Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

[swansont]

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].

 

Repeated assertions are not evidence, and nature has no obligation to be understandable.

 

Light does not travel in a straight line when passing near a massive body. Is that true or not?

[Sorcerer]

Yes swansont but its equally arguable that mass effects light, not that mass effects space. Your assumption is that light always travels in a straight line. and only because space is warped by mass that it curves. Why not just assume light it warped by mass, seems much simpler to me.

[Greg Boyles]

Yes swansont but its equally arguable that mass effects light, not that mass effects space. Your assumption is that light always travels in a straight line. and only because space is warped by mass that it curves. Why not just assume light it warped by mass, seems much simpler to me.

 

Why does the probability of mass warping spacetime offend your sensibilities so severely????

 

You sound much like the members of the modern 'Flat Earth Society'who still believe that the Earth is flat beyond all rationality and in their face evidence.

[swansont]

Yes swansont but its equally arguable that mass effects light, not that mass effects space. Your assumption is that light always travels in a straight line. and only because space is warped by mass that it curves. Why not just assume light it warped by mass, seems much simpler to me.

 

The apparent position of an object changes when mass is near the line of sight. That's not an assumption. Light traveling in a straight line is the model, and it seems to work. GR encompasses more than just the effect on light, and we prefer "big picture" theories to isolated explanations. The geometric interpretation explains/predicts other phenomena, too. But I'm focusing on this particular one because it's one of the easier phenomena to discuss.

[StringJunky]

Yes swansont but its equally arguable that mass effects light, not that mass effects space. Your assumption is that light always travels in a straight line. and only because space is warped by mass that it curves. Why not just assume light it warped by mass, seems much simpler to me.

 

We will probably never know the true essence or nature of things because they are beyond our physical grasp. Einstein came up with an idea that has thus far matched observation in terms of describing and predicting the behaviour of things...what's not to like? Science, through Quantum Theory, is also working on the idea of some sort of virtual particle exchange between attracting masses to describe the gravitational force but for reasons beyond my knowledge at the moment they haven't cracked it yet, if they ever do. GR doesn't work below Planck dimensions so they really would like QT to work for gravity. Two things; Science is a continuum of change in the face of emerging anomalies but any new theory must agree with GR where it is valid because the numbers will stay the same...GR will never be wrong within its domain of validity so scientists are confident and happy with it where it works.

 

The point is, it does not matter if Gravity is due to a virtual particle exchange, curved spacetime or indeed any other phenomenon as long as the theory accurately describes and predicts behaviour.. Physics, when you distill it down, is the study of energy not objects. I think physicists would be happy to work with the description of invisible pink fairies holding hands, or flying to and fro, from one mass to another to describe gravity as long as the numbers work and it predicts what they can actually see.

Edited December 31, 2011 by StringJunky

[Dekan]

The point is, it does not matter if Gravity is due to a virtual particle exchange, curved spacetime or indeed any other phenomenon as long as the theory accurately describes and predicts behaviour.. I think physicists would be happy to work with the description of invisible pink fairies holding hands, or flying to and fro, from one mass to another to describe gravity as long as the numbers work and it predicts what they can actually see.

 

Isn't that the viewpoint, which enabled Ptolemaic Earth-centered Astronomy to last 1500 years, and survive into medieval times?

 

The Ptolemaic theory worked. In the sense that the numbers worked. The theory accounted for the behaviour of planets. And described what we could actually see. Moreover - it enabled us to predict things such as conjunctions of planets, eclipses, and so on.

 

The medieval expression used for this was: "Saving the appearances".

 

Which meant: it doesn't matter what the underlying, physical explanation, for the planetary movements, is. As long as we have some kind of theory which describes how they appear to move - we're happy. The Ptolemaic theory explained planetary movement in terms of imaginary epicycles and deferents. And in modern times, we have imaginary warped spacetime.

 

Human nature doesn't change much over the centuries, does it?

[URAIN]

Why does the probability of mass warping spacetime offend your sensibilities so severely????

