Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

[JustinW]

We are able to see a star directly behind the Sun because the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field.

I thought space was acted upon by gravity and that light travelled through the space being acted upon by gravity?

 

 

 

Also I'm a little confused about space vs. sapcetime. I see space as the entity that gravity affects and spacetime as the corrolation between time and place. If space is not an entity, then how come it can be bent by gravity? Which is represented by light curvature.

Edited for afterthought.

Edited December 23, 2011 by JustinW

[DrRocket]

 

 

Only time can tell which one is ridiculous babble.

 

Not at all, and the answer is quite obvvious to anyone with an understanding of physics. To find ridiculous babble one need only read your posts.

[Anilkumar]

Not at all, and the answer is quite obvvious to anyone with an understanding of physics. To find ridiculous babble one need only read your posts.

How does this explain the IRRATIONAL proposition by GR that, Space is a notion?

 

 

---------------------------***************************

 

I thought space was acted upon by gravity and that light travelled through the space being acted upon by gravity?

 

 

 

Also I'm a little confused about space vs. sapcetime. I see space as the entity that gravity affects and spacetime as the corrolation between time and place. If space is not an entity, then how come it can be bent by gravity? Which is represented by light curvature.

Edited for afterthought.

 

Space cannot be acted upon in any way other than filling/occupying it.

 

There is nothing in space to act upon.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Anilkumar

[StringJunky]

 

Space cannot be acted upon in any way other than filling/occupying it.

 

There is nothing in space to act upon.

 

You are not talking science any more. You are making bald assertions with no evidence to support them.

Edited December 24, 2011 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Space cannot be acted upon in any way other than filling/occupying it.

 

There is nothing in space to act upon.

 

And yet, light is bent when passing near a massive object, and time in different gravitational potentials runs at different rates, in accordance with GR. GPS works.

[Anilkumar]

You are not talking science any more.

Do I need to be clarified?

 

You are making bald assertions with no evidence to support them.

It would be better if specific stipulations are set.

 

 

 

---------------------------**************************

 

 

And yet, light is bent when passing near a massive object, and time in different gravitational potentials runs at different rates, in accordance with GR. GPS works.

Gravitational field is the entity behind it.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Anilkumar

[StringJunky]

Do I need to be clarified?

 

 

It would be better if specific stipulations are set.

 

You are just saying things without supporting your assertions.

 

Read THIS which is in support of Swansont's post about GPS....if the effects predicted by SR and GR were not accounted for it would not work.

 

From my link:

 

If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

Edited December 24, 2011 by StringJunky

[Anilkumar]

And yet, light is bent when passing near a massive object, and time in different gravitational potentials runs at different rates, in accordance with GR. GPS works.

 

You are just saying things without supporting your assertions.

 

Read THIS which is in support of Swansont's post about GPS....if the effects predicted by SR and GR were not accounted for it would not work.

 

From my link:

 

If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

Swansont and Stringjunky,

 

"The accuracy displayed by SR & GR, in accounting, the bending of light near a massive object, the change in rate of Time, the errors in GPS" and the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury,

 

is absolutely not a proof to;

 

• Say, Mass warps Space & Time.
• Deny, the existence of the entity called 'Gravitational field' or say that Gravitational field is an abstraction.
• Conclude, that Space & Time are notions.
• Assert, Gravity is nothing but acceleration.

These are irrational conclusions or delusions, derived by the Relativists owing to the practical effectiveness of SR & GR. There are reasons for deriving these delusions. And they are human errors.

 

----------------------------------************************

Honorable Ladies & gentlemen,

 

I just finished going through "The foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein. It shows the hard work, dedication and the immense compassion of Albert Einstein to explain the Universe.

 

But due to oversight, the following conclusions derived out of GR are wrong. They are;

 

To,

 

• Say, Mass warps Space.
• Deny, the existence of the entity called 'Gravitational field' or say that Gravitational field is an abstraction.
• Conclude, that Space is a notion.
• Assert, Gravity is nothing but acceleration.

Instead I affirm;

 

• Space is not a notion, it is an entity.
• Space can not be acted upon in any way other than occupying it.
• Gravitational field is not an abstraction, it is an entity.
• Gravitational field is not merely Acceleration. But Acceleration is merely one of the characteristics of Gravitational field.

In my earlier post I had tried to explain the reasons for the irrational conclusion, logically. Now after deeper investigation and analysis I have found the mathematical origin of the irrational conclusions. The mistake is not with the mathematics involved. But the mistake is with the interpretation of the mathematics involved.

