Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

[ajb]

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?

 

 

Just classically we should think of gravity as the local geometry of space-time, so by this mean the metric or some other description of the geometry like vierbeins. All these objects can be considered as sections of certain fibre bundles.

 

Quite generally the modern definition of a classical field is as a section.

[StringJunky]

Just classically we should think of gravity as the local geometry of space-time, so by this mean the metric or some other description of the geometry like vierbeins. All these objects can be considered as sections of certain fibre bundles.

 

Quite generally the modern definition of a classical field is as a section.

 

I can understand the bolded part but "sections" and "fibre bundles" are over my head because I don't have the necessary math's understanding. If I want to understand SR and GR properly I'm going to have to knuckle down to it. Unlike a lot of people though I shut my mouth if I feel something conflicts with my commonsense and keep reading...it sinks in eventually! I don't worry about ontology...abstraction is fine with me. Thanks for the links though, I'll sit down with them and see what I can get out of them.

Edited January 11, 2012 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

Just classically we should think of gravity as the local geometry of space-time, so by this mean the metric or some other description of the geometry like vierbeins. All these objects can be considered as sections of certain fibre bundles.

 

Quite generally the modern definition of a classical field is as a section.

It looks to me that a massive object and his gravitational field are 2 parts of the one and same thing, isn't it?

[ajb]

It looks to me that a massive object and his gravitational field are 2 parts of the one and same thing, isn't it?

 

That is more or less what general relativity says:

 

"geometry" = "matter content"

[michel123456]

That is more or less what general relativity says:

 

"geometry" = "matter content"

Wonderful.

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

That goes back to one of my pet theories.

 

We have that a gravitational field is "part of the same object" spread around it.

We have that "spread around it" means space, and thus distance.

We have that distance means time.

We have that more the distance, more the time relative to the object.

We have that more time means into the past relative to the object.

 

Why can't we state that a gravitational field litterally IS the past of what we observe as an object?

Edited January 11, 2012 by michel123456

[Anilkumar]

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.

 

The geometry of GR has the property of being curved.

I.E. the spacetime has the property of being curved.

spacetime is not independent of Space & Time, which means Space has the property of being curved.

This is non-existent.

How can empty Space be curved?

Aren't we repeating these arguments?

 

 

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

 

 

Hello everybody,

 

 

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.

 

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

 

Just classically we should think of gravity as the local geometry of space-time, so by this mean the metric or some other description of the geometry like vierbeins. All these objects can be considered as sections of certain fibre bundles.

 

Quite generally the modern definition of a classical field is as a section.

 

It looks to me that a massive object and his gravitational field are 2 parts of the one and same thing, isn't it?

 

That is more or less what general relativity says:

 

"geometry" = "matter content"

 

I have no objections to any of the above.

 

 

Wonderful.

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

That goes back to one of my pet theories.

 

We have that a gravitational field is "part of the same object" spread around it.

We have that "spread around it" means space, and thus distance.

We have that distance means time.

We have that more the distance, more the time relative to the object.

We have that more time means into the past relative to the object.

 

Why can't we state that a gravitational field litterally IS the past of what we observe as an object?

 

I have no objection here either, except the grayed part, which I can understand to some extent and the italicized part I could not grasp.

 

By all the above what we are saying is;

 

the Gravitational field, is being graphically represented with the help of Vectors/Tensors,

in the;

spacetime graph/geometry which is also in turn a representation of Space & Time as points of [3+1] coordinates.

 

 

My objection is to this:-

 

When it is said that;

"Near a massive object the spacetime gets curved"

 

Reason;

When we say that the spacetime gets curved, we are actually saying that;

the spacetime coordinate points are getting displaced.

This is not possible.

It is not rational to say so.

There is nothing to displace in Space or in spacetime.

The spacetime coordinate points can not get displaced.

The Space does not have such a property.

Can we displace them?

That would be absurdity.

 

Thank you.

 

 

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

 

As to why I don't keep my mouth shut;

I consider nothing is holy enough in this Universe to be, excused and believed, even when it is irrational. And that is what being scientific is.

I prefer to raise my voice when Rationality is discarded.

According to me; that which is not rational – is just plain Wrong/False.

