48
What prevailing theory in scientific circles do you think is likely to be replaced with a new understanding by 2050? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

The model of the solar system as planets rotating mostly within a flat plane around the sun, will become something more like the sun being akin to a bullet with a ballerina dress (to represent coronal aura and discharge) with the planets spiralling along with it but slower and trailing just a little behind. It will also include more space properties that aren't as well known like massive gas bubbles and a non-static gravitational floor, as well as man-made spacecraft and satellites. I don't know actually know what the current prevailing theory is. there's a lot of assumption here, plus imagination of how I believe things actually are, with no real certainty or any supporting evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The model of the solar system as planets rotating mostly within a flat plane around the sun

    This hasn't been the prevailing theory in a while. Actually, that's true for most of the simplified models we learned in elementary school. What you describe is quite a bit closer to the prevailing theory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh, well that's good to know. Thanks! I guess I need to update my own knowledge of what prevailing thought is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Did you really think that what you were able to infer from basic knowledge about the motion of the planets was not realized by scientists?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I did not think it was a prevailing theory. Now I'm curious about what you wanted to accomplish by asking that question. Why would it matter either way?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    As to what I am trying to accomplish: your comments, suggesting you have some theory about how the planets move that somehow scientists have missed, suggests to me some basic misunderstanding about how science or scientific knowledge works, and I'm trying to get at that, to possibly help you see something you are missing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't even know what you are talking about when you say 'theory'. I can't remember ever seeing a model of the planets rotating around the sun presented as a 'theory.' It's just a model to explain what is understood about it, and of course a simplification. Of course scientists understand that the sun is also moving and if you combine that motion with the orbiting of the planets you of course get a spiral.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent