Curvature Of Space May Be Wrong.

[RegP1]

FACTS AND FALLACIES OF SCIENCE

Science has given us, in the past century or so, tremendous advances in all sectors of human endeavours and understanding. But yet, in my reading I have found inconsistence in measurements, inconsideration of all influencing factors, in different subjects, and seeing things from only one perspective. I will start this endeavour by stating some of these things as I see them...

 

Read the PDF and give me your thoughts.

FACTS & FALLACIES OF SCIENCE.pdf

Edited March 7, 2017 by RegP1

[exchemist]

FACTS AND FALLACIES OF SCIENCE

Science has given us, in the past century or so, tremendous advances in all sectors of human endeavours and understanding. But yet, in my reading I have found inconsistence in measurements, inconsideration of all influencing factors, in different subjects, and seeing things from only one perspective. I will start this endeavour by stating some of these things as I see them...

 

Read the PDF and give me your thoughts.

I am not an expert on relativity or astronomy, but I am interested in the history and philosophy of science so I had a look.  I see you make a suggestion for measurements to make during a forthcoming solar eclipse. I suspect someone will indeed make use of it for a further test of general relativity. 

 

But I would invite you to consider, not just that one observation, but the other evidence in favour of relativity - things like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the observation of extended lifetime of cosmic ray muons, that fact that modern GPS relies on general relativity in order for it to work, and so forth. The evidence for the theory comes from a number of directions. 

[JMJones0424]

I've read the PDF.  I don't understand what your argument is.  What is your claim?

[RegP1]

I've read the PDF.  I don't understand what your argument is.  What is your claim?

Thanks for reading my PDF, I apologies for the delay in reply. I have gotten interests from other sources both agreeing and disagreeing so I feel I have properly stated my case. Please read in full and look at the images. I encourage a response.

[JMJones0424]

Meh. 2 AU is negligible relative to the distances we are talking about in discerning the size of the object.  You did not note those distances.  You could make the argument that parallax partially explains the observed position of the stars, but this is such a simple argument against the findings that I must assume that it is incorrect.  Likewise, any number of observations of the stars in question should be available to astronomers either before or after the eclipse.  I do not have access to these observations, and I do not expect you to have access to them either.  However, what I won't assume is that in my ignorance, the explanation for the observation is false due to "common sense".  You also did not note the countless later experiments and observations that continue to show gravitational lensing.  Your imagination is useful when it is followed by education, however common sense is worthless when we're talking about observations on scales that you can not ever experience.

 

Astronomy topics can be very difficult to understand if you, like me, are entirely uneducated in the field.  I invite you to read through Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial, thoroughly.  The only thing I find compelling about your argument is that you don't seem to understand what you are arguing.  

 

You might also find wikipedia's article on tests of GR useful

Edited March 19, 2017 by JMJones0424