1 minute ago, Rockyroad said:

Childish response. You are arguing over 1%.

I am stating what we observe in Nature.

This is no childish response but an important observation which has been made by GIANTS....

Giants, I tell you, and not children.

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

I am stating what we observe in Nature.

This is no childish response but an important observation which has been made by GIANTS....

Giants, I tell you, and not children.

You need a gf or a hobby outside.

3 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Childish response. You are arguing over 1%.

We are talking science here, not architecture.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

We are talking science here, not architecture.

Architecture is a form of science.

17 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Laser beams do not travel in a straight line.

And right angles do not exist in our universe.

Where, oh where, did you ever get that notion.

In fact, in reality, spacetime is curved, and I just wish you knew, since you are one of the foremost writers of science FICTION....

So, all you've posted seems to me to be supportive of what I've been saying on this forum for the past three or four days. 👍

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Well, if the screenshot states that light travels in a straight line, even laser light, and that right angles exist in our universe...then...

The screenshot is misleading....OBVIOUSLY.....

I will contact Google.

But, meanwhile, what I stated is correct, concerning paths of light which NEVER travel in a straight line.

Any good schoolboy knows this.

And, every budding child astronomer knows this, too, and can observe this effect, easily.

Laser lights are tools that are used in the building of things, and are exact enough for that science. In reality, light can be bent by gravity so isn't exact over distances. It does travel in a straight line until that gravity interferes with it.

Edited August 10Aug 10 by fredwiggy

7 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

. You are arguing over 1%.

No.

I am talking about 100-PERCENT of the universe, and not one-percent.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Laser lights are tools that are used in the building of things, and are exact enough for that science. In reality, light can be bent by gravity so isn't exact.

Not "can be bent"....

Light IS bent.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Not "can be bent"....

Light IS bent.

The earth is round. All life forms are bent.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Not "can be bent"....

Light IS bent.

Yes, light generally travels in a straight line (called rectilinear propagation) when it moves through a single, uniform substance like clean air or a vacuum. However, it can bend or curve when it interacts with heavy gravity, passes through changing materials, or encounters obstacles.

Most users on Physics Stack Exchange agree that light fundamentally moves in a straight path as a wave, but that path itself can be altered by external forces.

No, light is not always bent. In empty space, light travels in a straight line. It only bends when it hits certain things like water, glass, or heavy gravity When Light Does Not Bend

• In a vacuum: Light goes straight through empty space without changing direction.

• Hitting straight on: If a light beam hits a piece of glass or water straight head-on (at a 90-degree angle), it slows down but keeps going in a straight line without bending.

Edited August 10Aug 10 by fredwiggy

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I agree 100%!

I am just responding to the title of this forum, "Do You Believe in the Scientific Method? And, Why?"

I DO BELIEVE the scientific method is a useful tool. Why? Because I consistently use its results.

I DO NOT BELIEVE the scientific method reveals a true picture of reality. Why? Because the scientific method is based on inductive logic, and reality is not bound by logic. (I call that "chaos," but maybe I should just call it "illogical.")

Here's how Microsoft's AI, CoPilot, describes reality:
"Reality is chaotic at its foundation, nonlogical in its behavior, and only appears orderly because humans impose patterns on it." (Which is EXACTLY how I've been describing it.)

You tend to lean towards a creative reality as an author and writer of science fiction, while people like me have to lean on realism and practical science. Take a farmer who grew up on a farm. You can claim farming can be done without science, but learned experience itself comes from observing what works and what does not. In the end, it comes down to survival in a competitive world, where we rely on science with straight lines and dots.

We can assume we live in some kind of created reality, but then again, that created reality is most likely built on numbers, lines and dots too. 😅

18 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Right Angles do not exist in our universe, which is the only one we have.

Crystal lattices ("lattice crystal" or ideal crystal lattice is a mathematical abstraction used in crystallography) such as cubic systems provide the clearest, most precise examples of true 90 degree right angles in nature, driven by atomic packing and symmetry rather than organic growth processes.

Perfect right angles are otherwise haphazardly rare. In physical real world crystals, they are extremely close to absolute 90° (often indistinguishable from exact within ordinary measurement precision), but never perfectly so due to inevitable imperfections.

20 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Well, if the screenshot states that light travels in a straight line, even laser light, and that right angles exist in our universe...then...

The screenshot is misleading....OBVIOUSLY.....

I will contact Google.

But, meanwhile, what I stated is correct, concerning paths of light which NEVER travel in a straight line.

Any good schoolboy knows this.

And, every budding child astronomer knows this, too, and can observe this effect, easily.

