Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

[DrRocket]

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.

 

The geometry of spacetime in general relativity is not dependent on the "frame" of the observer. In fact in general relativity physics is formulted independent of any notion of a "frame" -- this is what Einstein called "general covariance".

 

Curvature is an invariant. It does not depend on any notion of motion or any frame. The curvature tensor is the same for all "observers", though it might look a bit different in different local coordinates.

 

Example: The Einstein curvature tensor is defined by the stress-energy tensor, and the stress-energy tensor accounts for all forms of energy, except for gravitational potential energy itself. So, the individual components of the stress-energy tensor are dependent on the local observer, and observers in relative motion will "see" different components. Nevertheless the tensor itself is not dependent on the observer, and the curvature of space time is invariant -- You cannot cause the sun to create a black hole simply by moving at some high speed relative to it and therefore seeing its relativistic mass as arbitrarily large.

 

At the level of special relativity, while time and length are dependent on the observer, the spacetime interval which includes both space and time is invariant.

[Dovada]

Anikumar you asked:

Doesn't Matter occupy space?

If so,

is Space not present?

There are two ways of viewing our environment (called space-time). You asked "Doesn't Matter occupy space?" its just as valid if you asked "Doesn't space occupy matter?".

 

Electromagnetic energy occupies our immediate environment, such that there is a point whereby solid matter becomes fluid matter. From this perspective we could say that our planet exists within the extended fluid body of our sun (A doughnut body). As is already known using electromagnetic radiation theory the doughnut becomes physically larger as it moves further away from the sun.

 

This doughnut can have electromagnetic properties that actually create the illusion of a space-time. If this is the case then matter can utilize that doughnut electromagnetic energy in its own physical structure and the existence of the electromagnetic properties can be used by matter to move itself under an effect commonly referred to as a gravitational field.

 

Whilst you say both space and time are both inert and have a non-physical entity, then having a non-physical entity they become invalid as physical descriptions of phenomena. Gravity on the other hand can then become electromagnetic in nature and we have a completely new ball game.

 

Many assumptions held by physicists today maybe misleading us, such that the term vacuum of space creates the impression there is nothing there but emptiness. Space is a term defined as "A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied". This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space. The physical empirical electrical and magnetic constants confirm that the expanse called space-time actually has electromagnetic properties.

 

From this point of view Anikumar, there is something in what you are trying to say.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Dovada

[URAIN]

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?

 

Ajb Thanks for response. In my view it is simple thinking but solution to a major natural phenomena. Therefore I would like to publish it by a journal. If after discussion also it is published, then we will discuss it after publishing.

 

 

Ajb, When I was in degree, I was preparing to a science essay competition. To making preparation, while I was studying the science books, Iwas shocked and I was very excited. I am uncontrolled for a while. As like "Eureka". Because then it was flashed to me.

 

 

After knowing how much it is valuable. I stopped the writing essay and I have planned to make this as my Phd research subject. But unfortunately I was not continued the study. I am mainly intended to publish this with a journal. Because if it will published with a renowned journal then I will satisfy my self by taking it (publishing with journal) as like a Phd.

 

 

Ajb, If you areready for reading I will send it to you, with that "other person" (I will saywho is he in Email).

 

Please you have to give suggestion for language, writing manner, putting order of the subjects in my writings. From which it is elgible to publish by journal.

 

( If I contacted journals directly they also give a finishing touch. But I am not a renowned person and I have not standard degrees with me. Hence there is chance it willbe neglected and I don't like to take any chance.)

 

 

I hope you will try to publish it by a journal.

 

 

I request you for not disclosing it, until it is published by a renowned journal.

 

 

Please send yourEmail address by PM. I will send my writings within one or two days.

 

Thanks

Edited February 1, 2012 by URAIN

[ajb]

Please you have to give suggestion for language, writing manner, putting order of the subjects in my writings. From which it is elgible to publish by journal.

 

Have a close look at papers already published in the journal(s) you have in mind. You should be able to find them on the arXiv, if the journals are not open access.

 

Most journals will have a very specific format you should follow. For this you should read "the instructions to authors" very carefully.

 

 

( If I contacted journals directly they also give a finishing touch. But I am not a renowned person and I have not standard degrees with me. Hence there is chance it willbe neglected and I don't like to take any chance.)

