Is Spacetime nothing more than Geometric Mathematics?

[north]

sure it true that EINSTEIN through geometry understands and can predict where in the future an abject will be and invents space-time to do so.

 

but because geomerty is not about any physical dynamics , or the cause of the geometry , this is where his theory falls short

 

comments

[antimatter]

This doesn't make sense.

Geometry applies to the theory just fine, the 'physical dynamics' you talk about don't really matter, that is, if we're still talking about the theory...

[north]

This doesn't make sense.

Geometry applies to the theory just fine, the 'physical dynamics' you talk about don't really matter, that is, if we're still talking about the theory...

 

yes the geometry is fine , it works but

 

the " physical dynamics " do matter since it is the essence of the geometric mathematics in the first place

[Klaynos]

Are you saying the theory is invalid because the geometry isn't really what's happening really when you get right down to it?

 

Because if you are, you're pretty much wrong, especially in a physics sense, the maths is what's happening or a model there of, a "deeper understanding" which some people want isn't science... sorry if this isn't what you're getting at an I'm jumping to conclusions here....

[north]

Are you saying the theory is invalid because the geometry isn't really what's happening really when you get right down to it?

 

Because if you are, you're pretty much wrong, especially in a physics sense, the maths is what's happening or a model there of, a "deeper understanding" which some people want isn't science... sorry if this isn't what you're getting at an I'm jumping to conclusions here....

 

no

 

what I'm saying is that while the geometric mathematics right

 

what the mathematics don't know is the reason WHY it is right

 

hence they don't know the physical dynamics or the cause of the physical dynamic

 

for instance the physical dynamics between the sun and the planet mercury

 

while we know geometric relationship between the sun and mercury we don't know why

[Klaynos]

We do know why, it's gravity and that causes the geometric bending of space...

[north]

We do know why, it's gravity and that causes the geometric bending of space...

 

yet space has no substance to it , space is part of the geometric explanation , naturally inherent in a geometric explanation behaviour of things

 

it is the matter IN space that is bent , not space

 

and gravity is also a geometric invention to account for a certain behaviour of things

 

for why then is mercury not sucked into the sun , being so much closer to the sun then is Earth

 

mercury has

 

a mass of 3.3 x10^23 kg , 0.055 of the mass of Earth , radius is 0.38 of Earth , an average density of 5400kg/m^3 , Escape speed of 4.3km/s

[Kyrisch]

for why then is mercury not sucked into the sun , being so much closer to the sun then is Earth

 

It's called Newton's First Law, forces in equilibrium. [math] F{}{g} = \frac{mv^2}{R}[/math]

[Klaynos]

As I understand it space-time is now considered to have a structure of sorts....

[north]

As I understand it space-time is now considered to have a structure of sorts....

 

well continue...

 

interesting

 

my thread has been moved to " Pseudoscience and Speculations " based on what evidence ?

[ydoaPs]

On what evidence does it deserve NOT to be in P&S? If you provide some, then it may get moved out.

[mooeypoo]

well continue...

 

interesting

 

my thread has been moved to " Pseudoscience and Speculations " based on what evidence ?

 

Based on the evidence of you not having any evidence.

 

based, also, on the fact that this is *NOT* mainstream science.

 

Perhaps it will be in the future, but if you think it should, you should first supply evidence of the validity of your theory. And lots of it, judging from the claims you're making.

 

~moo

[north]

On what evidence does it deserve NOT to be in P&S? If you provide some, then it may get moved out.

 

 

simplely put all geometric mathematics are based on geometric forms and those geometric forms are based on energy/matter , fundamentally

 

inotherwords the essence of any form is energy/matter based , and this is the essence of my position

 

while Einstein is correct in using geometry to perdict where a body may be in the future his theory is incomplete .