 

I will be giving you the details of the mathematical origin that has led to the irrational conclusions by the Relativists, which will remove all the doubts from your minds. The false impressions and irrational beliefs regarding Space & Matter held by us will be cleared.

 

There will be no uncertainties left over. And all the discomfort & agitation created will be alleviated. DrRocket you will have enough reasons to pardon me for my 'ridiculous babble'.

 

The mistake is inherent in the devising of the Theory. It is such a mysterious thing that without the mistake, the Theory would not have come into existence. I am not saying the Theory is wrong. The theory has been tested successfully. But some of the, conclusions that have been derived or some of the interpretations of the Theory are absolutely irrational.

 

I am compiling a post which would explain the whole thing.

 

Greg Boyles, you wanted to know my age. I feel anonymity can be interpreted as being uncertain, hesitant, dubious, and one who hides from responsibility. I have decided to update my profile, not that there is much to share. I am a small man, but I am happy for myself, that I have done something good, at last. I am feeling that I have contributed something to the world.

 

I will come up with the post, as early as possible. I am eager to share with you.

 

My best wishes to everybody.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2011 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

Space is not a notion, it is an entity.

 

The issue here is the same one that appears in several threads started by owl. Perhaps you have read them. The issue of ontology as it relates to science. Science does not claim to answer what the nature of things are, in this case space and gravitational fields. Science describes how things behave.

 

What you have done here is try and substitute ontology for science. If you want to describe what space and gravitational fields are and claim that each is an entity, fine. But what you are describing is NOT the spacetime of GR. GR is is geometric solution that describes the behavior of gravity. And it works — it provides the best description of the kinematic behavior of things. That's the end of the story until such time that a better description comes along.

 

Bottom line is what you are talking about is not what anyone else is talking about. Spacetime is an abstraction. If you insist that space is not, it means you are talking about something else.

[URAIN]

The issue here is the same one that appears in several threads started by owl. Perhaps you have read them. The issue of ontology as it relates to science.

 

I have searched for owl thread, not found. Do you give link?

 

 

 

[swansont]

I have searched for owl thread, not found. Do you give link?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&search_app=&mid=19299&sid=baccfbbb49555e148d7d567ba27c0245

[Greg Boyles]

The issue here is the same one that appears in several threads started by owl. Perhaps you have read them. The issue of ontology as it relates to science. Science does not claim to answer what the nature of things are, in this case space and gravitational fields. Science describes how things behave.

 

What you have done here is try and substitute ontology for science. If you want to describe what space and gravitational fields are and claim that each is an entity, fine. But what you are describing is NOT the spacetime of GR. GR is is geometric solution that describes the behavior of gravity. And it works — it provides the best description of the kinematic behavior of things. That's the end of the story until such time that a better description comes along.

 

Bottom line is what you are talking about is not what anyone else is talking about. Spacetime is an abstraction. If you insist that space is not, it means you are talking about something else.

 

 

The term 'warping' of spacetime is merely a descriptive analogy anyway. IT is merely a convenient means of allowing laypersons like myself to begin to understand the behaviour of spacetime and light, as described by GR, without understanding the underlying mathematics in detail.

 

To literally believe that spacetime 'warps', in terms of our every day experiences, is rather naive anyway.

[Anilkumar]

The issue here is the same one that appears in several threads started by owl. Perhaps you have read them. The issue of ontology as it relates to science. Science does not claim to answer what the nature of things are, in this case space and gravitational fields. Science describes how things behave.

 

What you have done here is try and substitute ontology for science. If you want to describe what space and gravitational fields are and claim that each is an entity, fine. But what you are describing is NOT the spacetime of GR. GR is is geometric solution that describes the behavior of gravity. And it works — it provides the best description of the kinematic behavior of things. That's the end of the story until such time that a better description comes along.

 

Bottom line is what you are talking about is not what anyone else is talking about. Spacetime is an abstraction. If you insist that space is not, it means you are talking about something else.

Revered Swansont,

 

I have different opinions.

 

I started the two threads, this and the 'Satellites in orbit', to get an understanding of Space warp. The thread 'satellites in orbit' was an upshot of my effort to understand Free fall.

 

This issue [That Space is a notion.], which we are discussing now, is there since the times of Einstein.