 

Everyone faces getting work rejected. It happens to everyone and that is life. Referees and the editor may not have understood the novelty, the significance or the timeliness of the work. So you take any criticism, use it and move on to another journal. It may take up to a year to get something published, longer if the work is long or has been "bounced around" several journals.

 

Some journals will want you to write a cover letter. This helps the Editor(s) find appropriate referees. In your case, with no previous publications and no advanced degree you may want to take great care with the cover letter.

 

Most journals have an online or email submission system. Make sure you use a sensible looking email address. No profanities or anything else off putting.

 

I think that having an academic affiliation and thus a postal address to a university or college helps. But this is not essential in anyway and should not be a real barrier. I have had work published without such an affiliation.

 

There is the chance that the work will not get past the Editors and simply rejected at that early stage. This is common if you submit to an inappropriate journal. Make sure the work is of interest to the specific journals you are looking at. They always list something like "aims and scope".

 

Whatever you do, there is the risk you will be thought of as a crank and the paper will be just thrown out. Just take it and move on if that happens.

 

Please send yourEmail address by PM. I will send my writings within one or two days.

 

I am happy to have a quick look at your work, but I won't guarantee that I can give you much useful feedback.

[URAIN]

Dear Ajb

 

Now I have sent my writings. It had needed few days for perfectness. But for not giving chance for misunderstanding I have sent it in hurry.

 

I won't guarantee that I can give you much useful feedback.

 

 

Ammmm !

 

Please don't disappoint me.

[Anilkumar]

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.)

 

I will wait.

 

 

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

 

 

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?

ajb, do you feel that this argument of mine has the merit to be placed on the arXiv?

 

 

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

 

 

Why do you accept length contraction and time dilation, but not curvature? Your objection to one but acceptance of the other seems inconsistent.

Why? "Space curvature" is illogical. I have given logical explanation all through. Length contraction & Time dilation are natural occurrences, Space curvature is not one. It is a human conclusion, adhered to, albeit a wrong one.

 

 

. . . 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.

Space has no Geometry. Geometry is the attribute of physical structure, not the vacuous.

 

 

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

 

Anikumar you asked:

There are two ways of viewing our environment (called space-time). You asked "Doesn't Matter occupy space?" its just as valid if you asked "Doesn't space occupy matter?".

 

". . . Doesn't space occupy matter?"

 

To occupy, one needs a physique. Space doesn't have a physique.

 

To give occupancy, one needs to be empty/vacant. Space is the empty vacancy.

 

 

Electromagnetic energy occupies our immediate environment, such that there is a point whereby solid matter becomes fluid matter. From this perspective we could say that our planet exists within the extended fluid body of our sun (A doughnut body). As is already known using electromagnetic radiation theory the doughnut becomes physically larger as it moves further away from the sun.

 

This doughnut can have electromagnetic properties that actually create the illusion of a space-time. If this is the case then matter can utilize that doughnut electromagnetic energy in its own physical structure and the existence of the electromagnetic properties can be used by matter to move itself under an effect commonly referred to as a gravitational field.

 

Everything ultimately;

 

including the doughnut, electromagnetic energy,

 

needs/occupies

 

empty, vacant, non-physical Space.

 

 

Whilst you say both space and time are both inert and have a non-physical entity, then having a non-physical entity they become invalid as physical descriptions of phenomena.

I didn't say

 

"space and time. . . have/having a non-physical entity."

I said Space & Time are non-physical entities,

 

All phenomena occur in Space & Time.

 

 

. . . Gravity on the other hand can then become electromagnetic in nature and we have a completely new ball game. . .

Many assumptions held by physicists today maybe misleading us, such that the term vacuum of space creates the impression there is nothing there but emptiness. Space is a term defined as "A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied". This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space.

 

". . . This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space."

 

When occupied; the existence of Space does not become invalid. The Occupant exists in Space.

 

When occupied; the Occupant & the giver of the occupancy-the Space, subsist together.

 

Matter cannot exist without Space.

 

 

. . . The physical empirical electrical and magnetic constants confirm that the expanse called space-time actually has electromagnetic properties.

 

From this point of view Anikumar, there is something in what you are trying to say.