 

time , space and even gravity are the resultant of a geometric perspective , this is a natural out-come of this perspective . because this is the result of a three dimensional plane . since they had no understanding of the physical dynamics between objects which " caused " the geometry to end up being true

 

since Einstein was not looking at the why , but analysing the observations

 

but what I'm trying to get into is the why . and the why is based on energy/matter interactions between objects

 

hence my thinking is not based on some pseudo or speculative science

 

it is based on real energy/matter interactions between objects which govern the geometric mathematics in the end

Edited June 7, 2008 by north
multiple post merged

[ydoaPs]

That's all you've got?

[mooeypoo]

I think part of the problem is that you ignore the idea that space is not JUST space, it's Space-Time (linked, combined, working-together, however you want to put it).

 

The geometry you give seem to be a very VERY simplified idea of geometry, so no wonder the current theories don't fit it. If you read a bit further into it, though, you will see that there is absolutely no problems "fitting" Einstein's theories to a working (proven!) model - geometric or "just" physical.

 

The reason we state this as speculative is because it's not (perhaps 'yet', but still isn't) proven, or based on factual data, or is mainstream science. When it is, then we will discuss it in the physics forum, or whatever other science-forum it belongs to.

 

Your idea is interesting, but it has absolutely no factual basis, or observational structure at all. It isn't even a theory, it's a statement. Putting it in the speculation forum isn't necessarily meant to "demote" the subject, it's meant to show that it isn't yet a full fledged theory, and is the best place to try and make it into one.

 

But you have to start with the basics: Proof.

 

~moo

[north]

I think part of the problem is that you ignore the idea that space is not JUST space, it's Space-Time (linked, combined, working-together, however you want to put it).

 

I don't ignore this idea of Space-time

 

but what I'm saying is this

 

first , space has no fabric associated with it

 

if I take out any energy/matter within any amount of space , will space then still be affected ? it has not been shown that space has any inherent physical form independent of energy/matter

 

you warp the energy/matter IN space but NOT space its self

 

 

second , time . time is a geometric mathematical concept used to understand the relationship between the movement(s) of object(s) only . time is not meant to be considered the " cause " of the movement(s) between objects

 

 

The geometry you give seem to be a very VERY simplified idea of geometry, so no wonder the current theories don't fit it. If you read a bit further into it, though, you will see that there is absolutely no problems "fitting" Einstein's theories to a working (proven!) model - geometric or "just" physical.

 

then describe the physical dynamics between the sun and mercury without any mathematical concept references

 

 

 

 

The reason we state this as speculative is because it's not (perhaps 'yet', but still isn't) proven, or based on factual data, or is mainstream science. When it is, then we will discuss it in the physics forum, or whatever other science-forum it belongs to.

 

I hope , it will in the end , be mainstream thinking if not now

 

 

Your idea is interesting, but it has absolutely no factual basis, or observational structure at all. It isn't even a theory, it's a statement. Putting it in the speculation forum isn't necessarily meant to "demote" the subject, it's meant to show that it isn't yet a full fledged theory, and is the best place to try and make it into one.

 

But you have to start with the basics: Proof.

 

~moo

 

how can my ideas not be based on fact ?

 

are you saying that the essence of all energy/matter is based on time alone ?

 

lets take then two objects which are at an absolute stillness , no vibration , no electromagnetics , no rotation , no movement whats-so-ever in any form and no change in position in space

 

I now introduce time to provoke movement , how ?

 

explain how the introduction of time and time alone , between the two objects becomes a physical dynamical force ?

 

no response , hmmm...

 

it seems I've proved my point !!

[mooeypoo]

I don't ignore this idea of Space-time

 

but what I'm saying is this

 

first , space has no fabric associated with it

 

if I take out any energy/matter within any amount of space , will space then still be affected ? it has not been shown that space has any inherent physical form independent of energy/matter

.... what?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Space is spacetime. When speaking of "fabric", it is a simplification of the idea that space is "space-time". You can't speak of mass and speed without its relation to time. That's the way it works in space.

 

As for 'independent' of energy matter.. I don't quite understand what you are asking. If you speak of "Physical form", it *is* energy/matter... or.. what, exactly, are you referring to ?