 

You sound much like the members of the modern 'Flat Earth Society'who still believe that the Earth is flat beyond all rationality and in their face evidence.

 

( Pls dont consider it as response to thread but only for your this post)

 

Consideration of entities will change when we observe the things with wide sight and narrow sight.

 

(Earth is flat, correct when walk or drive car, but when we see astronomical entities by telescope then it is sphere. While riding car we compare earth with car's round tyre. while seeing with telescope we compare it with other planets)

 

Cosideration is different than Really how it is?

[Greg Boyles]

Isn't that the viewpoint, which enabled Ptolemaic Earth-centered Astronomy to last 1500 years, and survive into medieval times?

 

The Ptolemaic theory worked. In the sense that the numbers worked. The theory accounted for the behaviour of planets. And described what we could actually see. Moreover - it enabled us to predict things such as conjunctions of planets, eclipses, and so on.

 

The medieval expression used for this was: "Saving the appearances".

 

Which meant: it doesn't matter what the underlying, physical explanation, for the planetary movements, is. As long as we have some kind of theory which describes how they appear to move - we're happy. The Ptolemaic theory explained planetary movement in terms of imaginary epicycles and deferents. And in modern times, we have imaginary warped spacetime.

 

Human nature doesn't change much over the centuries, does it?

 

I believe the model worked at the levels of observational precision at the time. But as observational pecision improved through the ages the earth centred model no longer provided accurate predictions of planetry movement.

 

Hence the drive to find a new model that worked better.

 

( Pls dont consider it as response to thread but only for your this post)

 

Consideration of entities will change when we observe the things with wide sight and narrow sight.

 

(Earth is flat, correct when walk or drive car, but when we see astronomical entities by telescope then it is sphere. While riding car we compare earth with car's round tyre. while seeing with telescope we compare it with other planets)

 

Cosideration is different than Really how it is?

 

The fact that the earth can be regarded as flat, for convenience, for very local events does not make the flat earth theory in any way valid.

[Anilkumar]

Repeated assertions are not evidence, and nature has no obligation to be understandable.

Honorable Swansont, Respected ladies & gentlemen.

 

Here is the evidence in the form of “explanation based on logic.”

 

I am trying to give this explanation to the best of my knowledge and ability which I know are not adequate to take up such a major task. I present this Explanation to the Scientific world for their perusal. I am aware that it certainly needs a touch by the hands of expert Logicians & Mathematicians.

 

I shall begin my explanation by reiterating, that the conclusion by the Relativists that

 

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

 

Is a terribly bad conclusion. [With all due respect.]

 

It is bad conclusion because;

 

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].

 

[There is a reasonable cause for my repeated use of the word ‘Relativists’. I do not intend to demean anybody. If there is anybody I respect the most in my life; it is the knowledge-seeker. In fact the Relativists are the Scientists; who apart from being knowledge-seekers they are also the Knowledge-givers, thanks to whom we know so much about this universe. But here I use the word ‘Relativists’ because I strongly believe, that there is a difference between what the GR [or the mathematics of GR] says and what Relativists say. There are logical reasons to support what I am saying. By this I don’t mean GR is wrong. No, GR is not wrong. Its interpretation is wrong. So to distinguish between what GR actually says and what Relativists have concluded from it; I sometimes need to use the words – ‘The Relativists say . . .’. Please kindly be sympathetic with me for raising this issue. I beg before you. I do not intend to demean anybody. There is a need to establish the fact.

 

The GR does not demand ‘Space warp’. It does not deny the existence of Space. It does not say that Gravity is an abstraction. It does not say space is a notion.]

 

So before going into the bowels of the mathematics of GR, it’s necessary to discuss Space & Gravitational field which will be of help to us in comprehending this matter.

 

Now let us take up the issue, as to why;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It is so because [i have said these things in my earlier posts, but I find it necessary to repeat them here to make this Explanation comprehensive]

 

The definition of Space doesn’t permit it. So what is Space? [i will try to portray it to the best of my knowledge.]