". . . space-time actually has electromagnetic properties."

spacetime represents the Space & Time expanses illustrated in terms of 3 spatial+1 temporal dimensions. It cannot have any other property except describing the when & where of an event.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

I will wait.

 

 

 

Hello Anilkumar,

 

 

In this thread you have said that you have not convinced the space curve, hence you raised theobjections.

 

(For all your arguments you have one strong (more strong) base from science. Ajb knows which argument and we have made a good discussion about this. But he has some differences about considering space in physics. He is a naive person. As my request he will not disclose until it is published by a media. )

 

 

I had said that, fromme what will come that will convince you on this matter and may be you had known in my posts that, I was not had any intention to defeat you or insult you. Atfirst (space curve thread) your argument seemed to me as correct. Hence I wassaid that “anyone may accept a simple seeing man or not. But everyone has toaccept the truth.” While I was gone on thinking that was seemed as incorrect.

 

 

Although, as I had said in previous posts ofthread that, it was flashed at my college days. But then I was not had perfection.Because, when rival arguments will come to my thinking then I was not had anysolution to that. Now I am perfect. If any argument will come to against mythinking, then I am ready to give solution to that.

 

 

Dear Anil, I am readyto send my writings to you, if you not consider me as a rival. Please you have to say that you are open-mindedand if truth is in my writings then you will accept that (and encourage).

 

 

Anilkumar, I have intendedto pass this message all over the world. Because present science contain thefalse thing. For this I am searching a media, from which it is able to reachall over the world.

 

 

You are a goodcommunicator and you have more knowledge than me. For this I am expecting,suggestions and advise from you.

 

 

If you are willing toassist me (for reaching this message all over the world) I will send my writingto you.

 

 

Please PM youremail for this.

 

 

( I hope, the replywhich comes in the which manner, from you, will make me to send the writings.)

 

 

Best regards

 

 

URAIN

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Why? "Space curvature" is illogical. I have given logical explanation all through. Length contraction & Time dilation are natural occurrences, Space curvature is not one. It is a human conclusion, adhered to, albeit a wrong one.

 

 

 

Space has no Geometry. Geometry is the attribute of physical structure, not the vacuous.

 

You are in a rotating frame of reference with angular speed w, so that any point a distance r from you is moving at a speed wr. Let us choose wr such that it is a reasonable fraction of c. That circumference will be length-contracted. What is the circumference of the circle, and how do you reconcile this with Euclidean geometry?

[Anilkumar]

Hello URAIN,

 

. . . But everyone has toaccept the truth

 

Truth remains a truth whether anybody accepts it or not. It is not affected by the number of persons accepting it.

 

 

Dear Anil, I am readyto send my writings to you, if you not consider me as a rival. Please you have to say that you are open-mindedand if truth is in my writings then you will accept that (and encourage).

I suppose, none of us on the forum are rivals. We are all yearning for the common goal; to know the truth. When I am proved wrong; I should be grateful, because some knowledgeable generous person corrected me, prevented me from being a less-informed person, made me more erudite.

 

 

Please you have to say that you are open-mindedand if truth is in my writings then you will accept that (and encourage).

Why would anybody be against truth, unless the person wants to remain ignorant.

 

 

For this I am expecting,suggestions and advise from you.

Though I have no objection to giving suggestions, I think your writings are in better eligible hands (ajb) now.

 

 

Anilkumar, I have intendedto pass this message all over the world. Because present science contain thefalse thing. For this I am searching a media, from which it is able to reachall over the world.

Any thought will reach wide acceptance only on its own strength and not on the strength of something else. If your writings can improve established facts, they must undergo wide scrutiny. For that I suggest a discussion on a forum like this one. One single small person like me cannot be a better judge.

 

 

You are a goodcommunicator and you have more knowledge than me. For this I am expecting,suggestions and advise from you.

 

If you are willing toassist me (for reaching this message all over the world) I will send my writingto you.

 

Thanks for your generosity. It depends on; my getting convinced & what you expect from me.

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

 

 

You are in a rotating frame of reference with angular speed w, so that any point a distance r from you is moving at a speed wr. Let us choose wr such that it is a reasonable fraction of c. That circumference will be length-contracted. What is the circumference of the circle, and how do you reconcile this with Euclidean geometry?

Why do you wish to reconcile it with Euclidean geometry? And by that how would you establish that Space gets curved?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Mellinia]

Why do you wish to reconcile it with Euclidean geometry? And by that how would you establish that Space gets curved?

