Curvature Of Space May Be Wrong

[RegP1]

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, in hope I may get some feedback from you out there in cyberland, and correction with valid reasons where necessary. I have chosen to title this The Facts and Fallacies of Science in hope it will receive more attention, not that I know all the facts or the fallacies...

 

Take a look at the PDF I would appreciate any feed back.

FACTS & FALLACIES OF SCIENCE.pdf

[Strange]

1. Why concentrate on a very poor quality experiment that is generally considered not to be very convincing? There have been thousands of other, far more accurate experiments since then.

 

2. You say:

 

 

So in the photograph taken six months prior the Star Cluster would appear slightly larger than the one during the eclipse and the distance between the stars would appear closer.

 

Please quantify how large this effect would be and compare it with the size of the effect predicted by GR.

 

3. You also say:

 

 

Imagination has gotten a lot of attention - common sense deserves an equal billing.

 

I would say that neither imagination nor common sense have a role in falsifying scientific theories. That requires quantitative data. Which you have spectacularly failed to provide.

[Phi for All]

So you think it's wrong because everybody for the last century forgot to adjust for time in their calcs? Like they would measure x, y, z and skip t? This is why math is important.

[RegP1]

1. Why concentrate on a very poor quality experiment that is generally considered not to be very convincing? There have been thousands of other, far more accurate experiments since then.

 

2. You say:

 

 

Please quantify how large this effect would be and compare it with the size of the effect predicted by GR.

 

3. You also say:

 

 

I would say that neither imagination nor common sense have a role in falsifying scientific theories. That requires quantitative data. Which you have spectacularly failed to provide.

Thank you for reading my PDF, this is the response I was looking for. You take the photographs first and if I am wrong then there is no need for calculations. Reply would be good i am looking for a open discussion about this.

[Strange]

You take the photographs first and if I am wrong then there is no need for calculations.

 

 

What does that mean?