Anilkumar

Hello Michel123456, I remember, your Allegory hit straight to my heart, the last time. Will you please be more descriptive in the portrayal of the above. -------------------------------------************ I would like to transport two more posts here, for comparison with the above post, one from another thread & the other, an earlier post from this thread. --------------------------------------------& Are these three posts indicating the same thing? If so; I had this following unresolved issue then, and I repeat it here; "From all the above three posts, would it be proper to imply that; The 'Space is a natural entity'. However, 'Space-time' concerns the geometrical representation of an 'EVENT' occuring in that 'Space' or, 'Space-time' is a mathematical graph (or representation), of motion, of an object inside 'space'?" And, does this also mean that; 'Space-time' is an 'Abstract-Mathematical-Term', and does not represent an Entity or a System.

Thank you Swansont, I am very grateful to you. You let me have a good peep into the 'space-time curvature' premise. But I have a couple of questions more on your last post; Isn't it rational to presume that, Space; being Emptiness, Vacancy, Nothingness – Can not be bent? Thank you IM Egdall, for your kind gesture. The link feels amiable.

The Einstein's field equations?

Hello there, By this, would it be proper to imply that; The 'Space is a natural entity' but, 'Space-time' is a geometrical representation of an event in that 'Space' or, 'Space-time' is a mathematical graph, of motion, of an object inside 'space'? Does the point made here, refer to the same position, taken & mentioned, in the post of another thread, shown below ; Thank you.

Great, you have put this in right words, "It does not tell us why this curvature happens". Could you please elaborate on; 'What type of details are these?' 'Where, i.e., at what juncture, the services of Differential geometry is brought in & for what purpose?'

Well fine then, what is the role of Differential Geometry, here? But: Experimentally we see that mass bends space. Physics is not interested in knowing about the origin [= why/how Mass bends EMPTY Space'.] of 'Geometry of Space or the origin of the 'Influence', for Motion', which also CLEARLY means, that: - 'Differential Geometry has no role in 'telling us' why/how Mass bends EMPTY Space'. Then what role does 'Differential Geometry' play, here?

I would like to thank, Scienceforums.net, for providing this wonderful platform, where, a layman could discuss his doubts, with; highly Informed Persons, who have; gone to great lengths, to; acquire that information. This platform is doing, a great service to mankind. May god bless you all, those, involved in the discussions and; maintaining this platform. And also; the Software involved too is, just marvelous. Keep it up, everybody.

Seems appealing, But where does the Geometry originate from? Certainly, the Space is incapable of providing it. ---------------------------------*********** IamJoseph, Space & Vacuum are two different things. Does Physics say this?

Why don't we accredit, the observed behavior of bodies, to their 'INHERENT PROPERTIES' ? Why ascribe it to 'NOTHING'? -------------------------**********************----------------------------------- This does not accord with the definition of Space.

Thanks Quenter, for your concern. To act, one needs 'SOMETHING' to act on; one cannot act on 'NOTHING' ; SPACE is 'NOTHING' ; it is 'EMPTINESS'. Mass or mass density, denotes EXISTANCE of physical material, and Empty-Space denotes NON-EXISTANCE of anything. Then, how can something that 'exists' act on something that 'does not exist'. The very proposition that Space i.e. 'INFINITE - EMPTINESS' has a geometrical shape of its own, is incomprehensible. How can empty space, have a geometrical shape? It is like saying 'The Non-existent', 'THE-ABSENT', or 'THAT WHICH IS MISSING' has a shape of its own.

The new version came in because, the older version had shortcomings. I just meant to say that, our perceptions change as new observations come in. I would like to keep away from any contention.

Before 1905, the Kinetic Energy was given by the Formula; E=mv2/2. After 1905, it had to be altered to; E=mc2g-mc2.

If it is right to say that; "Gravity influences Motion & Time" Why are we creating unnecessary misunderstanding by saying, the other way round, that; "Presence of mass/energy warps space &Time. And this warped space affects motion. This effect is called gravity". While we very well know that; Space is a structureless entity. And so altering the structure of that entity which does not have any structure does not arise. We do not know how it can be done. I have no objection in the fact that the path & duration of the signals are altered. But I have objection in how we say that. We say that; "mass/energy warps Space & Time and so, the Signals take the altered path". I object this method of its interpretation, because, Space is a structureless entity. And there is no way, the structure of a structureless entity can be altered. So instead I want us to say that; "Mass has Gravity. And this Gravity alters the Direction and Duration of anything that is moving, in its vicinity"

Thank you Imatfaal, for the exhaustive explanation.

I feel the Universe & its contents behave not according to Laws of Physics. But they behave according to their inherent properties. The Laws of Physics are formulated according to the observations of the behavior. When our ability to observe/interpret, enhances/changes; the the Laws of Physics are prone to change. But the properties of the Universe & its contents remain the same. I regret. That was a mistake. I should have typed 'formed' instead of 'broken'.