And when we tell something is Wrong/False, the onus rests on us, to also tell what is Right/True, instead.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Anilkumar

[StringJunky]

Anikumar

 

You are struggling for an ontological description of space...science at this time cannot give you one. Science can only describe the behaviour of objects in space and this behaviour is experimentally and observationally consistent with the idea of a non-Euclidean geometrical space. Quantum physics may in future give a description, using virtual particle exchange, which might make you happier but at the moment it does not work out very well AFAIK and so GR, with its curved spacetime, remains the standard description.

 

Even if/when QG comes to fruition the numbers generated by GR will still be the same (at above Planck dimensions) so scientists are quite happy with it.

 

Don't beat yourself up or argue over what gravity or space is ...they don't know.

Edited January 12, 2012 by StringJunky

[swansont]

When we say that the spacetime gets curved, we are actually saying that;

the spacetime coordinate points are getting displaced.

This is not possible.

It is not rational to say so.

There is nothing to displace in Space or in spacetime.

The spacetime coordinate points can not get displaced.

The Space does not have such a property.

Can we displace them?

That would be absurdity.

 

Since they are abstractions, why can't we do anything with them that we want?

[ajb]

When we say that the spacetime gets curved, we are actually saying that;

the spacetime coordinate points are getting displaced.

 

I don't know what you mean by "coordinate points are getting displaced".

 

Very technically we have to define carefully what we mean by curved or really the notion of curvature (or even the holonomy). I won't do that with any care here. Basically, one should think of space-time being curved if it cannot globally be identified with 4-d Minkwoski space-time.

 

One can "measure" the "non-Minkowskiness" or "non-Euclideanness" by looking at the Riemann curvature tensor. The Riemann curvature tensor is the failure of Levi-Civita connection (covariant derivative acting on vector fields) to commute. The Riemann tensor is an obstruction to the isometry with Minkowski space-time or Euclidean space, depending on the signature of the metric.

 

By curved one usually means that the Riemann tensor is non-zero.

[Anilkumar]

Anikumar

 

You are struggling for an ontological description of space...science at this time cannot give you one. Science can only describe the behaviour of objects in space and this behaviour is experimentally and observationally consistent with the idea of a non-Euclidean geometrical space. Quantum physics may in future give a description, using virtual particle exchange, which might make you happier but at the moment it does not work out very well AFAIK and so GR, with its curved spacetime, remains the standard description.

 

Even if/when QG comes to fruition the numbers generated by GR will still be the same (at above Planck dimensions) so scientists are quite happy with it.

 

Don't beat yourself up or argue over what gravity or space is ...they don't know.

 

StringJunky,

 

Space has one simple logical definition:-

Empty vacancy.

Nothingness.

Say, it is Ontological, Scientific, Philosophical or anything else.

Albert Einstein has definitely and aptly represented it with a 'zero', [at least from one aspect],

which has done wonders, experimentally.

But the sad part is, we are zealously bent on bending, that 'nothing', that 'zero'.

We are saying 'Zero' is Non-Euclidean, while

it is neither Euclidean nor Non-Euclidean.

The shapes of Matter or the effects of Matter can be either Euclidean or Non-Euclidean, but not Space.

It is irrational to give Space a behavior of bending.

 

Our current knowledge of Gravity is:-

It is action at a distance.

Similar to other fields i.e. Electric & Magnetic.

 

How logical is it to;

say that 'nothing' has a shape [whether Euclidian or non-Euclidian]? And,

replace Gravity with that 'shape - of nothing'?

 

The definition of Space can not be different, irrespective of which faculty gives it.

 

 

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

 

 

Since they are abstractions, why can't we do anything with them that we want?

That is precisely where we are going wrong.

i.e. while,

our abstractions represent reality;

if we do anything with them that we want;

would reality comply with that?

 

 

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

 

 

Hello ajb,

 

GR has attempted and succeeded in explaining Gravity with Geometry [i.e. in generally covariant form, as tensor equations.] as the tool for explanation. So whatever reading or explanation we get from that tool; we get it in the form of Geometrical changes. The effect of Matter on other Matter is being expressed in the form of geometrical changes. That does not mean that the Geometry is the thing that is being affected, or it is the medium that communicates the effect of Matter over Matter. The Matter affects the Geometry of what? The Matter brings Geometrical changes into what? The infinite Vacuous, the nothing, the Zero?! The success of GR does not imply that Gravity is the Geometry/spacetime curvature. This is the drawback of the Principle of General covariance. I.E. while explicitly explaining the interaction between physical attributes of Matter, it gives the impression that the source of the effects is the vacuous or the spacetime. It interprets everything in terms of vacuous or the spacetime. But the onus rests on us to recognize that the vacuous or the spacetime is incapable of doing or affecting anything. To explain it more elaborately;

When tensor equations or tensors on spacetime manifold are used to describe interactions between physical attributes of Matter, the description we derive is in terms of spatio-temporal relationships. That does not mean that the spacetime itself is the participant. The spacetime is just present, that's all. The spacetime can neither affect anything nor can get affected by anything. Because it is Vacuous.

