Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

immortal · March 2, 2012

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?

I think Swansont has said to you many times that your speculation about space is an ontological one or its a metaphysical issue which is irrelevant to science and repeating the same thing again is not going to change anything. It is not space which curves, it is Space-time which curves, the curvature of Space-time. What is important is the model of general relativity which explains why light bends in gravitational lensing, why the objects don't follow their geodesic paths and accumulate at the center of earth, its not because there is a gravitational force field which is acting as a downward attracting force which keeps objects on earth but its because the external objects induce external forces which prevents other objects to follow their geodesic paths, an object moves due to the curvature of space-time.

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 would be grateful.

Science doesn't work that way, science works by testing its models empirically through observations or measurements and no matter how logical a theory is, if it doesn't stand up when it is put to test then the model doesn't really model reality and it has to be eliminated and a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted.

Science doesn't advice us to believe that space bends, we don't know what space is, we neither know how it bends but the Einstein's equations of GR accurately models observed phenomena, it doesn't claim to explain the nature of space and time, it claims to explain why the world appears to behave in this way when it is perceived or measured by us, what you need is an introduction to general relativity, a quick read on Wikipedia will do a world of good to you.

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

No, you cannot say that and its wrong to say like that. It is the same properties of matter like energy, mass and momentum which says space-time how to curve and the content of matter determine how space-time will curve, so when there is alteration of the path of a light ray it is not due to the gravitational force field of Sun or matter, there is no attracting force what so ever, the light ray takes such a path solely due to the curvature of Space-time which is determined by the matter content present in Sun. The Riemann tensor and metric gives an accurate description of this, it is full of geometry and curvature and not about force fields.

So matter-space-time are all interlinked in a holistic way and we have to consider all those elements to describe the events of nature and not stress on those individual separate concepts of space, time and matter, they are interdependent.

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

Edited March 2, 2012 by immortal

URAIN · March 2, 2012

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

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

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;

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

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.

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

I think you have no objection, if I give response on this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64596-dear-physics-experts/

qsa · March 3, 2012

Anil and urain

You will do yourselves a world of good by downloading these classics. Read them they are really fun, maybe you will learn something, I can't garantee that, you can. (also try Volume II) .

My link

URAIN · March 3, 2012

Anil and urain

You will do yourselves a world of good by downloading these classics. Read them they are really fun, maybe you will learn something, I can't garantee that, you can. (also try Volume II) .

My link

Here Anilkumar saying some flaws in my paper and I am saying that I will give response to the flaws, (which Anilkumar showing) at related thread (Dear physics expert).

Here without any related subject of my paper, you are mediating in our conversation (and including me).

qsa, you will not get response of me, if you not talk about related subject.

And as an expert you are free to place objections about my paper in related thread.

(Anilkumar please give response in fallowing thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64596-dear-physics-experts/page__st__20__gopid__662446#entry662446)

Edited March 3, 2012 by URAIN

qsa · March 3, 2012

qsa, you will not get response of me, if you not talk about related subject.

if you read a bit about the link you would have seen that it is related because it telling the story of physics from before Newton to the 1950's not in just words but how we get the equations. you should have seen how humans grew out of describing nature by pure analogy like plato's cave to the more mathematical modeling were we concentrate on describing the phenamenon rather than explaining.

your way and many others on speculations seem to take us back to the plato's time. Almost all people have said their piece and stopped responding to you, and you never reponded to my question in a direct way. I also have only limited patience in trying to help you. But my response carries also a message to the wider audience since it is a forum ( public debate) after all.

Also your english is very poor. certain things you say we can take a good guess what you are trying to say even if its wrong. but combining wrong statements, wrong way of explaining and bad english you make the reader in a total state of confusion.

Edited March 3, 2012 by qsa

URAIN · March 4, 2012

if you read a bit about the link you would have seen that it is related because it telling the story of physics from before Newton to the 1950's not in just words but how we get the equations. you should have seen how humans grew out of describing nature by pure analogy like plato's cave to the more mathematical modeling were we concentrate on describing the phenamenon rather than explaining.

your way and many others on speculations seem to take us back to the plato's time. Almost all people have said their piece and stopped responding to you, and you never reponded to my question in a direct way. I also have only limited patience in trying to help you. But my response carries also a message to the wider audience since it is a forum ( public debate) after all.

Also your english is very poor. certain things you say we can take a good guess what you are trying to say even if its wrong. but combining wrong statements, wrong way of explaining and bad english you make the reader in a total state of confusion.