We have to separate science categories, not be so absolute.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

No, light is not always bent. In empty space, light travels in a straight line. It only bends when it hits certain things like water, glass, or heavy gravity When Light Does Not Bend

• In a vacuum: Light goes straight through empty space without changing direction.

• Hitting straight on: If a light beam hits a piece of glass or water straight head-on (at a 90-degree angle), it slows down but keeps going in a straight line without bending.

NO.

IN THE REAL UNIVERSE, the real universe in which we exist, light does NOT travel in a straight line.....PERIOD....end of story....

Simple as that.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

We have to separate science categories, not be so absolute.

We cannot separate ourselves from Nature, and remain scientists, EVER....PERIOD....

Light, in our universe, does NOT travel in a straight line.

Never has.

Never will.

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NO.

IN THE REAL UNIVERSE, the real universe in which we exist, light does NOT travel in a straight line.....PERIOD....end of story....

Simple as that.

When you're proven wrong, like has happened now and before with me, your best bet is not to answer. We are in the real universe, and if you take some time to research what I posted in AI, you'll see where you were wrong.

8 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NO.

IN THE REAL UNIVERSE, the real universe in which we exist, light does NOT travel in a straight line.....PERIOD....end of story....

Simple as that.

False. Light travels in straight lines, null geodesics, in locally flat spacetime. Gravity curves those paths on larger scales, so your absolute claim that light never travels straight is incorrect. PERIOD…end of story…

Edited August 10Aug 10 by novacova

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NO.

IN THE REAL UNIVERSE, the real universe in which we exist, light does NOT travel in a straight line.....PERIOD....end of story....

Simple as that.

OH, NO......Heaven Forbid.....I received a QUESTION-MARK Emoji concerning this comment.

What is unclear, anyway???

Everybody, in this day and age, knows the following, which is a very simplified explanation of our reality:

Light does not travel in a Euclidean straight line because the universe is a curved four-dimensional manifold. The trajectory of light is dictated by the local geometry of spacetime, which is deformed by the presence of mass and energy.

Empirical Verification

The curvature of spacetime forces the spatial trajectory of light to deviate from strict linearity.

• Metric Deformation: Mass and energy generate a gravitational field by altering the metric tensor components. The spacetime manifold dictates how matter and energy must move.

• Gravitational Lensing: When photons pass near a massive body, their path bends inward toward the center of mass. This produces measurable optical phenomena, including Einstein rings, the multiple imaging of distant quasars, and cosmic shear.

• Shapiro Time Delay: Light traversing a gravitational well experiences a measurable delay in transit time compared to a flat-spacetime prediction, verifying that the physical distance along the geodesic has increased.

The deviation from a straight spatial line is the empirical consequence of light maintaining a perfectly straight temporal-spatial path across a non-flat background.

I can only assume that this is now crystal clear for EVERYONE.....

This is, nowadays, 8th-Grade Science.....and this is NO JOKE....Folks.....

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Light travels in straight lines, null geodesics, in locally flat spacetime.

There is really NO local space....UNLESS you are talking about an infinite limit, and infinitely small local space.....PERIOD......

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

OH, NO......Heaven Forbid.....I received a QUESTION-MARK Emoji concerning this comment.

Due to your broad erroneous assumption…

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NO.

IN THE REAL UNIVERSE, the real universe in which we exist, light does NOT travel in a straight line.....PERIOD....end of story....

Simple as that.

Which is false.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

There is really NO local space....UNLESS you are talking about an infinite limit, and infinitely small local space.....PERIOD......

Wrong again.

Localized spacetime is a small enough region around any event where spacetime is approximately flat, curvature is negligible and where light travels in a straight path.

8 minutes ago, novacova said:

Wrong again.

Localized spacetime is a small enough region around any event where spacetime is approximately flat, curvature is negligible and where light travels in a straight path.

Nothing is negligible, unless you wish to rely on some arbitrary definition of what is negligible.....which it seems you are erroneously willing to do.

And, besides, there are NO right angles, no matter how local you are willing to go.

Capisce.....??????

Edited August 10Aug 10 by GammaGlobulin

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

When you're proven wrong, like has happened now and before with me, your best bet is not to answer. We are in the real universe, and if you take some time to research what I posted in AI, you'll see where you were wrong.

I NEVER research ANYTHING using AI.....

Have you NOT learned your lesson....YET.....?????

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I NEVER research ANYTHING using AI.....

Have you NOT learned your lesson....YET.....?????

Yes, I post the truth, and let those who were wrong figure it out for themselves. AI is an abridged summary of data about a subject.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Yes, I post the truth, and let those who were wrong figure it out for themselves. AI is an abridged summary of data about a subject.