 

Nice one swansont. Euclidean geometry only works on plane surfaces. Now Riemann geometry works on curve surfaces, reducing to Euclidean when the space in question is planar. So, I guess you can figure out the rest.

[Anilkumar]

Nice one swansont. Euclidean geometry only works on plane surfaces. Now Riemann geometry works on curve surfaces, reducing to Euclidean when the space in question is planar. So, I guess you can figure out the rest.

How does that lead to Mass curving Space? How does Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry give Matter the abilty to bend Space? And give the Space the property of bending?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

Why do you wish to reconcile it with Euclidean geometry? And by that how would you establish that Space gets curved?

 

If a coordinate system is not described by non-Eucludean geometry, it must be described by Euclidean geometry. You don't really have any other options.

[URAIN]

 

Truth remains atruth whether anybody accepts it or not. It is not affected by the number ofpersons accepting it.

 

I know this and Iwas planned to post here a statement of a great man when a proposal was placedto vote who is the not behaving in manner of scientific thinking (crack pot).

 

 

That statement is "Even if majority ofone, then also truth is truth."

 

 

Once I was went to a forum to discussExistence of God by my metaphysics theory. Then I was written a short poemabout truth and discussion.

 

 

Truth and discussion

 

 

“Discussion is themedium to gain knowledge

Discussion is the medium to discover truth.

 

Truth will not differ,

If anyone comes to the discussion with not open mind

 

Truth will not change,

If anyone comes with preconceived opinion or prejudice

 

Not giving response will shows, sensual organs are not open.

If sensual organs open then also response is not given,

Means it is, not an open mind with open sensual organs.

 

 

( Situation happenedin that forum to write these words)

 

Closed mind will not differ the truth,will not change the truth.

Only delayed, knowledge gaining foroneself will be delayed.

Only delayed, focusing on truth for oneself will be delayed”.

 

 

 

Why would anybody be against truth, unless the person wants to remain ignorant.

 

Anilkumar, your above statement shows that you don't know all kind of peoplesin this world.

 

 

I think you know but you are forgetting that.

 

 

Anilkumar, there is lot of different people exists in this world. Mainly I say about IAURN and MBA YBN peoples.

 

 

IAURN peoples are those who always say I amAll U R Not, I am All U R Not……………………………

 

 

They know truth is not with them thenalso to defend themselves, they always say I am All U R Not, I am All U RNot……………………………

 

 

Second one is MBA YBN peoples these are with groups. These may belongs to any one of religion, belongs to any one ofcommunity, and belongs to any one of thinking. They always say their groupis correct and opposition is wrong. It is the main problem for disturbing thepeace of the world.

 

 

These always say"My Belonging is All, Your Belonging is Not.

 

"My Belongingis All, Your Belonging is Not……………………………

 

You put any proof oryour argument may be more logical they will not accept that.

 

(Fallowed is a small stanza from ‘aboutme’ post. It was written, when I was writing about me.)

 

Because, who knows more about himself only,will say I am ALL. And

 

Whose ‘I’ is brighter; he will know moreabout himself.

 

Whose ‘I’ is brighter, surrounding will bedarker

 

If surrounding will darker,

 

Thenhe does not know about others OR

 

He had not willed to know others OR

 

He had not willed to accept others.

 

 

 

Who had not willed to accept others,

 

Will say, ‘I am ALL U R NOT’.

 

Who had not willed to accept others

 

Will say, My belonging is all, yourbelonging is not.

 

 

Anybody be against the truth for reason IAURNand MBA YBN. To defend themselves and to say they always correct, they will beagainst the truth.

 

 

Any thought willreach wide acceptance only on its own strength and not on the strength ofsomething else

 

Any thought will reach wide acceptance only on its own strength. OK, but ittakes a lot of time to reach all over the world. At past time, when there is notechnology and media, it has taken the life time to reach any research all overthe world.

 

Now is the time of information technology. There is lot of medium which reaches the message all over the worldwithin a second. While such technologies exist, then why not we use them forconvey the truth to all region of the world.

 

Judge may be small or big he hasto accept the truth. Then only he is judge. Your all arguments are based on onescientific established fact for that reason it is not possible to say your’s iswrong by all extraordinary peoples.