 

Space is a Fundamental entity, which is the vast infinite empty vacancy in which all the Matter of the Universe is placed. It is the basic state of Space that it give occupancy or allow itself to be occupied and so be Empty. Anything that is inside Space is not Space or a part of it. To place anything inside it – there should be emptiness. And emptiness cannot be acted upon, except filling it. Emptiness cannot have any properties, as there is nothing inside it to have any properties. Only properties are the ones that can be acted upon. Absence of properties cannot be acted upon. Space is the absence of any properties, presence of vacancy i.e. emptiness.

 

It is the basic requirement of this Universe. It is necessary for placing all the Matter of the Universe. Its existence is Fundamental.

 

If we say Space is a notion or an Idea, then where is this Universe placed?

 

Is it placed in an idea?

 

Are we living in an idea?

 

This is illogical.

 

Now why do the Relativists say so?

 

I say with all due respect and utmost humility that they have suffered a misconception.

 

We need to discuss Gravitational field before discussing the misconception.

 

What is Gravitational field?

 

Is it just Acceleration?

 

Impossible.

 

It cannot be merely acceleration. Acceleration is just a characteristic of Gravitational field.

 

I will try to explain Gravitational field.

 

Firstly what is a field? [Everyone knows this; but as this explanation is contextual of this matter, I find it necessary to present the context.]

 

A field is a name given to the phenomenon called ‘Action at a distance’. The matter acts on Matter, like Magnet acts on magnetic materials, Electric charge acts on electric charge, at a distance. It is the influence or a condition created/generated by that material in the area around it.

 

Gravitational field is the influence or a condition created/generated by Matter around itself.

 

Just like the condition created/generated by magnets around themselves for magnetic materials,

 

like the condition created/generated by electric charge around itself for charged particles.

 

Gravitational field is condition created/generated by Matter around itself for other Matter [be it light, energy, object or any other manifestation of Matter].

 

How does this affect matter?

 

When any particle of matter or its manifestation enters the area of influence of a massive body it creates a disturbance in the ‘condition’ around it. And as a result there is a reaction. And that reaction in turn affects the particle that created the disturbance, similar to the effect on a charged particle when it enters the electric field of another particle & similar to the effect on a magnetic material when it enters the magnetic field of a magnet.

 

I am saying the Gravitational field is an entity, though not in the fundamental sense, but because it is the product of the Matter [in proportion to its mass]. Like a proton & it’s positive charge. Properties of matter do not have separate existence from their Matter.

 

When we equate Gravitational field to only Acceleration, we are leaving out the Matter’s ability to react at a distance on other matter. This is one of the reasons for the spacetime curvature proposal to come into being. It forced the Relativists to invent SPACE WARP to account for the action at a distance, because they had left out the Gravitational field and took into consideration only one characteristic of it, the Acceleration. What made them fall upon Space and say it warps? It is their misinterpretation of the mathematics of GR. We will discuss about it later. But now let us see why we can’t accept spacetime curvature and why we should consider the Gravitational field?

 

By saying ‘Matter/mass affects Space, and the Space affects motion of Matter’;

 

We are assuming that Matter/mass needs a mediator to convey itself to other Matter.

 

Matter can act on Matter directly without any mediation, through Gravity.

 

Whereas, Space is not capable of becoming that mediator, and

 

Matter does not need a mediator when the Gravitational field as a ‘condition’ or ‘action at a distance’ is considered.

 

The Gravitational field is an established fact like the other fields [Electric and Magnetic].

 

And Space being emptiness, does not have any structure to warp.

 

Now what do the stress-energy tensors and the Einstein field equations depict?

 

They do not describe the spacetime curvature. There is nothing in it to get deformed there. But the Einstein field equations actually describe the PHYSICAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD like the other field theory equations of the Electric & Magnetic Fields, do.

 

Then why did the relativists claim spacetime curvature?

 

It is the misinterpretation of the mathematics.

 

How/why does GR work then?