It is a summary which is always filled with conflicting data, conclusions, and assumptions.

Or, have you NOT figured this out for YOURSELF.....by now?????

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It is a summary which is always filled with conflicting data, conclusions, and assumptions.

Or, have you NOT figured this out for YOURSELF.....by now?????

Which can be proven by what? Researching more. Here, I'll use AI once again to show you the way.....No, AI summaries are not always filled with conflicting data. They can make mistakes or misread text, but they often give clear and correct facts when they use good sources.

Why AI Summaries Have Errors

• Bad data: The AI reads weak or wrong articles.

• Mixed views: Different sources write different facts about a topic.

• Missing details: The AI leaves out key parts of a long text

How to Get Better Results

• Check the source: Look at the original links the AI uses.

• Ask for clarity: Tell the AI to use only one specific source.

• Test the facts: Look up big claims on trusted websites.

Edited August 10Aug 10 by fredwiggy

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, AI summaries are not always filled with conflicting data. They can make mistakes or misread text, but they often give clear and correct facts when they use good sources.

BALONEY......really.....

The QUESTION is.....

How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?

DUH.....One must, obviously, resort to original sources, and verify, Verify....VERIFY.......

You know this is true.

However, merely for the purpose of "argument and debate", you pretend that you do not know.

Maybe you are bored, and you are just taking a position....which you do not really agree with....for the "heck of it"......?

Are you sure that you did not attend Penn?

I thought you stated that you had.

And, recently, you have stated that you never did.

Anyway.....I do recall that someone mentioned this, during the past two years....and I though it was you.

So, feel free to trust EVERYTHING you read coughed up by an AI......

OR....of course.....

You will need to spend a great deal of time to separate out what is true from that which is false.

This will take a great deal of time.

FORTUNATELY....as you DO know, and as I DO know.....

A genius who already knows the answers, and the truth, can profitably use AI to jog one's memory about that which one has already researched....in the distant past....

And one does not NEED to waste much time deciding when AI goes off-tracke.

THIS is why, in order to use an AI, in a constructive way.....one must STILL be a .....

Genius, and know more than the AI, about any topic being analysed by the AI.

34 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Nothing is negligible, unless you wish to rely on some arbitrary definition of what is negligible.....which it seems you are erroneously willing to do.

And, besides, there are NO right angles, no matter how local you are willing to go.

Capisce.....??????

Another error you have there and your terminology is also incorrect.

In general relativity the notion is quantitative, not arbitrary. The local curvature scale is set by the Riemann tensor, roughly a radius of curvature. In any region of which size is much smaller than that scale, deviations from flat Minkowski geometry fall as higher order terms and can be made arbitrarily small simply by shrinking the region. That is a controlled approximation, not an arbitrary cutoff. In other words, negligible has a precise operational meaning, the error can be reduced below any chosen tolerance by restricting attention to a sufficiently small neighborhood. This puts you Lightyears behind of understanding what it is that you’re trying to reconcile with.

23 minutes ago, novacova said:

negligible has a precise operational meaning

Yes....

But, it is my preference to push the limits here, and I do not accept, and I will never accept, the term negligible.

This is my prerogative.

30 minutes ago, novacova said:

Another error you have there and your terminology is also incorrect.

In general relativity the notion is quantitative, not arbitrary. The local curvature scale is set by the Riemann tensor, roughly a radius of curvature. In any region of which size is much smaller than that scale, deviations from flat Minkowski geometry fall as higher order terms and can be made arbitrarily small simply by shrinking the region. That is a controlled approximation, not an arbitrary cutoff. In other words, negligible has a precise operational meaning, the error can be reduced below any chosen tolerance by restricting attention to a sufficiently small neighborhood. This puts you Lightyears behind of understanding what it is that you’re trying to reconcile with.

I know you do not know what I am talking about.

I also know that you do not know what YOU are talking about.

So, in the interests of elucidating my valid point, I will, this one time, resort to Gemini AI, but just this once:

I quote:

Yes, one can rigorously argue that a truly flat space cannot be achieved in general relativity, because tidal forces and the non-vanishing Riemann curvature tensor mean that true local flatness is an idealized mathematical limit rather than a physical reality at any finite scale.

THIS is why I spoke of LIMITS.....previously....but then....obviously, while you were asking your AI....my important comment passed HIGH ABOVE your head.....

And so....

This is the way it is, in our universe....

If you are unhappy with this, then...feel free to move yourself to a different universe...and....

PREPARE TO BE SURPRISED....Sir.....!!!!!