 

And it works because;

 

the spatio-temporal relationships of the physical attributes of Matter involved in the interaction are taken into consideration and,

 

whatever happens in this Universe happens in spacetime and there is a spatio-temporal relationship between the participants involved.

 

Everything happens in spacetime but that does not mean that spacetime is responsible for everything.

 

These interactions can be explained with their spatio-temporal relationships but that does not mean that spacetime is a participant in all those interactions.

 

The space is a fundamental entity. It is not a notion. But it is not responsible for any interaction that takes place inside it.

 

The particles of matter can interact with each other, because they posses such properties that can affect each other. Gravity is one such property. Space can not have any property because it is the vacuous. It can be filled that's all.

 

'Tensors on spacetime manifold' is the best and the ultimate tool to describe the interaction between particles of matter. But at the same time we must be prudent enough to be aware that spacetime is not & can not be a participant in any of these interactions.

 

Very technically we have to define carefully what we mean by curved or really the notion of curvature (or even the holonomy). I won't do that with any care here. Basically, one should think of space-time being curved if it cannot globally be identified with 4-d Minkwoski space-time.

 

One can "measure" the "non-Minkowskiness" or "non-Euclideanness" by looking at the Riemann curvature tensor. The Riemann curvature tensor is the failure of Levi-Civita connection (covariant derivative acting on vector fields) to commute. The Riemann tensor is an obstruction to the isometry with Minkowski space-time or Euclidean space, depending on the signature of the metric.

 

By curved one usually means that the Riemann tensor is non-zero.

Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved surface of the matter because the curved surface is non-Euclidian. Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved motion of the Matter in the vicinity of Matter because the path of the motion is curved. But to generalize on this basis that the spacetime is curved in the vicinity of matter, is just absurd. It is illogical to say Space [the Vacuous] gets curved in the vicinity of mass. Why don't we just take the individual instances and say the path of the motion is non-Euclidean? Or the Surface is non-Euclidean? Why do we say that the whole spacetime becomes non-Euclidean, which is not at all possible?

 

I don't know what you mean by "coordinate points are getting displaced".

 

In the Minkowski spacetime model;

I quote-

the basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time. Because events are spacetime points, an example of an event is (x,y,z,t), the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events in the same way that a line is the union of all of its points, formally organized into a manifold, a space which can be described at small scales using coordinates systems.

unquote

When we say that spacetime is curved. We are actually saying that these points are getting affected whereas, in fact, there is nothing there to get affected.

Thank you

Edited January 16, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Dovada]

The particles of matter can interact with each other, because they posses such properties that can affect each other. Gravity is one such property. Space can not have any property because it is the vacuous. It can be filled that's all.

 

When you look through space you are also looking through time. Space cannot exist without the existence of time. All our velocities and speed references are in respect to the time period. Even our 3 dimensional space has underlying velocity components.

 

Space is full of electromagnetic energy and this is what all atomic matter consistently interacts with. This interaction gives the incorrect illusion that it is space that is curved, when in reality it is the atomic matter that interacts with the electromagnetic properties contained within space.

 

Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled with electromagnetic energy that moves and drives the cosmos.

[ajb]

Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved surface of the matter because the curved surface is non-Euclidian. Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved motion of the Matter in the vicinity of Matter because the path of the motion is curved. But to generalize on this basis that the spacetime is curved in the vicinity of matter, is just absurd. It is illogical to say Space [the Vacuous] gets curved in the vicinity of mass. Why don't we just take the individual instances and say the path of the motion is non-Euclidean? Or the Surface is non-Euclidean? Why do we say that the whole spacetime becomes non-Euclidean, which is not at all possible?

 

You mean the world-path of a particle is not the Euclidean line? (in general)

 

What surface are you talking about?

