Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:21 pm
-1- wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:45 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:52 pm
Yes, the word was "note".
I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.
But if you are saying it is anti-science, are you saying artistic rendering of Nature is blasphemous like drawing a picture of Mohammad?
You don't read so well. Not ALL artistic rendering of science is blasphemous. Only those which depict instances of nature which do not correspond to science or to observed reality AND claim that the picture is a true representation of reality.
I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this is what I had meant.
If it was pretty 'clear' why would you require saying it?
I always understood most color images of space is artificial. But if you want to present a model based upon science that is itself attempting to relate to the reality, the artistic additions are often the way to present the significance of the reality the scientist wants to present.
If it was pretty 'clear' why did I have to repeat it? My guess would be your writing / reading impediment.
"Most of the collection of information used by the astrophysicist used to infer what the reality is are INDIRECT, like how surrounding stars' Doppler effect may point towards some common direction to indicate the effect of some shared gravity." This is granted. You can't depict gravity, force, speed, electromagnetic radiation, current, etc. etc. etc. But what an artist does depict, ought not to be anti-scientific.
It does not matter what the picture shows, it can't depict gravity, speed, work, capacity, or force. If an artist, even on the instruction of the scientist, puts in some "effects" into the picture, then it has to be interpreted from visual representation to what the dang thing wants actually to depict; and anything that needs to be interpreted can be, and justifiably so, interpreted wrongly.