 

You are always using, that sciencebase to defend all your arguments. For you, that is the protector. For thatonly this big discussion has taking place.

 

Hence, I think, if that base wrong proved by my writings, then it is good to taking acceptance from strongdefender of that that science base. Which you are using to defend all yourarguments.

 

 

Forthat I suggest a discussion on a forum like this one.

 

I am not rejecting todiscuss. But what happen when I discuss. If truth will in my writings then itwill get acceptance. After that matter will be closed. That will not reach toall regions of the worlds. Same thing happened when I discussed my metaphysicstheory on speculation.

 

(By thinking adiscussion is same as theory if you give information about that then you willbe get notice.)

 

what you expect from me

 

 

First “acceptance” that eithertruth is exists in my writings or not. Next your English is good. Hence pleaseshow me if anything is wrong in my grammar and editing of the writings. Iexpect that you will write “why it is general interest of readers”.

 

I hope you are not an IAURN or MBA YBN. Please say, it from your posts.

 

(Anilkumar if you don’t mind I sayone thing that, softness which I was seen in your posts at starting (I wasappreciated for that see 3rd page 47th post ofthread), is not seeing now.

 

‘Softness’ in each other will makesthe friends.

 

Something will be shared only withfriends and

 

friends will only assist friend.)

 

 

[Mellinia]

How does that lead to Mass curving Space? How does Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry give Matter the abilty to bend Space? And give the Space the property of bending?

 

Now length contraction in this case is showed to be applied to curved space. This shows Mass/ Energy curves space.

Ah, geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it. That problem is left to philosophers to ponder. We don't know why space can be "bent" (it's empty!), or why time can be "warped" (time fabric?!) or why mass can affect it (why should it?) because basically, we haven't discovered enough.

[Anilkumar]

If a coordinate system is not described by non-Eucludean geometry, it must be described by Euclidean geometry. You don't really have any other options.

Well, I have no objections to that.

 

Geometry describes the curvature. But it does neither describe nor study the corpus underlying the curvature or say anything about it.

 

The corpus underlying the curvature is the Gravity not Space. Space cannot simply afford it.

 

 

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

 

Now length contraction in this case is showed to be applied to curved space. This shows Mass/ Energy curves space.

Ah, geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it. That problem is left to philosophers to ponder. We don't know why space can be "bent" (it's empty!), or why time can be "warped" (time fabric?!) or why mass can affect it (why should it?) because basically, we haven't discovered enough.

". . . geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it."

 

That is what I am mentioning. The geometry can't give the Matter the ability to curve Space. The geometry says there is curvature but does not say anything about the corpus underlying the curvature or does not study the corpus underlying the curvature. We have interpreted that the curvature comes from the Space for lack of other entities to assign the curvature to. The actual entity that is responsible for the curvature, i.e. the Gravity, has been substituted by us as merely Acceleration. But Acceleration does not have the ability to bring Curvature, whereas Gravity has it. So in the absence of Gravity and the inability of Acceleration to bring Curvature, we have assigned it to Space.

 

Gravity is a Field. It cannot be substituted with mere Acceleration. Gravity is a physical force. Acceleration is just an ingredient or just one characteristic of that Physical force. It cannot adequately be a substitute for a Physical force.

 

Gravity is not only a force; it also has affinity towards Matter/Mass. Acceleration lacks this. Matter/Mass acts on Matter/Mass at a distance. And the Gravitational field is like the mediator. Gravitational field is the manifestation of the property of Matter/Mass. Space is entirely an independent entity, on which physical force has 'NIL', effect.

 

Gravity has no substitutes. Space does not have a physical structure.

 

When we say;

 

something has a structure, like curvature,

 

doesn't a structure need physicality? Aren't physical forces & structures necessary to sustain that curved structure?

 

What are the physical forces & structures involved in giving Space a curved structure?

 

And again;

 

When a physical entity or the Matter acts on another physical entity or the Matter,

 

it acts,

 

with the help of its own structure and the forces involved in giving it the structure,

 

ON

 

the structure and the forces involved in giving structure to other Matter particles.

 

What are the Physical forces and Structures of the Space, on which Matter acts with its own structure and forces, to give Space a curved structure?

 

 

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

 

 

. . . show me if anything is wrong in my grammar and editing of the writings. . .