Only I would like to say, if my thread was not fulfilled the rules of speculation forum, then it was gone into TRASH CAN.

I will not oppose mathematics, but complete mathematics is not a study of this universe existences. Mathematics is study of both existence (known) and not existence (unknown). (This is accepted by expert in my thread.)

For other things you are mentioned in the response, I can say "in this universe everything is changing and anything is not static (only other than something, which science now not accept.)".

Mine also will fulfill demands of science and will be part of established science.

Thank you.

Bye.

Edited March 4, 2012 by URAIN

Anilkumar · March 6, 2012

I think Swansont has said to you many times that your speculation about space is an ontological one or its a metaphysical issue which is irrelevant to science and repeating the same thing again is not going to change anything.

Hello immortal,

It is unfortunate; you forget that I have questioned it as many times. When the question gets repeated, the answer gets repeated too. I am not given the answer to the next question I present, but after a while I am presented with the former question again. And I am accused of repeating things, with an advice attached, saying 'this is taking us no where'. What am I to do? Close this thread?

It is not space which curves, it is Space-time which curves, the curvature of Space-time. What is important is the model of general relativity which explains why light bends in gravitational lensing, why the objects don't follow their geodesic paths and accumulate at the center of earth, its not because there is a gravitational force field which is acting as a downward attracting force which keeps objects on earth but its because the external objects induce external forces which prevents other objects to follow their geodesic paths, an object moves due to the curvature of space-time.

Doesn't the Minkowski spacetime model represent the Space & Time? Is it independent of Space & Time? If we do not know what Space is? How did we create its model? I don't know why are we saying that we don't know what Space is, while it is just obvious & evident? We knew what Space is before GR comes. And suddenly after GR we say we don't know what Space is, because the then definition of Space was not compatible with the new notion that Space bends. The earlier definition was rejected in order to create accommodation for the Space curvature hypothesis. Was the earlier definition of Space really erroneous? What wrong was found in the earlier definition of Space? Why was it rejected? It was not rejected because it was wrong. It was rejected in favor of an illogical hypothesis that Space curves, because the mathematics of GR worked. The mathematics has nothing to do with the hypothesis that the Space warps. When the mathematics was proved correct when it accounted for the motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, the curvature which the mathematics indicated had to be assigned to some entity. And there was nothing else to assign it to, so it was thought that the Space could be the entity.

And now we are proposing that spacetime has nothing to do with Space by arguing "It is not space which curves, it is Space-time which curves". What happens to the spacetime must happen to Space. Spacetime is not independent of Space.

Science doesn't work that way, science works by testing its models empirically through observations or measurements and no matter how logical a theory is, if it doesn't stand up when it is put to test then the model doesn't really model reality and it has to be eliminated and a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted.

This too has been discussed many times. But did I say GR does not stand up to testing? Did I propose any new model? What I am saying is, GR works not because of our spacetime curvature hypothesis, but because of its mathematics. The mathematics does not imply that the corpus underlying the curvature is the spacetime. It is we who are implying that the spacetime is the corpus underlying the curvature, because we did not have any other object to assign the curvature on to, as we had eliminated Gravity. GR or the mathematics of GR says there is curvature and predicts it correctly. It is we who are saying that the curvature is in the Space, without taking into consideration whether the Space can provide that curvature or not.

If Gravity can be substituted with Acceleration, where does the Acceleration come from? It must come from some Force. Where does the Force come from? Does it come from the curvature of the Space OR from the property of the Matter to have influence over other Matter? Which is logical? How could Vacuous get curved?

The answer I get to this question is; "we don't know the nature of Space. It is a question of Ontology. Don't talk about the nature of Space, it is irrelevant to Physics. You don't have the right credentials to talk all that". Whether it is related to Ontology or any other logy, the hypothesis that Vacuous gets curved is illogical. If you do not consider Space is vacuous and say that Space has a structure, then where does the structure come from? What is the structure made up of? Which forces of Space are holding the Space in its structure? 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?

Please for Gods sake; I am not interested in your explanation on 'How Science works'. I know it. I just want clarifications to these questions. I suggest you keep the glorious knowledge of how Science works to yourself; just kindly give me the answers to these problems, if you have any?

It is the INFLUENCE of Matter over Matter, which is doing things here. The INFLUENCE is the property of Matter. The INFLUENCE is the force. Not the spacetime curve. Space can't curve. It is the vacuous.