 

There are three aspects of GR.

 

The theory, the equations/solutions, & the conclusion.

 

The theory - It is the creation of the most extraordinary mind mankind has ever produced.

 

The equations/solutions – It is the impeccable mathematics.

 

These two make it work.

 

The interpretation/conclusions – It is the human work, based on the fact that the above two are working. But this has nothing to do with the two.

 

Now let us come to misinterpretation part.

 

What is the misinterpretation?

 

Here is the excerpt from the collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume-6: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.

 

The foundations of general relativity theory.doc

 

 

 

 

We understand from the above that

 

Einstein suggests;

 

“The Gravitational field of Empty space should be zero”.

 

There is nothing wrong with this proposition.

 

Mathematically it is absolutely correct.

 

And with this inherent proposition itself the field equations/solutions and the theory are immensely successful.

 

But at the same time,

 

This very proposition has led to the misconception.

 

This proposition has created an unrealistic relationship.

 

This proposition projects or builds a mathematical relationship between Gravitational field & Space.

 

By assuming, in the absence of matter, the Gravitational Field to be zero, it renders that Gravitational field comes from Space.

 

It builds a relationship between Gravitational field and Space.

 

This is not the result of the Mathematics.

 

This is the result of the assumption.

 

The mathematics does not pronounce that the Gravitational field is linked to Space.

 

The assumption builds that link.

 

The Relativists overlooked this fact, moreover instead of considering this as the consequence of the assumption and countering this illicit relation by counter-assuming that the Field equations actually do not describe the spacetime curvature, as there is nothing in it to get deformed there, but instead the Field equations actually describe the PHYSICAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD like the other field theory equations of the Electric & Magnetic Fields do, they compensated by giving curvature to space. And so consequently, as the Space being an empty place could not be curved, i.e. the definition does not permit it, they ruled out its existence and declared it a notion, and kept it as spatial distances and said Space exists only as the spatial distances because the spatial distances were necessary for depicting the curvature in the form of geometry.

 

This is my humble opinion. I have no other intentions other than expressing what I felt about spacetime curvature. Now it is here for your valuable scrutiny.

 

Thank you and, Regards.

 

 

[swansont]

No, GR is not wrong. Its interpretation is wrong.

 

GR involves non-Euclidean geometry. Ergo, the space it describes is curved in the presence of mass. The error here is in your interpretation of "space".

[URAIN]

 

 

Space is a Fundamental entity, which is the vast infinite empty vacancy in which all the Matter of the Universe is placed. It is the basic state of Space that it give occupancy or allow itself to be occupied and so be Empty. Anything that is inside Space is not Space or a part of it. To place anything inside it – there should be emptiness. And emptiness cannot be acted upon, except filling it. Emptiness cannot have any properties, as there is nothing inside it to have any properties. Only properties are the ones that can be acted upon. Absence of properties cannot be acted upon. Space is the absence of any properties, presence of vacancy i.e. emptiness.

 

 

Please clear me. You are saying all matter placed in space. Next you say 'To place anything inside it - there should be emptiness.

 

It is confusing, it will better if you explain by step by step with examples.

 

 

 

[Anilkumar]

By this,

 

GR involves non-Euclidean geometry. Ergo, the space it describes is curved in the presence of mass. The error here is in your interpretation of "space".

and subsequently following with this,

 

I've added this to one of the locked sticky threads, but have reproduced it here for discussion.

 

 

It's human nature to categorize people, and if you're introducing a new subject for discussion some new, possibly untested idea that is not part of the standard curriculum of science you don't want to be classified as a crackpot.

 

Here is some the behavior you must avoid.

 

and

 

On the contrary. This was written as advice for people who don't want to be mistaken for crackpots.

from here http://www.sciencefo...7-crackpottery/

 

 

 

You are not helping me any better.

 

By that, you are merely, warning me not to question an established belief, but also punishing me or intimidating me [i will explain how it is intimidation, later] for doing it and also asking me to keep silent i.e. not to come up with or speak out what I feel about a theory on my way to trying to comprehend it, or else I would be branded as a Crackpot.