 

If we take the Riemann tensor as defining a curved space-time then we have some subtleties. We define a space-time to be curved if the Riemann tensor is not identically zero at all points. It will in general be a point-wise definition, that is the Riemann tensor will vary point to point. (And we gloss over changes in coordinates here)

 

So, if we can find at least one point where the Riemann tensor is not zero then the space-time cannot globally be identified with Minkwoski space-time.

[Anilkumar]

When you look through space you are also looking through time. Space cannot exist without the existence of time. All our velocities and speed references are in respect to the time period. Even our 3 dimensional space has underlying velocity components.

 

Space is full of electromagnetic energy and this is what all atomic matter consistently interacts with. This interaction gives the incorrect illusion that it is space that is curved, when in reality it is the atomic matter that interacts with the electromagnetic properties contained within space.

 

Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled with electromagnetic energy that moves and drives the cosmos.

Hello Dovada,

 

'Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled . . . .'

If something is filled with something else;

the former has to be vacant/empty,

to get filled.

The former is the container and the latter is the content.

Emptiness/vacancy is the property of the container. That is precisely the reason;

why it gets filled or gives place.

 

 

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

 

 

You mean the world-path of a particle is not the Euclidean line? (in general)

 

No ajb.

 

Why is it necessary that the world line should become Euclidean if we say that spacetime does not curve? And similarly why the spacetime should be curved for the world-line to be curved? It is not necessary.

 

As;

 

for every move and every curve the world-line would make/take, there is a corresponding spacetime point available. The spacetime need not struggle to make a point available to the world-line. It can not do that. And also it is not necessary. There is infinite Space available for every particle of matter and for every interaction of the particles. Space does not hinder or coax anything and so can not participate in that interaction. It is incapable of doing that.

 

If we take the Riemann tensor as defining a curved space-time then we have some subtleties. We define a space-time to be curved if the Riemann tensor is not identically zero at all points. It will in general be a point-wise definition, that is the Riemann tensor will vary point to point. (And we gloss over changes in coordinates here)

 

The Riemann tensor should vary point to point for the curved world line, not for the spacetime points. The world line is curved, not the spacetime points. The curved world line passes through the Minkwoski space-time points. I.E. there is no stress or curve in, or changes in the arrangement of, spacetime points. They just represent the spatial and temporal coordinates of an event or the world line.

 

The tensors represent the stress and the conditions in the Matter and/or its manifestations which were present or occurred/interacted/encountered at a particular point. When these points are joined together it becomes the world line. The tensors are not related to the spacetime time points at all, except that they represent the stress in the Matter and/or its manifestations which were present at that place at that instant. The spacetime points inform where & when the stress was. These points are not the ones that are under stress. Matter and/or its manifestations at that point are under stress. Matter and/or its manifestations which are under stress are not capable of transferring that stress to the space or the spacetime points. So why gloss over changes in coordinates?

 

Matter and/or its manifestations absolutely can not bring any change in the spacetime coordinates at all. It is simply impossible.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Anilkumar

[ajb]

Why is it necessary that the world line should become Euclidean if we say that spacetime does not curve? And similarly why the spacetime should be curved for the world-line to be curved? It is not necessary.

 

Let us make two assumptions here. First we have no external forces, only gravity. Two the motion of a test particle under the influence of gravity is given by geodesics. The second assumption we can get at via other assumptions, like minimizing energy, but for now let us just impose the geodesic condition.

 

Then, if space-time is Minkowski, then the geodesics are straight lines.

 

The situation is different if we have some other forces acting.

[Mellinia]

I meant the same thing. The equivalence principle.

 

 

Gravitational field can be given any name. But,

 

it is absolutely not,

 

Space & Time integrated together.

 

It cannot be.

 

 

There is no bend.

 

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

 

 

 

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

Sorry this came late. Your first few posts analysed both gravity and acceleration and determined that their characteristics weren't the same.

I don't understand why "it cannot be"...though what I can comment is that SR and GR provided us with plenty of counter-intuitive examples of life: length contraction?! time dilution?! these shouldn't happen but they do. Mad logic permeate physics but they are proven by nature.

Can you please elaborate on the characteristics of your "gravitational field". Does it work on energy? How does it changes the direction of light? How is "the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field"? Is it the same as the Newtonian gravitational field? I believe you didn't provide the details of your "gravitational field" in the forum enough. GR explains it as the curvature of spacetime.