Science doesn't advice us to believe that space bends, we don't know what space is, we neither know how it bends but the Einstein's equations of GR accurately models observed phenomena, it doesn't claim to explain the nature of space and time, it claims to explain why the world appears to behave in this way when it is perceived or measured by us . . .

Science doesn't advice us to believe that space bends, we don't know what space is, we neither know how it bends, it doesn't claim to explain the nature of space and time, . . . . . . but still; we want to believe that Space bends!!! . . . . . . But why?!!!!!

. . . what you need is an introduction to general relativity, a quick read on Wikipedia will do a world of good to you. . .

Thank you for the free advice of what would be good for me. But why do you suppose that I haven't read the Wikipedia article? Should I give you, my free advice, telling you that- "If one is impressed by something and one wants to share that impression with others, one must just say so. One shouldn't go on giving free advice to others telling that; it would be good for them. There is no possibility that what appeals to one must appeal to others too. There could be differences. And discussions are meant for sorting out those differences".

No, you cannot say that and its wrong to say like that. It is the same properties of matter like energy, mass and momentum which says space-time how to curve and the content of matter determine how space-time will curve, so when there is alteration of the path of a light ray it is not due to the gravitational force field of Sun or matter, there is no attracting force what so ever, the light ray takes such a path solely due to the curvature of Space-time which is determined by the matter content present in Sun. The Riemann tensor and metric gives an accurate description of this, it is full of geometry and curvature and not about force fields.

The curvature indicated by the Riemann tensor and metric is the curvature of the path of motion of the particle/light, and not the curvature of the spacetime.

The curvature of the path of motion is caused due to the INFLUENCE of Matter over Matter. The INFLUENCE is the Gravity. Matter/mass cannot influence Space, except occupying it.

How do we establish that the physical object underlying the curvature is the Space? How do you justify the "Curvature - of the Vacuous"?

So matter-space-time are all interlinked in a holistic way and we have to consider all those elements to describe the events of nature and not stress on those individual separate concepts of space, time and matter, they are interdependent.

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

They are interdependent because of their individual characteristics. Like, Space is a vacuous which lets itself to be occupied. Matter needs Space to exist, Matter occupies it.

Which of the following statements are Unscientific, illogical, and not evident? And why?

The Space is vacuous.
The Space is structure-less. [in fact a vacuous cannot have a structure. That is why it is defined as vacuous.]
The Space lets itself to be occupied.

What hinders us to accept this obvious & evident description of Space? And if this and the Gravitational field are accepted, what harm would it do to GR?

The assumed curvature of Space does not fit with the definition of Space. How do we justify this?

I wouldn't say what I would be saying next. But sometimes as not-acting can be interpreted as inability; I am compelled to say this. I could have given your post a negative mark instantaneously for your irrelevant answers like trying to tell what would be good for me and also for trying to tell how Science works. I don't believe in punishing. I believe in reasoning out.

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

Anil and urain

You will do yourselves a world of good by downloading these classics. Read them they are really fun, maybe you will learn something, I can't garantee that, you can. (also try Volume II) .

My link

qsa

I strongly believe reading does real good to a person. And the book you mentioned is a great classic. But I didn't understand why you couldn't clarify the questions raised but left un-clarified, with the help of the world of good done to you by your suggested reading.

. . . you should have seen how humans grew out of describing nature by pure analogy like plato's cave to the more mathematical modeling were we concentrate on describing the phenamenon rather than explaining.

your way and many others on speculations seem to take us back to the plato's time. . .

Plato's cave is an allegory which shows among many other things Quote- "how true reality is not always what it seems to be on the surface"-Unquote. Here is a shortened version of an original MIT link & a short award winning animation here on Plato's cave. qsa, do you mean that Plato should have stated in the form of equations what he wanted to convey through that allegory?

Ridiculing is a clever way of trying to overpower in a discussion without placing an actual argument. But a cheap way.

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

"a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted." – This is a big joke being played on Science by those who are under the illusion that they are Scientific and think they know how Science works.

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

I think you have no objection, if I give response on this thread

http://www.sciencefo...hysics-experts/

I replied to your post on this thread because in one of your earlier posts on this thread, you had said that your writings would convince me that the stand I have taken is wrong. Now if your intention is to convince me, you could respond on this thread if your answer does not amount to hijacking of this thread. Regarding responding somewhere else, it is up to you to decide.

Thank you.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Anilkumar

URAIN · March 6, 2012

Ridiculing is a clever way of trying to overpower in a discussion without placing an actual argument. But a cheap way.

I agree.

-----------------------
I replied to your post on this thread because in one of your earlier posts on this thread, you had said that your writings would convince me that the stand I have taken is wrong.