 

Thanks for the advise, but;

 

Instead, it would have helped if you had elaborated on my error in interpreting "Space" or if you did interpret "Space" for me, because I am ready to be branded as a Crackpot or any thing else, until I am rationally convinced.

 

But first things first:-

 

Your claiming; that there is experimental evidence [The king] for spacetime curvature is false.

 

How?

 

 

Your claiming; that the bending of light & other phenomenon is experimental evidence for spacetime curvature is false because it is not the evidence for spacetime curvature but instead it is the evidence that there is bend/alteration in the motion of objects etc in the vicinity of mass.

 

The spacetime curvature is just a model to explain that alteration in motion. It is just an explanation, like the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have presented. I can also claim that the observed alteration in motion of light & other objects is an evidence for the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have given.

 

 

 

Now the INTIMIDATION by those who accuse me of Crack-pottery.

 

Accusing new proposals as Crack-pottery is no way to deny them. It is not the way of Science. Rational reasoning is the right way. Whether you are dealing with Crack-pottery or a genuine proposal; only rational reasoning can resolve the matter.

 

I have not introduced any new theory to accuse me of Crack-pottery.

 

What am trying to say is;

 

the elucidation of the altered motion of objects as due to

• spacetime curvature and consequently
• that Space is a notion.

are irrational whereas, saying, it is due to;

 

• Gravitational field and eventually
• considering Space as the fundamental entity which gives occupancy to all matter.

is rational.

 

If this attempt to reason rationally is accused as Crack-pottery then that accusation is nothing but Injustice.

 

Is what I am doing really Crack-pottery?

 

I proposed the new explanation because the prevailing explanation failed to convince me rationally. My explanation does not introduce any new matter. It is purely based on the prevailing scientific theories.

 

Give one reason why the Gravitational field model is not better than the spacetime curvature model, apart from saying it is widely accepted. Wide acceptance does not give anything any credibility. It only shows its popularity. The Geocentric model of the world was very popular, which did not mean it was right.

 

What if I respond to those who accuse me of Crack-pottery by saying;

 

It is the Sycophants of established ideas, the rigid adherers of popular beliefs and the chorus who are accusing me of Crack-pottery.

 

Will I be right?

 

No. If I do that,

 

Then this will be no more a discussion based on reasoning.

 

It would be reduced to a street fight.

 

Are we street fighters, who have gathered here?

 

Why stoop so low?

 

Have we run short of good reasoning to resort to the strategies of street-fighters?

 

When a person wants to be convinced regarding a theory, and in the process, expresses doubts and proposes something else and asks, Why this? And why not this? and faces accusation of Crack-pottery, then he is not talking to scientific people.

 

Scientific people are the ones [i have seen them], who don't utter a single word that is not a part of a good reasoning.

 

Come up with a rationally convincing answer if you have one and get me out. I will surrender. You can't get me out with street-fighting techniques.

 

Resorting to street-fighting techniques shows that they have run out of good reasoning.

 

These accusation & intimidation are not going to defeat me.

 

They will definitely defeat Science.

 

My question to the accusers is;

 

 

 

Can you point out any single part of the alternate proposal I have given, that sounds irrational/illogical?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

You are not helping me any better.

 

By that, you are merely, warning me not to question an established belief, but also punishing me or intimidating me [i will explain how it is intimidation, later] for doing it and also asking me to keep silent i.e. not to come up with or speak out what I feel about a theory on my way to trying to comprehend it, or else I would be branded as a Crackpot.

 

You are free to speak out, as the existence of these posts demonstrates. However, the way you do so speaks volumes about your credibility.

 

Your claiming; that there is experimental evidence [The king] for spacetime curvature is false.

 

How?

 

 

Your claiming; that the bending of light & other phenomenon is experimental evidence for spacetime curvature is false because it is not the evidence for spacetime curvature but instead it is the evidence that there is bend/alteration in the motion of objects etc in the vicinity of mass.