 

you warp the energy/matter IN space but NOT space its self

Wrong. You warp space itself. If space "stretches" (extreme speeds, etc), it's not the matter that stretches, it's the SPACE-TIME that stretches. That's why you have all those funky phenomena with dilation of time and the likes.

 

second , time . time is a geometric mathematical concept used to understand the relationship between the movement(s) of object(s) only . time is not meant to be considered the " cause " of the movement(s) between objects

No, time is a word we invented to describe the phenomena we are affected by. When we describe space we use the dimension of time, not the other way around. Hence, we don't describe time by space, but rather define space by time.

 

then describe the physical dynamics between the sun and mercury without any mathematical concept references

.... first, do some reading. There's absolutely no problems defining that "behaviour" physically. It's observed, it's explained quite well with the EXISTING theories.

 

Second, I don't quite understand what you mean by explaining without any mathematical references. That's like asking that you explain what a fruit is without using food references. It makes no sense.

 

Physics and math are interlaced. They are related. And for your theory to be valid, it should first be explained properly (it makes no sense now), and then supported by evidence and observation, and then supported by math.

That's the way it works.

 

Explaining the behavior of a planet without referring to math is possible, but it's lacking. I would, for example, tell my 4 year old niece that mercury is pulled by the sun like a rock that's tied to a string and rotated above your head. I wouldn't get into the more accurate information, or to math, but that doesn't mean they dont' exist, or that my (quite shallow) explanation is, by any means, sufficient to anyone over 12 years old.

 

 

I hope , it will in the end , be mainstream thinking if not now

You have a long way to go before that happens. Theories become mainstream because they are supported by facts, explain new data and make predictions. Yours.. well... you have a long way to go.

 

 

 

 

 

how can my ideas not be based on fact ?

How can we take this seriously if it's not?

 

are you saying that the essence of all energy/matter is based on time alone ?

I didn't say that, don't strawman my position to make it easier to answer me. I said they're RELATED.

 

lets take then two objects which are at an absolute stillness , no vibration , no electromagnetics , no rotation , no movement whats-so-ever in any form and no change in position in space

Where does such element/matter/"thing" exist? As far as I am aware of, such thing doesn't exist. Please give an example of anything like this is you know otherwise.

 

On top of that, even if such a matter exists, it doesn't change the fact that time is related to space. Movement is defined by time AND space combined. So is speed. So is rotation. Etc etc. The fact something doesn't move doesn't mean time doesn't exist, or affect it.

 

It means it doesn't move in relation to time. That's how we define movement.

 

Movement = changing of position in relation to time.

Non Movement = *not* changing the position in relation to time.

 

.. time's still there.

 

I now introduce time to provoke movement , how ?

Time doesn't provoke movement. time is a dimension that is (at least to us) uncontrolled. (for now? maybe. but even if it will be, it's not YET controlled).

 

It's like saying that you have a flat circle, and you introduce the third dimension to provoke a sphere.

 

It makes no sense.

 

explain how the introduction of time and time alone , between the two objects becomes a physical dynamical force ?

It's not time alone.

Stop making strawmen on this. It's NOT what I said.

 

no response , hmmm...

Yea, I am not online 24/7. Stop degrading this into a personal "I win!" bash. This isn't about whose ego is bigger or who is faster to type. It's about whether or not your theory is valid.

 

it seems I've proved my point !!

Far .. far far... faaaaaaaaaar from it.

 

If you want to have your theory join science, you need to use scientific language (and MEANS) to prove it. Proving it does not mean absolute truth to the theory. It can, simply, means showing us that it is supported enough to be plausible, explains more than the current theories, and makes valid predictions. And also, you need to give something that will disprove it if happening, otherwise it's not scientific either.

 

Up until now, you seem to just repeat a non-physical mantra that depends on your idea of physics rather than what physics truly says.

 

In some circles that is called a strawman. In others, bad science. Either way, it's unacceptable for a valid theory.

 

~moo