I feel 'Theory' gives a feel of whats happening. And Mathematics gives a proof of it.

Thank you very much Janus, for the painstaking explanation. Does this mean that; "If there is an isolated mass, which is static; it would exhibit Gravity but would not radiate Gravitational waves"? The Gravitational waves have not been detected yet. There is no concrete evidence to show that they are a form of energy. Does this mean that the existence of Gravitational waves is a Hypothesis? What prompted this Hypothsis? What does Orbital energy mean? Could you please elaborate on how Orbital energy is related to the approaching of the pair of Neutron stars? Thank you for the kind forewarning. This was very informative.

OR simply, are we interpreting the effect of the Gravitational field on Matter & Time as Space-time warp? i.e.; When an object or light is passing through a Gravitational field it is forced to behave differently due to its influence and we are attributing this change in behaviour to a change in the structure of the Space. To make my point clear, I would like to give the following illustration:- "Let us suppose there is a Bar-magnet and a Magnetic-needle, in empty space, devoid of any influence of any other kind. The Magnetic-needle is placed far away from the Magnet & there is negligible or no deflection of the needle. Now the Magnetic-needle slowly starts moving towards the Magnet. As it gets closer to the Magnet, we start seeing deflections in the needle. Now we know that the deflections are due to the influence of the magnetic field of the Bar-magnet. But instead of saying that the deflections are due to the influence of the magnetic field of the Bar-magnet; we say the Space arround the Bar-magnet is warped due to its Magnetic-field & the warp is the cause for the deflections". Is this similar to Space warp due to Gravity. The difference being that, the Magnet deflects the Magnetic-needle, whereas Gravity deflects everything with mass & even Time. Like saying; if there is a Ball on top of a Table. Instead of saying 'The Ball is on the Table' we say 'The Table is under the Ball'. Instead of saying 'Gravity influences Motion' we say 'Gravity warps Space'. With all this writing as above; Am I anywhere near interpreting the phenomenon of Space-Time warp?

Though many in number, these different credentials, fail to give an indepth meaning of the Omnipotent & Omnipresent entity. What are the intricacies involved in & the rationale in support of, the affirmation that, "It is useful because it is a conserved quantity "? If it is the property of Matter or Mass, what makes it, to be recognized as a property of Matter/Mass. There are contradictions also, like; "Matter is annihilated & converted into energy"- which shows that both are two different manifestations of the same thing. AND "Energy is held inside Matter as Bonds between particles and molecules. If these Bonds are broken, energy is released" - which gives the impression that they are two different things. It also shows Energy is a produce of mass.

Thank you DrRocket, for connecting. Can we produce Energy without Matter? The inability of man to do somethings, sure, does prove certain things. But is not an adequate explanation in itself.

Energy - Not a substance? Wikipedia says - 'In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity' 'In the context of chemistry, energy is an attribute of a substance as a consequence of its atomic, molecular or aggregate structure'. 'In classical mechanics, energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity'. 'In Relativity, the amount of energy is directly proportional to the mass of body' And lastly; 'Energy density is a term used for the amount of useful energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume' And there is also a definition for Substance/Matter as follows; 'Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume'. So from all the above we can infer that Energy has mass & and volume. So it has to be a Substance, I suppose. If not, what is it? I have read somewhere that it is a property. Please explain. Edit: Italics.

Why the sources of Gravitational waves are only the "pair of orbiting Neutron stars"? Is there any evidence to show that Gravitational waves are actually a FORM of ENERGY? If so; and "Because energy can not be created. It can only be converted from one form to another" ; what "FORM" of "ENERGY" is being converted into Gravitational energy in a pair of orbiting Neutron stars? i.e. what is the BASIC - SOURCE of Gravitational energy? or "WHAT" can be CONVERTED into Gravitational energy.

Yes. It is the most mysterious thing in the universe. And, is there any empirical evidence for the existance of Gravitational waves? Have they been detected? If so, how do they behave? The relativists say they exist.

Yes, even I too had read something similar to what you mentioned.

Thank you DrRocket, for your interest. I feel, a language can not invent theories. It is the mind that invents theories. And languages are usefull in expressing it to others. Also, I am unable to decide which one of the following two statements are true, as they are contradictory:- ------------------------------------And Anyway I am not an authority on this and moreover I am very-less interested in knowing HOW & much-more interested in knowing WHAT, Einstein invented. I started this thread to get a glimpse of the Space-time warp phenomenon. To know the HOWs & WHATs of it. I want to get to know about it as much as possible. I do not wish to become an expert or an advocate of SR/GR. I want to know about it. I would appreciate if anybody could help me in this regard. Thank you. Hello ajb, I am trying to learn differential geometry. But till then I think I can surely, get to know about it theoretically as much as possible. Nice meeting you.