 

I would do it happily, to the best of my ability, if I am convinced.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

I would do it happily, to the best of my ability, if I am convinced.

 

Dear Anilkumar,

 

I have contacted a publication forpublishing my writings. In reply they said that due to huge volume of articles,they need three months to give response for my proposal.

 

Hence I have decided to publish mywritings in my blog.

(edit)

http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/hello-world/

Soon I will post it in blog and I will give a link hereand in the thread which was already started. I am ready to discuss about it.

 

Excuse for delayed response.

 

(I think forum has no objection to paste the link.)

Edited February 18, 2012 by URAIN

[ajb]

I have contacted a publication forpublishing my writings. In reply they said that due to huge volume of articles,they need three months to give response for my proposal.

 

Three months is not at all unreasonable. In my experience 3 to 6 months is typical and then maybe up to a year from first preprint to full publication.

[URAIN]

Three months is not at all unreasonable. In my experience 3 to 6 months is typical and then maybe up to a year from first preprint to full publication.

 

Dear Ajb

 

Thank you for sharing your experience.

 

Ajb, it is my first experience of publication. I don't know more about it.

 

I heard that about "boson" Mr.Bose was sent his paper to one publication. Time was passed but that was not published. Then he was sent his papers to direct Einstein and Einstein focused on Bose paper.

 

You know and also, I have shared in above posts that, when it (about space) was flashed to me. From that day, I have not shared this thing with any one (other than you).

 

It is opposite to established science. Hence I was had fear about rediculing from the people, who listen this.

 

I would like to remove the heavyness from my mind by releasing these things, which was kept from several years.

 

 

 

And, You also said in your post that placing in seminars, blogs, and in forums will not effect for publishing in standard publications.

 

 

Ajb we have done healthy discussion. I hope again we will do the good discussion

 

Thank you.

Edited February 18, 2012 by URAIN

[qsa]

Dear Anilkumar,

 

I sympathies with your endeavor to understand reality, but Iam afraid that you must make an effort to understand how mainstream physics and science works at large. You have admitted that you only have two years of college which is hardly enough to tackle complicated subject like high endphysics.

 

I have a Masters in EE and very good at math at the level expected of me. As an engineering student and have spent 15 years in actual practice you get to develop a natural feel of how science and particularly howphysics is modeled. Humans have developed this art of experimentation and modeling to make sense of reality and the hard test for a good model is prediction. It takes years with actual experience to sense that. Generally when a model ismade through different means and paths a sort of a language is used which is mostly mathematical. Those in the field develop a sort of norm of what is been said and meant; it is like when you talk to your friend certain things are notunderstood by outsiders. You cannot develop that affinity from outside. You cantell you child all kinds of good advices but the reality is that he will onlylearn them the hard way.

 

I can give you many hints to the science of space and time,but you will not make any good use of them unless you really understand the basics through lectures by Susskind and others(google), even then you need alot of background. Moreover, physics is also about experiments and in university,especially Masters and above you get to do a lot of that and you get the intuition of the connection between what models (which are very tricky bynature) are and how they connect to experiments. Since you have no accesses to equipment get yourself few books on experiments. Play around with electronicsit helps to get the feel.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2012 by qsa

[URAIN]

Now I have released my papers on blog http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

As I understand less denser space split by the movement of high denser mater.

 

About paper you can ask question on the thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/ after reading full paper.

 

( I don't like to hijack Anilkumar's thread, this thread only related to space curve. You can ask questions on related thread after full reading of paper.)

Edited February 20, 2012 by URAIN

[qsa]

Now I have released my papers on blog http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

As I understand less denser space split by the movement of high denser mater.

 

About paper you can ask question on the thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/ after reading full paper.

 

( I don't like to hijack Anilkumar's thread, this thread only related to space curve. You can ask questions on related thread after full reading of paper.)

 

 

 

Do you have any idea what Loop Quantum Gravity is ?

 

 

 

Do you also know about this paper

My link

 

 

 

Also please read page 7 from this pdf link

My link2

Edited February 20, 2012 by qsa

[URAIN]

Do you have any idea what Loop Quantum Gravity is ?

 

 

 

Do you also know about this paper

My link

 

 

 

Also please read page 7 from this pdf link

My link2

 

Please be open, please say why you are asking this?

