Just don't give up on science... it was not the dedicated-to-the-truth "real" scientist that brought this on. Real scientists, believe it or not, love to be proven wrong and will often give researchers suggested methods to do just that.
Scientists probably do but researchers, bloggers, and posters seem not to these days.
Not entirely, most real theories include an invalidation criteria.Yes, I give up on 'science' , because it is really a control tool. What you wrote here is a fairy tale.It is very simply not true.
Not entirely, most real theories include an invalidation criteria.
I think Eddington was following Einstein's invalidation criteria, when he performed his solar eclipse
photographs.
Had stars behind the sun not been visible, Einstein would have been wrong.
A photograph showing a star known to be behind the sun, would be difficult to "massage" into place.I answered just in annother thread that Einstein WAS wrong!
Eddington 'massaged' the data a lot!
A photograph showing a star known to be behind the sun, would be difficult to "massage" into place.
Brian Greene (36:13): Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct.
Actually the massage was a downright fraud, universally taught and venerated today, that eventually proved fatal for physics:
GSJ Physics Forum: Brian Greene: Massaged Data Confirmed Einstein's Relativity
The difference is that Newton did not have the concept of high mass objects bending light.I am talking about the measurments.
They are all lies. Eddington was, let's say, a bit biased in favour of relativity-bollocks.
The difference is that Newton did not have the concept of high mass objects bending light.
Any change from a straight line would show some deviation.
Einstein's theory predicted that heavy objects would bend light,What are you trying to say here.
Einstein's theory predicted that heavy objects would bend light,
Newtonian Physics would be that light can only go in a straight line.
Einstein's invalidation criteria, was that if he was wrong, the stars behind the sun would not be visible,
Since the stars were not only visible, but photographed, it validated a portion of Einstein's theory.
The calculations of how much bending of the light occurred, may be off, but not that the light was bent.
Light in lenses is bent through a change in the refraction index, something well know in Newton's time.yes, well, light is also bent by simple optical lenses. It seems the whole thing can be explained by the optical theories.
It is a logical flaw seeing made most by 'scientists"
The prediction is "If A then B happens" Then in 'reality B happens and then that should 'prove" A to be real.
no no no. Doesn't work that way.It is illogical.
Anyway,
For sure no space bended at all That whole notion is very ridiculous.
yes, well, light is also bent by simple optical lenses. It seems the whole thing can be explained by the optical theories.
It is a logical flaw seeing made most by 'scientists"
The prediction is "If A then B happens" Then in 'reality B happens and then that should 'prove" A to be real.
no no no. Doesn't work that way.It is illogical.
Anyway,
For sure no space bended at all That whole notion is very ridiculous.
Light in lenses is bent through a change in the refraction index, something well know in Newton's time.
Within the vacuum of space no such bending should occur within Newton's physics.
"The rectilinear propagation of light" (dug that one out of my memory. I think it was on my first optics exam several decades ago.)
To use science (optics) to refute science (general relativity) is the height of keyboard abuse... but you are due congratulations anyway as you are the "only" user who is now in my ignore list. Sheesh.
That sucks!, actually the index mismatch of the not pure vacuum of space is orders of magnitude lower than the amount of observedProblem here is that there is no vacuum in space.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?