Yes, I have said this and I have committed to my words.

I have said this because for all your arguments, matter definition was the main base.

That is, matter occupy space. But my paper says matter is different space is different. Matter does not occupy space, other than it.

-
Now if your intention is to convince me, you could respond on this thread if your answer does not amount to hijacking of this thread. Regarding responding somewhere else, it is up to you to decide.

Ok I will try to convince here also and I will say in my thread also that matter not occupy space other than it.

You may read the my thread. There I have questioned, to you that

1) Does space is an existence or not existence?

2) If it is an existence, then what is it's property?

( You have said about this, then also once again I am asking for placing my argument. )

I am giving response in your thread, please answer directly.

immortal · March 6, 2012

Well Anil, even if you repeat the same thing for another five pages no one is going to take you seriously its because you are not making any predictions. If you define space in your own terms then can you give us a few experiments so that we can test and see whether space has your properties or not. You expect science to answer your questions but a scientific theory doesn't claim to answer your questions and hence its irrelevant. If you have so much problem with curvature of space then I should remind you that science doesn't say space curves, curvature of space and time is a ideological concept and no greater reality should be attributed to it.

qsa · March 8, 2012

Anil,

I am not trying to make fun of you, I apologize if it looked that way. The basic idea is to try to show where you have gone wrong in the quickest way. I did not want to repeat what others have told you. just wanted to say it in different way hopping you will understand it better.

Your main problem is that many people tried to tell you that in science we only talk about epistemological models and not ontological. We have no access to the ontological (actual entities). For example, in the 1800's people might have thought that those lines of force are real, now we know better. this is another way of telling you that we describe and not explain. if you get this idea then it will be a lot easier to understand physics. Also we describe matter as wavefunction, we have no idea what this wavefunction is exactly. Is it ontological or otherwise. I hope we don't have to repeat this important part.

Edited March 8, 2012 by qsa

Anilkumar · March 21, 2012

Well Anil, even if you repeat the same thing for another five pages no one is going to take you seriously. . .

immortal,

It is sad that you repeated/replicated your words three times. It shows your contempt.

It is not my prerogative to repeat. I acted according as & how the situation demanded.

I find that there is a typical attitude of contempt and disgust in some of the replies to the threads in the Speculation section. [Not found in the replies of some people and most experts. Some people are really so affectionate and knowledgeable even when they are facing the utmost ignorant person, that their patience and tolerance are commendable.]

I agree that there is ignorance among people who question established scientific facts, just in order to attract attention or satisfy their ego. But a person who considers herself Seeker of knowledge instead of expressing contempt, I feel should reason them out. That is the best thing a knowledgeable person can do to help an ignorant person. Contempt would not achieve anything other than generating more contempt. Reasoning can make an ignorant person more knowledgeable, I feel.

The person who instead of reasoning out, replies with contempt when established beliefs are questioned is not a knowledge seeker/provider but just a protector of established beliefs.

The person who questions established facts to attract attention or satiate his ego and the person who expresses contempt on all those who question established facts, both lack virtue.

. . . its because you are not making any predictions. . .

I am not making any predictions because I have not proposed any new model. I am just questioning the spacetime curvature hypothesis. I am proposing a reconsideration of Gravitational field in place of spacetime curvature as the underlying entity that curves the path of motion of Matter in the vicinity of other Matter. Everything else of GR remains the same.

. . . You expect science to answer your questions but a scientific theory doesn't claim to answer your questions and hence its irrelevant. . .

I expect Science to answer questions that rise naturally due to the proposal of that scientific theory.

. . . If you have so much problem with curvature of space then I should remind you that science doesn't say space curves, curvature of space and time is a ideological concept and no greater reality should be attributed to it.

Aren't the Scientific concepts, conceptualized to envision reality?

. . . If you define space in your own terms then can you give us a few experiments so that we can test and see whether space has your properties or not. . .

In my struggle to understand life, existence, and the Universe I have gathered some knowledge from what I have read and heard. Accordingly my understanding of Space is as follows;

Space is a formless, structureless, indestructible, indivisible, pure, one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and which gives space to all the Matter of this Universe.

All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. This shows that Space exists.

All physical objects move freely in this Space. This shows that the Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. So it must be devoid of any structure or forces. So it is formless & vacuous.

From all the above we can conclude that the Space is an empty vacancy which is formless and structure-less.

So it does not have any properties other than letting itself to be occupied. So it can neither affect nor get affected by anything.

