Does the spacetime curvature according to Einstein really exist?

[tmdarkmatter]

Please read the following sentences:

"Gravity can only be explained by taking into account that there is a spacetime curvature."

"The only proof of a spacetime curvature is gravity."

 

"Because there is a god, we build a lot of churches."

"If we build a lot of churches, there will be a god."

 

"If the sun is shining today, I will ride my bike."

"If I ride my bike, the sun will be shining."

 

If you are interested in a new logical way to explain gravity, please send me a message, before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If you are interested in a new logical way to explain gravity, please send me a message, before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.

That's not the way science discussion works here. Why would anyone send you PMs on a board dedicated to open conversation?

Why would we trust your "logical way to explain gravity" when your opening post has absolutely nothing rational about it? 

If you truly had a reasoned way to explain gravity that actually worked, even an Einstein fanatic would have to admit it. If you could explain your concept in a way that stays true to what we already know and doesn't make some leap over gaps in your knowledge, we could analyze it and see if there are any flaws. If there are none, we can keep moving forward. If there are flaws, you need to address them before proceeding. 

If you want to discuss your concept, do it. Have the courage of your convictions and stop making it about "Einstein fanatics". They exist because the science serves us so well, and within its applicability, Relativity has solved many problems. Can your concept do the same? Can you use your "logical way to explain gravity" to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit above the Earth? Please show us.

[Bufofrog]

26 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If you are interested in a new logical way to explain gravity, please send me a message, before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.

If you have a theory that is supported by evidence the thread won't get closed.  

However, with the false equivalencies you just gave in the OP, I am not optimistic about your theory being logical.

edit:  X-posted with Phi for All.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Bufofrog

[tmdarkmatter]

So do you have any other proofs of spacetime curvature beside gravity?

 

Its interesting that I immediately receive negative feedback and negative reputation etc. but can you answer this question? Can you understand what I am saying?

Edited April 19, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[iNow]

Spacetime curvature IS gravity, so your question doesn't even make sense. You're not even wrong...

[Bufofrog]

8 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So do you have any other proofs of spacetime curvature beside gravity?

In general relativity gravity is defined as a space time curvature, so your question is nonsensical.

There are many examples of space time curvature such as gravitational lensing, but there is nothing else that curves space time besides gravity AFAIK. 

Edit:  X-posted once again....

Edited April 19, 2023 by Bufofrog

[tmdarkmatter]

Is gravity not a force? Is spacetime curvature not an alteration of the Cartesian coordinate system? These seem to be two different elements.

One is a force, the other one is a proposed model to explain this force.

Gravitational lensing is a proof of gravity (a force modifying the trajectory of light) but it is not a proof of spacetime curvature.

Lets say it in other words. If I have a large, unbreakable, unbendable ruler and hold it through the gravitational field of a star and this ruler keeps going straight, this would be a proof that spacetime curvature does not exist. But the pulling force applied on this ruler would be a proof of the gravitational force.

[Bufofrog]

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Is gravity not a force?

In Newtonian gravity it is modeled as a force.  This model works reasonably well.

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Gravitational lensing is a proof of gravity (a force modifying the trajectory of light) but it is not a proof of spacetime curvature.

When gravity is modeled as a force, you get the incorrect answer for lensing, when you model gravity as a curvature of space time you get the correct answer for lensing.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Bufofrog

[tmdarkmatter]

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

when you model gravity as a curvature of space time you get the correct answer for lensing.

Of course, because you can alter the curvature of space time according to your needs (that means observations). But what if gravity is actually a force and there is no need to propose space time curvature to explain gravity?

[Bufofrog]

Just now, tmdarkmatter said:

Of course, because you can alter the curvature of space time according to your needs (that means observations).

That is not how the the theory works.  For instance in one experiment the amount of lensing was calculated for a star behind the sun and the observations matched the calculation.  The amount of curvature cannot be arbitrarily changed in GR.

 

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But what if gravity is actually a force and there is no need to propose space time curvature to explain gravity?

'What ifs' are not very useful.  Do you have evidence that modeling gravity as a force gives a better answer than space time curvature?

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

what if gravity is actually a force and there is no need to propose space time curvature to explain gravity?

Then when you arrive at a model describing this which describes the behavior of our universe more accurately than current models, you will be a very famous person, indeed. Your name will be recorded in the history books, but not before. 

[tmdarkmatter]

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have evidence that modeling gravity as a force gives a better answer than space time curvature?

The problem is that we still have no explanation of why this force should exist. Why would masses attract other masses? So we just use space time curvature to explain something we could not resolve.

But what if (sorry) we did not pay attention to all components of the universe in order to discover a real explanation for this force?

May I propose a new model?

[iNow]

Just now, tmdarkmatter said:

May I propose a new model?

You have permission of course, but you also have a practically zero chance of it actually being useful to absolutely anyone anywhere. 

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Of course, because you can alter the curvature of space time according to your needs (that means observations). 