 

If you would like to discuss about my paper, discuss on this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64485-space-and-consensus/

 

 

 

[qsa]

Please be open, please say why you are asking this?

 

If you would like to discuss about my paper, discuss on this thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/

 

 

 

 

I need you to read those material so you can get some idea before I can comment further. I don't expect you to understand it all, I don't, but it will help for any future comments if you become familiar with the basic ideas.

[URAIN]

I need you to read those material so you can get some idea before I can comment further. I don't expect you to understand it all, I don't, but it will help for any future comments if you become familiar with the basic ideas.

 

Your guess is correct these are new to me.

 

 

 

[Anilkumar]

Honorable Ladies & Gentlemen,

 

I hereby tender an apology letter.

 

qsa's post prompted me to go through the thread again. I re-read the entire thread starting from the original thread 'Curved space'. After finishing, I felt like writing this letter.

 

I apologize for whatever I have said which gives an impression that I am proposing a new theory. And I was surprised by my own behavior. I said at certain places, things like 'this thread is correcting GR/Einstien'. [And many such things which I don't want to bring up again here.]. This is not the way in which scientific discussions take place. Probably it was my Ego or Childishness.

 

I apologize to everybody & to the great man Einstein.

 

Hereby I state emphatically that I am not proposing any new theory.

 

I know a lot of annoyance was generated. I apologize for all that.

 

What I was doing was; I was trying to comprehend spacetime curvature. I was unable to come to terms with the definition of Space and the curvature of spacetime since the last 20 years. I set forth to clarify it once for all. And that originated into this thread.

 

I feel; what I should have done instead is - just place those arguments, which were getting in my way to comprehend spacetime curvature on the forum and, the ensuing discussions would have taken their course, and should have simply left the judgment to come up on its own. But what I did on the contrary was – I gave a judgment, that such and such a thing is wrong, even before placing a viable argument. This was sheer childishness on my part.

 

And above all, the foremost thing is, I forgot my credentials. Credentials are evidence; evidence for authority over a particular subject. A person with lesser credentials, if she has to convey her point, she has to do it only through logical argument. A person with lesser credentials cannot pass a judgment. Only a person with higher credentials is allowed to pass a judgment, because, she is/has authority. A person with lesser credentials should place as good an argument as possible and leave the judgment to the authority.

 

This reminds me of an Indian saying- 'A vessel full of coins doesn't make noise, the lesser the number of coins more the noise'.

 

I am ashamed of myself.

 

Hope you would forgive me.

 

Thank you.

 

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

 

Dear Anilkumar,

 

I sympathies with your endeavor to understand reality . . .

 

Honorable qsa,

 

Thank you for your sympathy.

 

 

. . . but Iam afraid that you must make an effort to understand how mainstream physics and science works at large. You have admitted that you only have two years of college which is hardly enough to tackle complicated subject like high endphysics.

I understand. Thank you for reminding me about my credentials.

 

 

. . . I have a Masters in EE and very good at math at the level expected of me. As an engineering student and have spent 15 years in actual practice you get to develop a natural feel of how science and particularly howphysics is modeled. Humans have developed this art of experimentation and modeling to make sense of reality and the hard test for a good model is prediction. It takes years with actual experience to sense that. Generally when a model ismade through different means and paths a sort of a language is used which is mostly mathematical. . .

 

. . . even then you need alot of background. Moreover, physics is also about experiments and in university,especially Masters and above you get to do a lot of that and you get the intuition of the connection between what models (which are very tricky bynature) are and how they connect to experiments. Since you have no accesses to equipment get yourself few books on experiments. Play around with electronicsit helps to get the feel.

 

 

I respect your credentials. But I am aware that "the hard test for a good model is prediction". And I am glad I have sensed it with far lesser number of years of acquaintance with the scientific world. The basic fact remains that I have not proposed any predictable model here. My simple question is, just how does Space bend? As because I believe it cannot bend; I feel you have got it wrong. I have given logical reasons as to why I feel Space cannot bend. But you haven't given the reasons as to; why the corpus underlying the curvature is considered to be the Space? And Space being the vacuous, the Empty Nothingness, how can it bend?