What more evidence do we need to know the Space?

Where does the Matter get the place it occupies, from? Where the place for Matter, to move about & interact, comes from? Why do we say we don't know what Space is? What prevents us from recognizing it?

For all the Matter of this Universe to exist, and for all the interaction between the particles of Matter to take place, a space/place is necessary. Space provides it.

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

. . . Your main problem is that many people tried to tell you that in science we only talk about epistemological models and not ontological. . .

No. This is not an Ontological issue at all.

When we hypothesize or describe or take conclusions regarding something, shouldn't we take into consideration its evident properties?

Why are we denying the existence of Space as an entity?

How could we create a model of this Universe, without giving credence to what the natural properties of Space must be?

To place all the Matter of this Universe, and for all the interaction between the particles of Matter to take place, isn't it evident that it takes space?

And what are the properties of this space? Isn't it evident from its behavior?

Shouldn't the function that we assign to an entity be compatible with the evident properties of that entity and vice versa?

Can we give a hypothetic behavior [for example space curvature] to something [for example Space] that we say we don't know what it is or whether it exists or not? Is this Science?

OR

Can we say we don't know what something is or whether it exists or not and yet give it a hypothetic behavior? Is this Science?

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

URAIN,

Your argument must focus on the flaws I pointed out. We should not drift into a discussion of your writings; you have started a thread exclusively for that.

But anyway . . .

. . . But my paper says matter is different space is different. . .

I have maintained all through that they are two different entities.

1) Does space is an existence or not existence?

2) If it is an existence, then what is it's property?

Yes Space exists.

It is Empty nothingness. It lets itself to be occupied.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · March 21, 2012

immortal,

It is sad that you repeated/replicated your words three times. It shows your contempt.

It is not my prerogative to repeat. I acted according as & how the situation demanded.

I find that there is a typical attitude of contempt and disgust in some of the replies to the threads in the Speculation section. [Not found in the replies of some people and most experts. Some people are really so affectionate and knowledgeable even when they are facing the utmost ignorant person, that their patience and tolerance are commendable.]

I agree that there is ignorance among people who question established scientific facts, just in order to attract attention or satisfy their ego. But a person who considers herself Seeker of knowledge instead of expressing contempt, I feel should reason them out. That is the best thing a knowledgeable person can do to help an ignorant person. Contempt would not achieve anything other than generating more contempt. Reasoning can make an ignorant person more knowledgeable, I feel.

The person who instead of reasoning out, replies with contempt when established beliefs are questioned is not a knowledge seeker/provider but just a protector of established beliefs.

The person who questions established facts to attract attention or satiate his ego and the person who expresses contempt on all those who question established facts, both lack virtue.

This is a misunderstanding I posted that post through my cell phone and since there was a problem of loading of the page I posted it three times by mistake, it doesn't show my contempt towards your ideas or towards your approach and it was not my intention to post that three times, sorry for the confusion. Infact you're the one who is insisting by repeating the same thing again and again even though I made a sincere effort to make you understand how science works and how it has changed over the years.

I am not making any predictions because I have not proposed any new model. I am just questioning the spacetime curvature hypothesis. I am proposing a reconsideration of Gravitational field in place of spacetime curvature as the underlying entity that curves the path of motion of Matter in the vicinity of other Matter. Everything else of GR remains the same.

I guess you know that GR is about geometry and even the particle "graviton" is viewed as perturbations in the goemetry of space-time which spreads in the form of a wave in the geometry of space-time itself. A gravitional theory based on gravitional field will have a completely different set of equations and will inherently be a completely different model, please kindly come up with a model and make predictions that matter emits a "strange particle" which causes other matter to attract then scientists can test your predictions and will accept your hypothesis, if not this is just philosophical rambling.

I expect Science to answer questions that rise naturally due to the proposal of that scientific theory.

Yes indeed but that requires building new models which incorporate older models into that new model and gives a new persepective of nature. Science is cumulative and your questions do require a model and a set of predictions.

Aren't the Scientific concepts, conceptualized to envision reality?

Scientific models are just models they aren't reality by itself and its wrong to assert or conclude that nature is the way the models are, science only says nature behaves based on these scientific models, it doesn't say it is the way it is as described by those models.

In my struggle to understand life, existence, and the Universe I have gathered some knowledge from what I have read and heard. Accordingly my understanding of Space is as follows;

Space is a formless, structureless, indestructible, indivisible, pure, one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and which gives space to all the Matter of this Universe.

All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. This shows that Space exists.

