On Oct 12, 2:55*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Yet, scientists continue to observe and work tirelessly
to tie their observations to existing theory... *

....and invent whatever kludge is necessary to make the existing
theory, invariably predicated on the VSP, "work".

Each new observation should fall into the category of
"zero bias". *Instead of ardently trying to tie the new
observation to existing theory, scientists ought to put
the observation into a "let's try to falsify the existing
theory with this observation" category. *

A perfect example would be the flat rotation curves of galaxies,
presumed to be held in step by an invisible sticky goo, "dark matter".
'Member as to how, over the years, we speculated that mutual
gravitation of the peripheral mass in the disc might be partly
responsible. Then more recently, there appeared that article on low-
brightness stars in the "halo" which further eroded need for DM. Then,
just recently in our discussion of lensing by the Bullet Cluster,
there came that "Aha!" moment, when with crystal clarity, it became
obvious that the BC's lensing is due to CO-ENTRAINMENT of both matter
AND the spatial medium. Both matter and space itself are flowing in
unison, like dust borne on the wind. At that moment, it became obvious
that in spiral galaxies, co-entrainment is likewise at work, and is
the PRIMARY reason for the flat (non-Keplerian) rotation curves. Space
is co-rotating _with_ visible matter in the disc. Space itself IS the
invisible and enigmatic "dark matter"! It shoulda been so damned
obvious from the very outset.
This co-entrainment / co-rotation is visible
evidence of the Lense-Thirring ('frame dragging') effect on the
galactic scale (the only difference is - it's space dragging matter,
not vice-versa). On the scale of the Solar System, the effect is many
orders of magnitude smaller, and thus Keplerian rotation
predominates.


And with this
sort of attitude in mind, the new observation just may
lead to refinement of existing theory toward a clearer
picture of physical reality.

But science is stuck in a Brownian rut. At this point, it
would take a better, smarter person than even Albert
E. to break science out of its self-made, impassive cul
that resembles a large, heavy box with steel walls.

"A scientist without imagination is like a haystack
without a needle."