 

 

[DrRocket]

Respected ladies & gentlemen,

I would hereby request you all to consider this case as;

'an Ordinary man's attempt to convince the Extraordinary people',

Please forgive me if I am wrong, considering me as 'a fool who tried to correct Albert Einstein, & failed miserably'.

 

 

Before critiquing general relativity it would behoove you to invest the time and intellectual capital to understand it.

[Anilkumar]

Hello ajb, hello everybody,

 

I am sorry for my delayed posts. It is taking more time for thoughts to get converted into right words.

 

 

Let us make two assumptions here. First we have no external forces, only gravity. Two the motion of a test particle under the influence of gravity is given by geodesics. The second assumption we can get at via other assumptions, like minimizing energy, but for now let us just impose the geodesic condition.

 

Then, if space-time is Minkowski, then the geodesics are straight lines.

 

The situation is different if we have some other forces acting.

 

There is a mistake here.

 

In case of physically curved structures; which are best studied using Riemannian geometry, the curvature is in the body or the PHYSICAL SURFACE of the physical object. Or the physical Surface presents the curvature. And Riemannian geometry is the great tool to study these curvatures presented by the surfaces of physical bodies.

 

Now, this tool [Riemannian geometry] has aptly been used to study the orbits or the curved paths of the particles & other manifestations of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies.

 

But what happens is, the Riemannian geometry does not take into consideration, whether the curvature is in the physical surface of a physical body or anything else. It just studies the curvature by considering it as the distance between two spatially extended points on the curvature. And it also expresses or explains that curvature in terms of the distance between two spatially extended points on the curvature and Tensors. It does not tell us where the curvature comes from or who/what presented the curvature.

 

Now what we must take into consideration is; Curvature or Shape is the property of ONLY 'physical Matter' and its manifestations. This is logical. Vacuous does not have shapes. This is also logical.

 

What we are forgetting is; Mathematics does not take into consideration where, the Shape came from. It just deals with the Shape. That is the magic of Mathematics, the Riemannian geometry, and the principle of general covariance.

 

Now where is this curvature coming from? [The curvature of the path of the particles & other manifestations of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies]

 

Certainly it can not come from the non-physical Space, the vacuous.

 

Then where does it come from?

 

It comes from the Field, the physical manifestation, or the effect, of Matter. The Gravitational field is physical. It is the effect of physical matter. All the effects of physical Matter are physical.

 

The Geodesics that we are talking about are the effects of the interaction between Matter or its manifestations, not due to curvature in the Minkowski spacetime. The curved geodesics can pass through coordinate points of the Minkowski spacetime. The spacetime need not get curved for its contents to become curved.

 

When we say there is curvature or shape, we are talking about a physical body. And Space has no physical shape, it is vacuous.

Thank you.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Hello Mellinia,

 

I don't understand why "it cannot be"...

 

 

Because, Gravitational field is a physical entity. And Space & Time are non-physical entities. The characteristics of Gravitational field can not be interpreted in terms of the characteristics of Space. Space has only one characteristic, and that is to allow itself to be occupied. It can not do anything more than that.

 

 

 

SR and GR provided us with plenty of counter-intuitive examples of life: length contraction?! time dilution?! these shouldn't happen but they do. Mad logic permeate physics but they are proven by nature.

 

It is no mad logic, Mellinia. SR correctly tells us that Length contraction and Time dilation occur because observations are relative. It doesn't deal with Gravity.

 

 

 

Can you please elaborate on the characteristics of your "gravitational field". Does it work on energy? How does it changes the direction of light? How is "the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field"?

 

 

Gravitational field is identical to Electric field. When a charged particle is moving through an electric field, its motion & path are influenced by the field. Similarly when particles of Matter or its manifestations like light are moving in the field of Gravity, their path and motion are influenced. The characteristic of a field is action at a distance. I don't think I have added much to the prevailing knowledge of Gravity, except that it is not spacetime curvature. We know that though Newton was not comfortable with the action of Gravity at a distance, Newtonian equations hold good in the cases of small potential and low velocities, and is an excellent approximation. But GR is essential when extreme precision is needed while dealing with gravitation for massive and dense objects and high velocities.

Thank you

 

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

 

 

Before critiquing general relativity it would behoove you to invest the time and intellectual capital to understand it.