 

. . . Those in the field develop a sort of norm of what is been said and meant; it is like when you talk to your friend certain things are notunderstood by outsiders. You cannot develop that affinity from outside. You cantell you child all kinds of good advices but the reality is that he will onlylearn them the hard way. . .

 

 

Since I am not proposing any new theory, I suppose I do not require that kind of affinity. I do not want to be considered a Scientist, [i am well aware that I do not have the necessary credentials]; I do not want a place inside the Science world. In fact I started this thread to comprehend spacetime curvature and not to present a scientific paper or a new theory.

 

Do you mean to say; a student of Science should just go on believing blindly what is being taught to her, as because she isn't acquainted with the norms & affinities of the scientific world?

 

I think Logic & Reasoning are the real tools employed to derive knowledge and not norms & affinities.

 

. . . I can give you many hints to the science of space and time . . .

 

I would be grateful.

 

. . . but you will not make any good use of them unless you really understand the basics through lectures by Susskind and others(google) . . .

 

 

By the time you posted this, I had been through seven Stanford University video lectures out of the twelve lectures taught by Professor Leonard Susskind, I will finish going through the rest. But I think even after that and any more enquiries like that, I would not be enlightened on why the corpus underlying the curvature is considered to be the Space? And Space being the vacuous, the Empty Nothingness, how can it bend? There aren't any answers. It's an assumption, albeit illogical and unnecessary, I think.

 

I have no objection over whether there is curvature or not, as realized by GR. We are here arguing on the definition of Space, properties of Space, on its ability to get curved. We are giving Space an undue property. How would intuition, affinity and norms of scientific world, my feel about the connection between models and experiments, give, Space the vacuous, a non-existent incompatible property, the ability to curve?

 

And what is wrong with saying that alteration in the paths of motion of particles in the vicinity of Matter/mass is due to the Gravitational field which is the property of Matter, and not due to the spacetime curvature?

 

Thank you

 

 

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

 

Now I have released my papers on blog http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

As I understand less denser space split by the movement of high denser mater.

 

About paper you can ask question on the thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/ after reading full paper.

 

( I don't like to hijack Anilkumar's thread, this thread only related to space curve. You can ask questions on related thread after full reading of paper.)

 

Dear URAIN,

 

I read your paper. It fails to convince me. There are flaws in the rationale presented by you.

 

The following are the flaws I would like to bring to your notice;

 

Page4

 

3) The quantity of resultant existence must be increase. Because every existence has some quantity and by adding of two entities, result must be increase

 

When something is added to nothing, there would be no increase.

 

Page 17

 

Therefore when we placed the 'A' solid in Z region, then also the 'space' of Z region has existed, but in different region of this universe. We can say, space has displaced to other side.

 

Space is not displaced. When solid 'A' is placed in region 'Z', the Space in the region 'Z' does not get displaced, instead it remains where it was prior to occupation. But now it exists as occupied Space. And the region of Space where the solid 'A' was occupying prior to region 'Z', now becomes vacated Space. There is a virtual displacement, like the virtual movement of 'Holes' opposite to the direction of the movement of Electrons.

 

[4-D Minkowski spacetime is a great model of Space for example. We can easily know that, every part of Space has different coordinates. Every part of Space is different from every other part of Space since every part of Space has its own unique position in the Universe. And those positions cannot be altered/changed/displaced simply because Space does not have that property.]

 

Empty volume of space may get displaced but it is not the same Space. A volume of space & actual Space are two different things. A volume of space is just a general mathematical quantity. But a chunk of Space is a section of the overall Space which has a unique position in the Universe that can not be altered/changed/displaced.

 

Page 8

 

It is not possible to put the 'B' solid in the same 'Z' region. (It is placed on the 'Z' region.) 'B' did not take the place of 'Z' region means empty space has not existed in 'Z' region. (If space had existed then as per property of space it was also allowed B solid to occupy. B solid not takes place of 'Z' region means space has not existed in that region.) B solid has not occupied 'Z' region, it indicates that space has not exist in 'Z' region. And only 'A' solid has existed in 'Z' region.

 

It is not possible to put solid 'B' in the same region because the Space is occupied. To occupy; you need un-occupied Space. To occupy an occupied Space; you need to displace the Occupant. When the Occupant is displaced, the Space becomes un-occupied again, and can then be occupied.

 

Thank you

Edited March 2, 2012 by Anilkumar