 

The spacetime curvature is just a model to explain that alteration in motion. It is just an explanation, like the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have presented. I can also claim that the observed alteration in motion of light & other objects is an evidence for the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have given.

 

Yes, they are both explanations. But you go with the one that explains better by making better predictions.

 

 

Now the INTIMIDATION by those who accuse me of Crack-pottery.

 

Accusing new proposals as Crack-pottery is no way to deny them. It is not the way of Science. Rational reasoning is the right way. Whether you are dealing with Crack-pottery or a genuine proposal; only rational reasoning can resolve the matter.

 

Has anyone actually called you a crackpot? I haven't seen it.

 

But I can guess what would happen if we took a poll. All you're doing here is shooting the messenger.

 

Give one reason why the Gravitational field model is not better than the spacetime curvature model, apart from saying it is widely accepted. Wide acceptance does not give anything any credibility. It only shows its popularity. The Geocentric model of the world was very popular, which did not mean it was right.

 

The precession of Mercury. The bending of light around the sun. Gravitational redshift of light/gravitational time dilation. GR gives a better accounting of these effects.

[Anilkumar]

Please clear me. You are saying all matter placed in space. Next you say 'To place anything inside it - there should be emptiness.

 

It is confusing, it will better if you explain by step by step with examples.

Hello URAIN,

 

If you could make your confusion clear by presenting it in the form of a specific question, I would be helped to give a specific answer.

Thank you.

 

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

Hello Swansont,

 

You are free to speak out, as the existence of these posts demonstrates. However, the way you do so speaks volumes about your credibility.

 

Free speech is an asset of discussion forums. But that Asset is hijacked when 'Disbelief' [when something comes from unexpected quarters], 'Rigid adherence' [to popular beliefs] and 'Annoyance' [when established beliefs are questioned] arrive to set aside arguments by labeling them as crack-pottery instead of reasoning with them.

 

I didn't get which way of mine speaks volumes about my credibility. Will you please be kind enough to bring it up so that I can correct myself?

 

Has anyone actually called you a crackpot? I haven't seen it.

Why bring up an issue which has not been seen?

 

 

But I can guess what would happen if we took a poll. All you're doing here is shooting the messenger.

A guess can go either way, right or wrong. But,

is a poll of that kind necessary?

Should we stop reasoning?

 

Aren't political decisions taken by poll? And,

Scientific decisions by Reasoning?

 

Won't it be correct to cease this unrelated branch of the actual discussion here?

 

 

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

 

Yes, they are both explanations. But you go with the one that explains better by making better predictions.

How the Explanations would possess the ability to predict? Aren't predictions done with the help of the mathematics involved? The Explanations & the Mathematics are two different aspects. The Explanations are the interpretations of what is happening. And the Mathematics is calculations of the quantities involved in the happening.

 

Both Explanations say 'it' [alteration in motion] happens due to stress generated.

 

The Mathematics calculates the stress.

 

One Explanation [spacetime curvature] says the stress is generated in the Space.

 

The other Explanation, says the stress is generated in the field conditions.

 

The mathematics is not concerned about which one generates the stress. It just calculates the stress.

 

But what I am proposing is, when we compare both Explanations with one another, we find;

 

Attributing Stress to Space is not appropriate. [The Space is empty. There is nothing to get stressed there.]

 

Attributing Stress to the field conditions is appropriate. [successful in Magnetic field & Electric field.]

 

And moreover,

 

The former says Space is a notion.

 

The latter says Space is a fundamental entity which gives place to all Matter.

 

Then;

 

which is better?

 

The precession of Mercury. The bending of light around the sun. Gravitational redshift of light/gravitational time dilation. GR gives a better accounting of these effects.

The mathematics of GR does it, and not the spacetime curvature interpretation of what's happening.

 

It's like;

When suppose if,

 

"Mathematics says two Apples and another two Apples, added together, make four Apples".