 

Many eyebrows in the circles of Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics and even most Religions of the world, were raised when Einstein gave the Relativistic definition of Space, as;

 

I quote,

 

"I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)"

 

I came across the issue [How can empty Space warp?] 20 years back, when I first read the Theory of relativity. Because the definition of Space that I had in mind then, as related by Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and also the Science before Einstein, came into conflict with the definition given by GR. [The definition of Space held true by science before Einstein is, presented by some books still now, even after physics has considered it as notion long back. Wikipedia gives all opinions.]

 

I discarded all other definitions except that given by GR, as it was supported by successful empirical test.

 

But;

 

there is a very big BUT here.

 

I was never convinced.

 

The issue [space is a notion] was irking me from day one, the day I read the definition of Space as given by Einstein. [i don't remember the date.] Questions came up in my mind.

 

Where are the spatially extended objects placed?

How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry?

 

I don't remember if I have read the threads of Owl or not. I may have read one or two. But I can't tell now, what the subject of those threads was? Sure, an article on this matter would interest me. I have read other articles with this issue as their subject, which have raised questions.

 

And all this, is precisely the reason why this thread has originated. I began with this thread to see if I could get any convincing answer?

 

How would I get one, while there is no answer? There is no answer, because the issue originated due to a mistake. Mistakes can't be convincingly explained. You will have to live with them or correct them.

 

. . . The issue of ontology as it relates to science. Science does not claim to answer what the nature of things are, in this case space and gravitational fields. Science describes how things behave.

 

What you have done here is try and substitute ontology for science.

 

I am not a Scientist, or a Physicist, or a philosopher, or an Ontologist.

 

I am a knowledge/information seeker.

 

Though I disagree with your opinion that I am substituting ontology for science and this is not the issue here, but still, I would like to give my opinion about an important issue, since we are passing by and as you have raised it.

 

If each rationally thinking branch of Knowledge has a different definition for the same thing, you are not imparting knowledge to the knowledge seeker. You are filling the person's brain with issues. It also show that the definition is inadequate. If Science says 'I only look at the practical side of the issues', and any other rationally thinking faculty says 'I only look at the nature of the things'. Where should the knowledge seeker look at, if both versions are in conflict and both refuse to accommodate each other's rational thought?

 

Do both care for the knowledge seeker? Do both respect knowledge? Are both doing justice to Knowledge?

 

If there is an issue, created by both, why don't both try to address it? If both say my branch does not deal with such things, should the knowledge seeker deal with them?

 

How can the nature of an Entity and the behavior of that Entity be in conflict with each other?

 

This reminds me of the view taken by many in the high up circles, regarding the 9/11 disaster that it could have been averted, but there was rivalry and lack of coordination between the intelligence & security agencies. The irony here is all the agencies work for the same goal.

 

What I mean to say here is; since all the branches of knowledge are struggling to find rational answers, a coordination & consensus will certainly help acquire better knowledge and lack of it will hinder or even can be disastrous. How can different faculties seeking knowledge be different from one another, when all work for one goal.

 

Now having said this;

 

Is this really a question of some other branch?

Space was the place where Matter was placed.

If the Space is a notion as made out by GR, and if;

Physical objects are placed not in space, but are spatially extended, then;

Where are these spatially extended objects placed?

Kindly tell me where I should go to get this answer.

 

But what you are describing is NOT the spacetime of GR. . . . Spacetime is an abstraction. If you insist that space is not, it means you are talking about something else.

Is spacetime of GR independent of the entities, the Space & Time?

 

 

 

There is a contradiction in the following statements;

 

GR is is geometric solution that describes the behavior of gravity.

-----------------------------------And

 

No, GR is replacing one abstraction with another. There is no entity.

The abstraction of a field with the abstraction of geometry.

I don't think Abstractions have behaviors. Even if we give them one, is GR a theory which describes the behavior of an abstraction? We find it necessary to describe the behavior of Entities.

 

And it works — it provides the best description of the kinematic behavior of things. That's the end of the story until such time that a better description comes along.

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

The Relativists have converted Space into a notion in order to make-up for a wrong interpretation/conclusion derived from the mathematics involved in devising the GR. And believe & want us to believe Space is a notion and Gravitational field simply acceleration, because GR is experimentally successful. It is successful, but with irrational conclusions. It works because, the conclusion that Space is a notion doesn't pose any hindrance to the practical functioning of Matter. It works because the mathematics is correct. It works because, its working does not depend on whether Space is a notion or not, it does not depend on whether Gravitational field is an abstraction or not.

