understand the intent of the "research". And Even if WMAP is completely legit and accurate, you are misusing the concept of "flat". It does not apply in this context. And you are not properly considering the issue of the perceived scale of the Universe as it relates to our available perspectives.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
one problem, patterns, is that I don't understand YOUR theory of the curvature... I do not understand what problem you are solving. All I know is you say scientists have not considered light curving, and I have learned about light curving not from you, but from scientists (via science class and science literature)... so they have considered it.
PERHAPS they have not considered it FULLY, but can you define what they should do to consider it more fully than they have so far?
pyrrho314 3 years ago
I agree that you don't understand my theories. And there several that relate to these observations and their not simple in comparison to the WYSIWYG attitude.
What should be fairly accessible is an understanding that I see my theories as possibilities, while I have shown that the common notions clearly contradict rational science.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I want to know what you mean patterns.
Perhaps easiest is to try to explain to me which common notions contradict which "rational science".
pyrrho314 3 years ago
/watch?v=HtlIrczwEQ8
See Simon's calculations at the end of the comments. It's math dude. The most rational of sciences. "They" are ignoring it. ;-)
patternsinchaos 3 years ago