This is what I felt on my way to understand it.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

SR correctly tells us that Length contraction and Time dilation occur because observations are relative.

 

But if, as you claim, "All the effects of physical Matter are physical", doesn't this require you to have a physical force to cause length contraction and time dilation? They are, after all, nonlinear effects.

[ajb]

In case of physically curved structures; which are best studied using Riemannian geometry, the curvature is in the body or the PHYSICAL SURFACE of the physical object. Or the physical Surface presents the curvature. And Riemannian geometry is the great tool to study these curvatures presented by the surfaces of physical bodies.

 

 

This is not how general relativity sees it. Vacuum solutions can also be curved, though they are Ricci flat.

 

For example, the Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, it describes the space-time around a spherical, uncharged, non-rotating mass. This solution is a good model for the space-time around stars that are not rotating to fast.

 

The space-time inside the star is going to be far more complicated. I think the Oppenheimer--Snyder solution may be of interest here, but this is more astrophysics that I really know.

[DrRocket]

This is what I felt on my way to understand it.

 

Maybe you learn what the theory actually says and not rely on your feelings.

 

You have written quite a bit and not one iota of it is either correct or makes any sense at all. Pure gibberish.

 

You might be "on your way" to understand it, but you have progressed no more than a couple of inches on a journey of thousands of miles. It rather appears that you are going backwards, as most of what you "know" is false.

Edited January 25, 2012 by DrRocket

[Dovada]

Anikumar:

Hello Dovada,

 

'Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled . . . .'

If something is filled with something else;

the former has to be vacant/empty,

to get filled.

The former is the container and the latter is the content.

Emptiness/vacancy is the property of the container. That is precisely the reason;

why it gets filled or gives place.

The point I was trying to make was simply that time or space we observe takes on the appearance of space-time even though its composed of something else. This means space-time itself may not even exist, but maybe the resultant affect of another condition namely moving electromagnetic energy.

 

If we look through a solid mass of electromagnetic energy, it may appear as if it where a large block of say transparent glass. Such a condition does not require a container called space-time. The energy block is its own container with its own properties, and its us and our speculations that may be confused as to what it consists of. I believe in keeping an open mind whilst speculating on what things are composed of.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Dovada

[Anilkumar]

But if, as you claim, "All the effects of physical Matter are physical", doesn't this require you to have a physical force to cause length contraction and time dilation? They are, after all, nonlinear effects.

 

Considering the three fundamental entities that we are interested in:-

 

• The Space.
• The Time.
• The Matter.

The Space is a non-physical entity in the sense that it has no structure & shape. Similarly Time too is a non-physical entity. Matter has physique.

Now let us see if these three will act on each other. Is physical force required for this action?

Firstly, can Physical Matter act on non-physical Space? And is physical force required for this action?

Yes, physical Matter can act on non-physical Space in only one way and that is 'occupy it'.

Is physical force required for this action?

Certainly not.

Why?

Because Space does not present any physical resistance to this action [of occupying] on it.

 

 

What happens when Matter acts on Matter?

The action is resisted and should be overcome by physical force.

Where does the resistance come from?

It comes from the structure, or from the forces that have given it a structure, or more clearly from the forces that are holding it in a structure, or yet more clearly, from the forces that are holding it in a structural form.

And behold, these forces can act at a distance.

 

 

Similarly Time too does not have the ability to resist, because it does not have a structure. So no physical force is required there too.

 

However relativistic Length contraction & Time dilation are not physical/structural changes, they are caused because spatial & temporal measurements/observations are not absolute, and instead they are relative.

 

The Gravitational time dilation is seen due to the equivalence between the conditions that are created by Gravitational potential and Acceleration.

 

Structure and force are the characteristics of physical Matter, and not non-physical Space & Time. That is the reason I propose Space cannot bend because, structure & forces are not constituent parts of it.

 

 

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

 

 

This is not how general relativity sees it. Vacuum solutions can also be curved, though they are Ricci flat.

 

For example, the Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, it describes the space-time around a spherical, uncharged, non-rotating mass. This solution is a good model for the space-time around stars that are not rotating to fast.

 

The space-time inside the star is going to be far more complicated. I think the Oppenheimer--Snyder solution may be of interest here, but this is more astrophysics that I really know.

The point, we are forgetting is; the vacuum solutions or in general the Riemannian geometry on which the GR relies, takes into account, only the curvature, and neither is it concerned or deals with, which entity brings the curvature, and also when it implies that there is a curvature; nor does it suggest which entity is responsible for the curvature.