 

It doesn't make a difference to GR whether Space is a notion or not. But it makes a big difference to the understanding of this Universe; it changes the basic rationally established facts about this Universe. And it leaves unanswered the next question raised, i.e. where are the spatially extended objects placed? How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry?

 

Did Albert Einstein devise the GR to make the GPS work or to get a better understanding of the Universe? His gift to mankind is immeasurable. We need to carry forward the struggle with rationality as our supervisor.

 

And moreover, this irrational conclusion, that Space is a notion is unnecessary. The GR doesn't demand it. The wrong interpretation of mathematics demands it, to accommodate itself.

 

If we correct ourselves; then,

 

Space need not be a notion.

 

It will be what it was before.

 

It need not warp.

 

GR still functions the same as before.

 

Isn't this Science?

 

Bottom line is what you are talking about is not what anyone else is talking about.

Aren't Political decisions taken by majority votes, whereas Scientific decisions through, logical/rational contemplation?

 

I don't think science is lead by might.

 

Let's all follow rationality, together.

 

Thank you.

 

The term 'warping' of spacetime is merely a descriptive analogy anyway. IT is merely a convenient means of allowing laypersons like myself to begin to understand the behaviour of spacetime and light, as described by GR, without understanding the underlying mathematics in detail.

 

To literally believe that spacetime 'warps', in terms of our every day experiences, is rather naive anyway.

Sure Greg Boyles,we must be too naïve,

 

to believe;

 

“The explanation of motion or kinematic behavior of things with the help of geometry of a structure-less empty Space”.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2011 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

I don't think Abstractions have behaviors. Even if we give them one, is GR a theory which describes the behavior of an abstraction? We find it necessary to describe the behavior of Entities.

 

The abstraction describes behavior of other things.

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

The Relativists have converted Space into a notion in order to make-up for a wrong interpretation/conclusion derived from the mathematics involved in devising the GR. And believe & want us to believe Space is a notion and Gravitational field simply acceleration, because GR is experimentally successful. It is successful, but with irrational conclusions. It works because, the conclusion that Space is a notion doesn't pose any hindrance to the practical functioning of Matter. It works because the mathematics is correct. It works because, its working does not depend on whether Space is a notion or not, it does not depend on whether Gravitational field is an abstraction or not.

 

It doesn't make a difference to GR whether Space is a notion or not. But it makes a big difference to the understanding of this Universe; it changes the basic rationally established facts about this Universe. And it leaves unanswered the next question raised, i.e. where are the spatially extended objects placed? How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry?

 

The only information we can gather about things is how they behave. That's what science does. Behavior is best described mathematically. Questions about the nature of things is not science but are also not answerable. All we have are observations of behavior. Any description of "what it is" are analogies, and only give an illusion of answering that question.

 

Did Albert Einstein devise the GR to make the GPS work or to get a better understanding of the Universe? His gift to mankind is immeasurable. We need to carry forward the struggle with rationality as our supervisor.

 

And moreover, this irrational conclusion, that Space is a notion is unnecessary. The GR doesn't demand it. The wrong interpretation of mathematics demands it, to accommodate itself.

 

Our understanding of the universe is knowing how it behaves. GR never makes any claim to be other than an abstraction to explain how kinematic behavior will proceed.

[Greg Boyles]

Revered Swansont,

 

I have different opinions.

 

I started the two threads, this and the 'Satellites in orbit', to get an understanding of Space warp. The thread 'satellites in orbit' was an upshot of my effort to understand Free fall.

 

This issue [That Space is a notion.], which we are discussing now, is there since the times of Einstein.

 

Many eyebrows in the circles of Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics and even most Religions of the world, were raised when Einstein gave the Relativistic definition of Space, as;

 

I quote,

 

"I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)"

 

I came across the issue [How can empty Space warp?] 20 years back, when I first read the Theory of relativity. Because the definition of Space that I had in mind then, as related by Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and also the Science before Einstein, came into conflict with the definition given by GR. [The definition of Space held true by science before Einstein is, presented by some books still now, even after physics has considered it as notion long back. Wikipedia gives all opinions.]

 

I discarded all other definitions except that given by GR, as it was supported by successful empirical test.

 

But;

 

there is a very big BUT here.

 

I was never convinced.

 

The issue [space is a notion] was irking me from day one, the day I read the definition of Space as given by Einstein. [i don't remember the date.] Questions came up in my mind.

 

Where are the spatially extended objects placed?

How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry?