What do you mean by this? The curvature is altered not by needs but by mass/energy. 

[tmdarkmatter]

Please give me some time to continue, but I would like to start with all the things we know for sure, just asking you questions you hopefully answer saying "yes". Before we reach a possible solution of why this mystery force exists.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, tmdarkmatter said:

May I propose a new model?

Why do so many people waste so much time asking this rather than showing it has any merit? Does your model allow you to calculate how high a stable orbit around the Earth needs to be? 

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Is gravity not a force? Is spacetime curvature not an alteration of the Cartesian coordinate system?

Discussions don't work when one side has a chip on his shoulder and a snippy attitude (you) and the other side is interested in a reasonable discussion about the opposing view points (every one else). Either lighten up or accept this conversation is doomed.

[iNow]

You're not off to a great start. Why would I hang around for more? 

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. 

Summarized: Stop wasting time and bandwidth, please. 

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.

Just to address this hanging turd... nobody accepts relativity because they're fanatics. Einstein is not Moses or Jesus quoted based on faith and indoctrination. 

Relativity is accepted because it works. It has passed EVERY test thrown at it for over a hundred years. 

End program.

If a better model comes along, then it will be accepted as a better explanation or rejected for failure to be useful... NOT because someone other than his majesty the pope emperor Albert Einstein the Great said so. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Please give me some time to continue, but I would like to start with all the things we know for sure, just asking you questions you hopefully answer saying "yes". 

Your OP was full of bad assumptions. Most of the other questions were answered NO (you mentioned an unbendable ruler that doesn't bend to prove curvature doesn't exist - truly bizarre). If your ideas are based on what you've shown so far, you aren't going to be able to explain this in a way others can agree on scientifically. You have a LOT of misunderstandings and gaps in your knowledge. I wish you would ask more questions in good faith.

[iNow]

I'm reminded of evolution discussions with creationists... "Since evolution says every mutation MUST be beneficial..." 

"No... that's not what it says. Please just stop."

"It's a real shame everyone here can't accept that Darwin isn't a god and accept everything he says on faith!!!"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

The problem is that we still have no explanation of why this force should exist. Why would masses attract other masses? So we just use space time curvature to explain something we could not resolve.

But what if (sorry) we did not pay attention to all components of the universe in order to discover a real explanation for this force?

Same for e.g. electromagnetics

Physics doesn’t explain why. It explains the behavior we observe 

41 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

May I propose a new model?

In speculations, if you comply with the guidelines for that section.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Please read the following sentences:

"Gravity can only be explained by taking into account that there is a spacetime curvature."

"The only proof of a spacetime curvature is gravity."

 

"Because there is a god, we build a lot of churches."

"If we build a lot of churches, there will be a god."

 

"If the sun is shining today, I will ride my bike."

"If I ride my bike, the sun will be shining."

 

The first represents a detailed model of physical behavior. The latter two are not. Also, correlation is not causality.

Scientific models are compared to data. If the model agrees with the data and allows one to make accurate predictions, it’s eventually accepted as being valid. 

[tmdarkmatter]

Dear honorable scientists and average people,

Ok, I am sorry for making you wait. Please have in mind that pressure (especially time pressure) will never give us good answers and well-conceived ideas.

Now concerning gravity.

Please answer the following questions for yourself:

1. We know that electromagnetic radiation (or light) exists in a huge amount of different frequencies with also a huge amount of different properties. This radiation or light is being created by all types of objects, beginning with the stars, gas clouds, even planets like Jupiter. So the first question is, if a person is floating in space, is it being hit by all kinds of radiation coming from all directions and with all types of intensities? I suppose that yes.

2. Is light in its different frequencies able to push massy objects (some kind of light sail effect)? I suppose that yes

3. Does light at lower frequencies have much less energy than light at very high frequencies (gamma radiation)? We should suppose that the intensity of a ray of gamma radiation should have maybe 100.000 times the intensity of a similar ray of visible light. Right?

4. Now imagine we have to compare a person standing on the ground of earth and another person floating in space very far away. What is the difference? Why would this person be attracted to earth? There must be something in the condition of this person that should change while moving from one position to another. Am I right?

5. So let us study this situation: The person floating in space is being hit by all kinds of radiation coming from all directions. But what happens with the person standing on the ground? Is this person also being hit by the same radiation? No, definitely not. Why not? Because there is no radiation coming from below the ground (actually, the ground itself might produce its own radiation, but for practical reasons, we should only concentrate on the radiation coming from deep space). We should define this as a "gravitational shadow" created by earth. Earth is blocking a huge part of the radiation coming from space, right?

6. And this "gravitational shadow" is inversely proportional to the square of radius r. The closer an object is to earth, the bigger the shadow of earth is on the object. At the same time, the object also creates a "gravitational shadow" on earth, so we have actually electromagnetic radiation pushing earth towards the object and electromagnetic radiation pushing the object towards earth, am I right?