 

The above example can be interpreted in two ways,

1. The Apples have that ability – Which would be Irrational.

2. Quantities of similar nature are additive [additive, i.e. can be added into one ------sum] – Which would be Rational.

 

The mathematics is correct. That does not mean both the interpretations are correct. Only the rational interpretation can be correct.

 

Thank you

Edited January 6, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Anilkumar]

Hello everybody,

 

So what should we conclude?

 

That,

 

I am a hard nut to crack.

 

Or, there may be a possibility that there could be a little substance in it which needs further thought.

 

Just choose one of the above opinions, for now. [swansont I felt sad you didn’t desire to reply to my post.]

 

I think we have had lot of strenuous discussions.

 

Opinions are invaluable.

 

 

[swansont]

The mathematics of GR does it, and not the spacetime curvature interpretation of what's happening.

 

GR is inherently a geometric theory. You can't separate the two.

[Anilkumar]

GR is inherently a geometric theory. You can't separate the two.

Yes, certainly. GR describes the deformation in the motion with geometry. But attributing that deformation in motion to curvature in spacetime and not to the Gravitational field is just a misinterpretation.

 

 

[swansont]

Yes, certainly. GR describes the deformation in the motion with geometry. But attributing that deformation in motion to curvature in spacetime and not to the Gravitational field is just a misinterpretation.

Spacetime IS the geometry. It replaces the Newtonian gravitational field; saying that the deformation is of the field is either nonsensical or redundant, depending on how you look at it.

[Anilkumar]

Spacetime IS the geometry.

 

 

There is no disagreement in; either that the spacetime is the geometry, or that the alteration in motion is described accurately by the spacetime geometry. What I disagree is – ‘that the spacetime gets curved’, ‘that mass creates the curvature in the spacetime geometry’ and ‘that the curved geometry of the spacetime induces the alteration in motion’.

 

 

 

saying that the deformation is of the field is either nonsensical or redundant, depending on how you look at it.

 

I did not say ‘deformation is of the field’. I said the deformation/alteration of motion is due to the disturbance/stress created in the Gravitational field.

 

 

 

It replaces the Newtonian gravitational field.

 

 

How can the Property of one Entity be replaced with the non-existent Property of another Entity?

 

 

[swansont]

How can the Property of one Entity be replaced with the non-existent Property of another Entity?

It's not non-existent, your insistence to the contrary. The geometry of GR near a massive object has the property of being curved. It is non-Euclidean.

[StringJunky]

It's not non-existent, your insistence to the contrary. The geometry of GR near a massive object has the property of being curved. It is non-Euclidean.

 

swansont, if a Quantum description of Gravity ever comes to fruition will it become a "field" rather than "curved spacetime"? What defines a field, in this instance, regarding gravity because up to now I've thought of curved spacetime and gravitational field as the same, more or less, but there is obviously a difference that I'm not aware of?

[swansont]

swansont, if a Quantum description of Gravity ever comes to fruition will it become a "field" rather than "curved spacetime"? What defines a field, in this instance, regarding gravity because up to now I've thought of curved spacetime and gravitational field as the same, more or less, but there is obviously a difference that I'm not aware of?

 

I suppose so, but it will not be Newtonian, which is how I have been interpreting the use of gravitational field.

[StringJunky]

I suppose so, but it will not be Newtonian, which is how I have been interpreting the use of gravitational field.

 

Am I correct, generally, in thinking of a field as the 'sphere of influence'?

Edited January 11, 2012 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Am I correct, generally, in thinking of a field as the 'sphere of influence'?

 

I thinks someone who did field theory might say it's more than that, but yeah, sort of. You map some physical quantity to every point, in this case gravitational attraction.

 

wiki link

 

The thing is, at a very basic conceptual level, I don't see a distinction between the cases — you have a coordinate, and there is a quantity that tells you about the motion of a particle at that point. In one case it's an interaction, and in the other it's geometry.

[StringJunky]

It's more or less what I thought it was...a range of values throughout space. Thanks.

Edited January 11, 2012 by StringJunky