 

I don't remember if I have read the threads of Owl or not. I may have read one or two. But I can't tell now, what the subject of those threads was? Sure, an article on this matter would interest me. I have read other articles with this issue as their subject, which have raised questions.

 

And all this, is precisely the reason why this thread has originated. I began with this thread to see if I could get any convincing answer?

 

How would I get one, while there is no answer? There is no answer, because the issue originated due to a mistake. Mistakes can't be convincingly explained. You will have to live with them or correct them.

 

 

 

I am not a Scientist, or a Physicist, or a philosopher, or an Ontologist.

 

I am a knowledge/information seeker.

 

Though I disagree with your opinion that I am substituting ontology for science and this is not the issue here, but still, I would like to give my opinion about an important issue, since we are passing by and as you have raised it.

 

If each rationally thinking branch of Knowledge has a different definition for the same thing, you are not imparting knowledge to the knowledge seeker. You are filling the person's brain with issues. It also show that the definition is inadequate. If Science says 'I only look at the practical side of the issues', and any other rationally thinking faculty says 'I only look at the nature of the things'. Where should the knowledge seeker look at, if both versions are in conflict and both refuse to accommodate each other's rational thought?

 

Do both care for the knowledge seeker? Do both respect knowledge? Are both doing justice to Knowledge?

 

If there is an issue, created by both, why don't both try to address it? If both say my branch does not deal with such things, should the knowledge seeker deal with them?

 

How can the nature of an Entity and the behavior of that Entity be in conflict with each other?

 

This reminds me of the view taken by many in the high up circles, regarding the 9/11 disaster that it could have been averted, but there was rivalry and lack of coordination between the intelligence & security agencies. The irony here is all the agencies work for the same goal.

 

What I mean to say here is; since all the branches of knowledge are struggling to find rational answers, a coordination & consensus will certainly help acquire better knowledge and lack of it will hinder or even can be disastrous. How can different faculties seeking knowledge be different from one another, when all work for one goal.

 

Now having said this;

 

Is this really a question of some other branch?

Space was the place where Matter was placed.

If the Space is a notion as made out by GR, and if;

Physical objects are placed not in space, but are spatially extended, then;

Where are these spatially extended objects placed?

Kindly tell me where I should go to get this answer.

 

 

Is spacetime of GR independent of the entities, the Space & Time?

 

 

 

There is a contradiction in the following statements;

 

 

-----------------------------------And

 

 

 

I don't think Abstractions have behaviors. Even if we give them one, is GR a theory which describes the behavior of an abstraction? We find it necessary to describe the behavior of Entities.

 

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

The Relativists have converted Space into a notion in order to make-up for a wrong interpretation/conclusion derived from the mathematics involved in devising the GR. And believe & want us to believe Space is a notion and Gravitational field simply acceleration, because GR is experimentally successful. It is successful, but with irrational conclusions. It works because, the conclusion that Space is a notion doesn't pose any hindrance to the practical functioning of Matter. It works because the mathematics is correct. It works because, its working does not depend on whether Space is a notion or not, it does not depend on whether Gravitational field is an abstraction or not.

 

It doesn't make a difference to GR whether Space is a notion or not. But it makes a big difference to the understanding of this Universe; it changes the basic rationally established facts about this Universe. And it leaves unanswered the next question raised, i.e. where are the spatially extended objects placed? How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry?

 

Did Albert Einstein devise the GR to make the GPS work or to get a better understanding of the Universe? His gift to mankind is immeasurable. We need to carry forward the struggle with rationality as our supervisor.

 

And moreover, this irrational conclusion, that Space is a notion is unnecessary. The GR doesn't demand it. The wrong interpretation of mathematics demands it, to accommodate itself.

 

If we correct ourselves; then,

 

Space need not be a notion.

 

It will be what it was before.

 

It need not warp.

 

GR still functions the same as before.

 

Isn't this Science?

 

 

Aren't Political decisions taken by majority votes, whereas Scientific decisions through, logical/rational contemplation?

 

I don't think science is lead by might.

 

Let's all follow rationality, together.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Sure Greg Boyles,we must be too naïve,

 

to believe;

 

"The explanation of motion or kinematic behavior of things with the help of geometry of a structure-less empty Space".

 

 

 

That's where we differ, because I accept that spacetime is likely to be remeniscent of an elastic fabric and that its geometry can be altered in a way remeniscent of an elastic fabric being puckered by a heavy weight.

 

I think we are flogging a dead horse with this guy folks.