Well, now we have the following issues of why you might think that my model would never work (I admit that):

1. If the sun is by far the object in our solar system to create most of the radiation (actually it is not, but it is in our position on earth), shouldn´t the sun push us away from it?

Well this might be what we would all think at the beginning, But there are several variables we should pay attention to. First, the sun does not produce a lot of high frequency radiation (almost nothing). This type of radiation is rather created by special events very far away like two colliding black holes. So there might be radiation coming from millions of colliding black holes just behind the sun, radiation that is being blocked by the sun.

Second and very important is the effect created by this gravitational shadow on photons. As was already confirmed, gravity is bending the light of not only stars we can see close to the sun, but also of stars further away. If we would have to define the bending of light by the sun, we should say that the only light that is not being bent should be the light coming from the opposite direction of the sun. This means that the sky as we see it is an altered version of the real sky, the entire sky is being slightly altered by the sun. This means that the "effective shadow" of the sun should be quite bigger than its actual size.

A third condition is that the light coming from all directions is not the same with the same intensity. Far away from the sun, the intensity of light should be (approximately) the same from all directions, but close to the sun, we have light that is still being attracted strongly by the sun hitting us from outer space, while the light that has already passed by the sun to hit us should be of a much lower intensity (redshifted). So if we divide the radiation arriving at our planet in two halfs, we have one half of a high intensity that is being concentrated by the sun and another half that is of lower intensity where light is being dispersed.

When we stand on the ground, we are being very slightly pushed to the ground by an altered radiation and Earth is being pushed against us, being hit from behind, because there is no radation coming from below us holding us in position (in the air). I suppose that the force on earth towards us is much much stronger than the force pushing us down, therefore the mass of small objects does no longer matter when calculating the acceleration by gravity.

Of course you will now all laugh about this funny idea, because its not easy to imagine that there are x-rays pushing us down to the ground, but consider that we might still be very far away from detecting all kinds of radiations or particles (maybe currently defined as gravitons) or even "pressures" and that this model of gravitational shadows can apply to all kinds of radiations and the sum of all of them can be responsible for gravity. On the other hand, you will mention that not all radiation penetrates the atmosphere, but even radiation hitting the atmosphere should push the earth. Also you might say that below the surface of earth, there will be a point where there is no more radiation. Well, this does not mean that earth is not being pushed against us. Also it is possible that gravity decreases at a certain depth, once the radiations and forces are again the same from all directions.

Ok, please tell me what you think about this crazy idea. Please don´t insult me. Don´t forget that we currently have no idea what gravity is. We only have a model that seems to be very useful to make quite accurate calculations. And dont forget that space is huge and very little changes or deviations of light can have tremendous effects.

Imagine the effect of slightly blocking, deviating or redshifting the radiation hitting our planet from one side versus the other side.

And yes, the strange orbit of Mercury would be the result of a combination of gravitational shadow and light sail effect. Close to the sun, the light sail effect finally seems to increase.

And I think it is better if people propose things that are refuted or not than having nobody showing up with new possibilities/ideas.

If you want, consider this a good joke and laugh. It´s healthy to laugh. At least now I can continue with my duties.

Thank you for your attention and good luck with your future projects! (Wo)mankind needs you!

Kind regards,

Thilo Müller

[Genady]

Nothing new. Just an underdeveloped variation of Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia.

[tmdarkmatter]

But I think that there are a lot of variables/effects that were not taken into account so far.

For example the deviation of light and therefore its concentration close to a "massy" object. The redshifting. Also back then, they did not have much data about billions of galaxies and possible sources of radiations. And of course now we know that the distribution of gamma rays is very different than estimated back then.

And the worst scenario would be to consider that mass does not exist at all, it would be just an illusion created by these gravitational forces and by the forces necessary to move/accelerate an object against these forces. So when we say that photons have no mass, maybe matter also has no mass.

And while we are sitting at home, these forces are currently there. Nobody would ever say that there are no pushing forces at all exerted by radiation. So, if it´s not THE solution to the problem, the solution is at least partial.

So what I am proposing is combining Le Sage with new discoveries during the last decades, beginning with the deviation of light, the redshifting and the new sources of radiation detected.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

"Gravity can only be explained by taking into account that there is a spacetime curvature."

"The only proof of a spacetime curvature is gravity."

From what I've read, spacetime curvature doesn't explain gravity, it models it. It accurately portrays the predictable nature of gravity. That's not explaining it. Spacetime and curvature are concepts that enable scientists to plot something in two or three dimension, that happens in four. 

Spacetime curvature isn't something that exists, it's something that happens. When you plot positions of an object in a gravitiational field using time as an axis, you get a curve. The curve is in the representation, not in any physical thing. 

If you plot the motion of a body, against time, you get a curve. The curve is in the plotting. What exists in reality is a three dimensional motion of a body. 

And that's how I view gravity, as three dimensional space in motion. (Till I get convinced otherwise anyway)