 

It is such a great technique which purely focuses on the curvature by separating it from the physical corpus underlying the curvature and studies the curvature by quantizing it into a simple object; "the spatial extension between two points on the curvature". A salute would fall short of paying respects, to the genius mind that did this.

 

Now the onus rests on us, that after studying and calculating and, if and when the mathematics implies that there is curvature; we have to assign that curvature to an entity.

 

We have assigned it to Space, because of two factors.

 

They are;

 

• The basic object of the mathematics involved is the spatial extension between two points on the curvature.
• The elimination of the physical entity i.e. Gravity.

As because the basic object of the mathematics involved in GR is the spatial extension between two points on the curvature; and in the absence of the physical entity i.e. Gravity, we thought that the curvature comes from the Space.

 

This is not rational. Space can not provide any curvature.

And why should we do this?

Why should we eliminate Gravitational field?

 

It is the physical force that is involved in all the processes of the Universe. Space cannot do, that Gravity can do. The entity that does all that we observe, i.e. the bending of light etc, has to be physical as it involves the physical. Space is not physical.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Maybe you learn what the theory actually says and not rely on your feelings.

 

You have written quite a bit and not one iota of it is either correct or makes any sense at all. Pure gibberish.

 

You might be "on your way" to understand it, but you have progressed no more than a couple of inches on a journey of thousands of miles. It rather appears that you are going backwards, as most of what you "know" is false.

This is a comment not an argument. May be you consider my posts not worth arguing too.

 

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

 

Anikumar:

 

The point I was trying to make was simply that time or space we observe takes on the appearance of space-time even though its composed of something else. This means space-time itself may not even exist, but maybe the resultant affect of another condition namely moving electromagnetic energy.

 

If we look through a solid mass of electromagnetic energy, it may appear as if it where a large block of say transparent glass. Such a condition does not require a container called space-time. The energy block is its own container with its own properties, and its us and our speculations that may be confused as to what it consists of.

 

Doesn't Matter occupy space?

If so,

is Space not present?

 

I believe in keeping an open mind whilst speculating on what things are composed of.

I am just placing what is logical, before you, for your opinion.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

 

 

 

Dear Anilkumar, I have not any personal differences with you.

 

You are a good communicator.

 

 

 

I have already said in my previous post that what will come from me that will convince you in this

matter.

 

I have requested for assistance from the members but no one given response to that.

 

 

Now my writings are completed and I am contacting a person from other side.

 

 

 

If you are in truth side (means if you are open minded), then you will not worry.

 

If your are with your arguments or with your self side, then definitely you will worry.

 

 

 

In present I only say that YOUR ARGUMENT WILL NOT STAND STABLY. They will be fail.

 

 

( If I posted my writing here, then it will not eligible to publish from a journal. Therefore please

 

forgive me for not posting my writings in this forum.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ajb]

If I posted my writing here, then it will not eligible to publish from a journal. Therefore please

forgive me for not posting my writings in this forum.

 

 

Journals usually ask that the work not be published before. By this they really mean in another peer reviewed journal or maybe a scientific monograph or similar. Journals accept submissions that have been placed on the arXiv, presented at seminars or conferences. I expect they will have no problem if you outlined things here, on a webpage or blog.

 

You should not let trying to get published completely stop you discussing your work. That said, before I have a preprint on the arXiv I only talk to people I trust and am not in direct competition with. If there is some conflict of interest, then tend to say straight away. Anyway, unless you discuss your work with other experts how can you tell you are doing anything interesting?

[swansont]

However relativistic Length contraction & Time dilation are not physical/structural changes, they are caused because spatial & temporal measurements/observations are not absolute, and instead they are relative.

 

The Gravitational time dilation is seen due to the equivalence between the conditions that are created by Gravitational potential and Acceleration.

 

Structure and force are the characteristics of physical Matter, and not non-physical Space & Time. That is the reason I propose Space cannot bend because, structure & forces are not constituent parts of it.

 

Why do you accept length contraction and time dilation, but not curvature? Your objection to one but acceptance of the other seems inconsistent. The geometry of space depends on the local conditions. If you are in a moving frame, you see an effect on length and time. If you are in an accelerating frame, you see a different (more complicated, perhaps) effect on length and time.