 

We are no more likely to convince him of GR than Copernicus was of convincing the catholic church that the earth orbited the sun.

 

It is an exercise in futility.

 

Let him amuse himself with his self delusions and let us close off this thread.

[michel123456]

That's where we differ, because I accept that spacetime is likely to be remeniscent of an elastic fabric and that its geometry can be altered in a way remeniscent of an elastic fabric being puckered by a heavy weight.

You shouln't accept such a bad analogy.

 

I think we are flogging a dead horse with this guy folks.

 

We are no more likely to convince him of GR than Copernicus was of convincing the catholic church that the earth orbited the sun.

 

It is an exercise in futility.

 

Let him amuse himself with his self delusions and let us close off this thread.

Why?

Basically, Anilkumar is right.

Have you understood his question?

 

-------------

Einstein was the one who condamned aether theories to death. In the meanwhile wordings like "the fabric of spacetime" reintroduce the concept of spacetime made of some material. But we know it is not made up of something, or at least SR and GR do not need spacetime to be made up of something. Every time someone talks about "the bending of spacetime", it is wrong. Nothing bends because there is nothing to bend in the first place. It should be better to say that our mathematical concepts are resumed by "we can explain some phenomenas as if our system of reference based on orthogonal axis is bending in order to keep the graphic as a straight line", since a straight line is more commonly accepted as a natural path.

Edited December 27, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

Aren't Political decisions taken by majority votes, whereas Scientific decisions through, logical/rational contemplation?

 

I don't think science is lead by might.

 

Let's all follow rationality, together.

 

Rationality is only part of the process. There is experimental confirmation as well. The most well-thought-out, rational explanation might not actually correspond to what happens in nature if you base the logic on an unsound premise. You always have to tie it back to what we observe to happen.

[Greg Boyles]

You shouln't accept such a bad analogy.

 

 

Why?

Basically, Anilkumar is right.

Have you understood his question?

 

-------------

Einstein was the one who condamned aether theories to death. In the meanwhile wordings like "the fabric of spacetime" reintroduce the concept of spacetime made of some material. But we know it is not made up of something, or at least SR and GR do not need spacetime to be made up of something. Every time someone talks about "the bending of spacetime", it is wrong. Nothing bends because there is nothing to bend in the first place. It should be better to say that our mathematical concepts are resumed by "we can explain some phenomenas as if our system of reference based on orthogonal axis is bending in order to keep the graphic as a straight line", since a straight line is more commonly accepted as a natural path.

 

 

If Anilkumar theory and the mathematics behind it (is there actually any?) predict the countless experimental results that GR has predicted, and there is a consensus from the physics community that his theory is a valid replacement for GR........then I will take it seriously.

 

Until then I regard Anilkumar as a crack pot.

[michel123456]

Maybe you haven't read Anilkumar's long posts.

Here what he wrote: (bolded mine)

 

(...)And believe & want us to believe Space is a notion and Gravitational field simply acceleration, because GR is experimentally successful. It is successful, but with irrational conclusions. It works because, the conclusion that Space is a notion doesn't pose any hindrance to the practical functioning of Matter. It works because the mathematics is correct. It works because, its working does not depend on whether Space is a notion or not, it does not depend on whether Gravitational field is an abstraction or not.

(...)

 

He has no other Theory, he is talking (asking) about the interpretation of GR.

[Greg Boyles]

Maybe you haven't read Anilkumar's long posts.

Here what he wrote: (bolded mine)

 

 

 

He has no other Theory, he is talking (asking) about the interpretation of GR.

 

 

Then I will leave both of you to your delusion of grandeur.

[Anilkumar]

I think we are flogging a dead horse with this guy folks.

 

We are no more likely to convince him of GR than Copernicus was of convincing the catholic church that the earth orbited the sun.

 

It is an exercise in futility.

 

Let him amuse himself with his self delusions and let us close off this thread.

If Anilkumar theory and the mathematics behind it (is there actually any?) predict the countless experimental results that GR has predicted, and there is a consensus from the physics community that his theory is a valid replacement for GR........then I will take it seriously.

 

Until then I regard Anilkumar as a crack pot.

 

Hello Greg Boyles,

 

What would you regard as, the person who, decides before he listens?

 

What would you regard as, the person who, coins terms like 'mathematical illusion'?

 

What would you regard as, the person who, agitates in surplus?

 

Stay cool, mate.

 

The sky hasn't fallen.

 

I am not asking anybody to implement anything here.

 

We are discussing here.

 

I am saying, [at the risk of sounding foolish.]

 

"this, I feel is wrong.

 

I would like you to say this.

 

What is your opinion?"

 

That's all.

 

I am saying Relativists are wrong, because;

 

I don't want stances like YOU to explain to me with such arguments as "Einstein/Relativists can't be wrong". And,

 

it sounds absolutely wrong to me to say, Space is a notion.

 

Will you not allow me to present my explanation?

 

You know what Greg Boyles?

 

You are arguing, not because you understand GR, but because,

 

you believe in it, because there are so many who say it is correct.

I want to be rationally convinced.

 

I think you are the first person to benefit from this thread.

 

Right from the beginning, you asserted spacetime is a physical thing,

 

now you learnt it is an analogy.

 

Whether my issue settles or not by this thread, I have had one benefit.

 

I have a role model in Swansont & Michel123456,

 

The patience & tolerance shown by them is just amazing.

 

They sure will bring a change in matters.

 

They have brought a change in me.

 

Impatience & intolerance don't change anything.

 

They need change.

 

Of course I am not adamant on changing anything here. I am just asking, to be rational.

 

This is a platform to exchange views, with sane attitude.

 

We have gathered here to learn from each other.

 

We haven't gathered here to abuse each other.

 

Look so many great people have gathered here, with so much of information to exchange.

 

I have recieved information from StringJunky, IMEgdall and others.

 

I have recieved affection and consideration from everybody.

 

I am greatfull to everybody.

 

Enjoy it man.

 

Why exchange heat?

 

Stay cool.

Stop this.

Thank you.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

I haven't talked anything against this.

I never said, science isn't a collaborative effort.

I am merely objecting some aspects of an already proposed theory.

 

I think such talk will not help resolve this matter.

 

 

"rationality is not the last word"

"our highest arbiter is experimental agreement"

"it matters nothing how rational, logical, and common-sensical a theory is"

 

I pity the person who 'says this and also at the same time claims to be scientific'.

 

 

What is "empirical evidence" OR Why do we go for experimental evidence?

 

When we propose something, we go and check for empirical evidence, because we want to verify whether it happens/occurs in the proposed way or not.

 

Only that happens/occurs which is rational.

 

Irrational things do not happen/occur.

 

When we propose something, we check its rationality, by checking whether it happen/occurs in the proposed way or not.

 

I.E. checking for experimental agreement is checking for rationality of the proposal.

 

"Experimental agreement" is a name given by Science to 'Rationality'.

 

They don't mean different.

 

 

GR says Space is a notion.

 

I claim or propose that Space is an entity.

 

Do you want experimental evidence for the existence of 'Space'?

 

I can give it.

 

If there is evidence of Space,

 

it is also a proof that

 

'spacetime curvature' proposed by GR is a notion.

 

 

----------------------------------***********************

 

 

 

I am reading.

 

 

Let's first ascertain;

 

Isn't 'spacetime curvature' regarding spatial and temporal things?

 

 

----------------------------------***********************

 

 

 

How can a bend in the mathematical construct,

become a bend in the Physical?

 

 

 

 

Which abstraction is replaced by which abstraction?

 

Which entity is not there?

 

 

 

 

Which concept?

 

 

As because, GR has been able to describe what happens;

 

the Relativists want,

 

the Description - a mathematical construct,

 

to take the place of,

 

the entity,

 

which is making it happen?

 

 

I am aware that they cannot be separated.

 

But I did it to show that spacetime cannot separate itself away from its originators, the Space & the Time; and say

'I am something altogether different, I don't belong to either Space or Time or I don't know who is Space and who is time'.

 

Thank you everybody.

Have a nice day.

Imaatfaal I am sorry if I have hurt you. I know you love truth more than any thing else.

 

Hello Anilkumar,

 

You are in truth side. You are not convinced the process of space curvature, therefore you raised the objection in the expectation, anyone may convince you. You are not rejecting the GR conclusion but you are in wait of convince. You are in truth side, because if anyone convince then you will accept it.

 

 

 

You are faced so many extraordinary men inthis discussion. You faced the strong protest by members. Then also you havenot lost your patients. You had answered all, suitably without harming their FEELINGS.

 

 

 

Einstein was the great scientist and his theory was appreciated by all over the world. When lot of well things come from a person, then it makes to believe that all things came from him are well. It is the natural thing. There is no mistake in it. Time takes to adjust with the truth.

 

 

 

I haven't seen any pride in you by the thought,I have disproved the great scientist's conclusion and I have defeated the everyone. You have given the respect to everyone, who came in contact with you.I have seen ideology of 'I am not great' in you. (I think in daily life also you are like this.). This is the main principle of URAIN (U R All I am Not) also. But myself, I forget it, in sometimes.

 

 

 

You raised the question about correctness of 'space curve'. It is natural thing of questioning, if we are not convinced by anything. But we have very careful in the questioning conclusion of a great scientist. You are aware about it. You have taken all the all precautions.

 

I have also questioned the conservation law and invariance theorem.

 

http://www.sciencefo...nservation-law/

 

Because it also does not says, for which reason conservation takesplace in this universe and it will not explain that if any thing newly appeared then, why not it is not a new creation?

 

 

 

Anilkumar, I have not good communication skill like you and I am not wise as like you. But, I am confident that, from me what will come, that will convince you on this matter. When I was given response at first time, (to this related topic, space curve.) then I was doubtfully expressed my views. But, now by the grace of God, I become perfect in my understanding. I am sure it will convince you.

 

 

 

I have a wish to publish my writings in a science journal like NATURE. Because from a journal it will reach the world wide readers and it is my wish. For convince, you have to wait until, it to be published. My writings are going on,it will take some time to be completed.

 

 

 

(If here any journalists are there or anyone would like to help me to publish this, I request those that please help me to publish my writings in the journal.)

Edited December 29, 2011 by URAIN

[Anilkumar]

The abstraction describes behavior of other things.

 

The only information we can gather about things is how they behave. That's what science does. Behavior is best described mathematically. Questions about the nature of things is not science but are also not answerable. All we have are observations of behavior. Any description of "what it is" are analogies, and only give an illusion of answering that question.

 

Our understanding of the universe is knowing how it behaves.

 

 

My humble opinion is, this abstraction leads to irrational conclusions like Space warp and Space is a notion.

 

 

 

GR never makes any claim to be other than an abstraction to explain how kinematic behavior will proceed.

 

It is concluded that Mass warps Space & that Space is a notion, which is not a rational conclusion.

 

 

 

The most well-thought-out, rational explanation might not actually correspond to what happens in nature if you base the logic on an unsound premise.

 

The case here is; an irrational conclusion based on a sound premise.

 

 

------------------------*************************

 

He has no other Theory, he is talking (asking) about the interpretation of GR.

You are absolutely correct. I am extremely grateful to you for understanding me rightly.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

My humble opinion is, this abstraction leads to irrational conclusions like Space warp and Space is a notion.

 

It is concluded that Mass warps Space & that Space is a notion, which is not a rational conclusion.

 

The case here is; an irrational conclusion based on a sound premise.

 

 

That you find it irrational is an opinion. But the abstraction is a premise, that the effects can be explained geometrically. The conclusion that the geometry is not flat near a mass is the conclusion. But light does not travel in a straight line as viewed from a flat geometry, so just how irrational can the conclusion be?

[Anilkumar]

. . . But the abstraction is a premise, that the effects can be explained geometrically. The conclusion that the geometry is not flat near a mass is the conclusion. But light does not travel in a straight line as viewed from a flat geometry, so just how irrational can the conclusion be?

 

Respected, Swansont.

 

It is not as simple as that.

 

You are forgetting the serious misleading part.

 

The conclusion that;

 

"geometry is not flat near a mass, light does not travel in a straight line, because the geometry is not flat."

 

has serious implications, i.e.

 

it implies and it is also said so, that

 

Mass tells space how to curve, and that curved space tells Matter how to move.

 

This is a terribly bad conclusion. [With all due respect.]

 

 

 

Mass does not affect Space at all [i repeat, except occupying it].

 

Space cannot be affected at all [i repeat, except being occupied].

 

Space cannot affect Matter at all [i repeat, except allowing itself to be occupied by it].

 

 

 

That you find it irrational is an opinion.

 

 

You are closing your eyes to what I want to say, by terming it as just,

 

'an opinion',

 

The thing is that,

 

through my opinion,

 

I can prove that these things can't happen,

 

that it is irrational to say these things are happening,

 

and also appraise you of, what made Relativists assume the irrational judgment.

 

Through my opinion,

 

I would also give a rational estimation of what is happening.

 

which, you are at liberty to,

 

reject if you find it wrong.

 

 

------------------------****************************

 

 

Wish you all the best.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Anilkumar