All physical objects move freely in this Space. This shows that the Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. So it must be devoid of any structure or forces. So it is formless & vacuous.

From all the above we can conclude that the Space is an empty vacancy which is formless and structure-less.

So it does not have any properties other than letting itself to be occupied. So it can neither affect nor get affected by anything.

What more evidence do we need to know the Space?

For all the Matter of this Universe to exist, and for all the interaction between the particles of Matter to take place, a space/place is necessary. Space provides it

There is a difference between saying space exists and saying space exist in this way and it is like this or it is like that. The accepted models of science gives the best ontology based on its accuracy. This is the difference between a layman or a philosopher and a scientist, a scientist backs up his assertions with predictions and tests his assertions. Your new hypothesis doesn't make any new predictions and hence its philosophy, its not science or give us a method to falsify your hypothesis.

Where does the Matter get the place it occupies, from? Where the place for Matter, to move about & interact, comes from? Why do we say we don't know what Space is? What prevents us from recognizing it?

Logical reasoning or rationalism can be wrong, the point of science is to know how nature works, just because your argument is logical we don't accept it at the end of the way all we want to know is that Is nature really that way? and hence testing is required.

Is space made up of chunks of blocks?

Is it a rubber sheet?

Is it a void?

Is it digital?

Is it a crystal? Does it have a structure? a symmetry?

How can I know what it is?

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

"a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted." – This is a big joke being played on Science by those who are under the illusion that they are Scientific and think they know how Science works.

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

One won't be a good scientist if one considers that statement to be a big joke.

qsa · March 21, 2012

anil,

this is from wiki,Newton's first law

Newton's first law is a restatement of the law of inertia which Galileo had already described and Newton gave credit to Galileo. Aristotle had the view that all objects have a natural place in the universe: that heavy objects like rocks wanted to be at rest on the Earth and that light objects like smoke wanted to be at rest in the sky and the stars wanted to remain in the heavens. He thought that a body was in its natural state when it was at rest, and for the body to move in a straight line at a constant speed an external agent was needed to continually propel it, otherwise it would stop moving. Galileo, however, realized that a force is necessary to change the velocity of a body, i.e., acceleration, but no force is needed to maintain its velocity. This insight leads to Newton's First Law —no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity.

What was "evident" (your word) to Aristotle and the ancients was not so evident for galileo. It depends on how you scrutinize.

Also let me ask you do you believe in Special Relativity.And Why do you think it was discovered.

Let me add this. In classical electrodynamics we model particles as points (notice the word) with a property of charge that affects other particles; so where is this "evident" that you talk about. These are just models we come up with based on experiments. Do enough actual science and you will get the hang of it.

Edited March 22, 2012 by qsa

URAIN · March 22, 2012

Anilkumar First of all, I am do not understanding that, why you are taking so long time to give response or to answer so simple question.

Before answering to your question, I will remember your earlier quotes. When you were asked to me that, what will you expect from me? Then I was said,"acceptance" (if truth exist in my writing) is expecting from you. In reply you had said,

Hello URAIN,

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

I suppose, none ofus on the forum are rivals. We are all yearning for the common goal; to knowthe truth. When I am proved wrong; I should be grateful, because someknowledgeable generous person corrected me, prevented me from being aless-informed person, made me more erudite.

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

For this I have given detailed reply that, which kind ofpeople are existed in this world. I was not considered you, in that group of IAURN or MBA YBN peoples. But your answers, enforcing me to think in that way.

When you raised question about space curvature, you said that I am not convinced with it. Hence I raised question, in the expectation, any one may convince me. But actually you raised the question to prove this as wrong. Hence you are mentally not prepared to get convinced.

Another quote

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

For this reason you are questioning great scientist Einstein's space curvature. Now I ask same question to you that why blindly you are accepting others statements about space? Like following quote.

Space is a formless, structureless,indestructible, indivisible, pure, one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and whichgives space to all the Matter of this Universe.

And by this

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

Some one said space is like this, like that. Why not, you think yourself with my reasoning and predictions. You are saying that space is fixed, and then does expansion of space is an unreal thing? Then all scientists also incorrect, who are saying space is expanding.

Anilkumar, your arguments are not supporting to reasoning and they are opposite to reasoning and logic.

Yes Space exists.

It is Empty nothingness. It lets itself to be occupied.

1) You accept space as an existence and it has a property.

But again you indirectly say that space will lose its occupying property, when we place 'A' solid in 'Z' region (Your have said this, when B solid has not occupied same Z region), and you say that without any property, space will exist in the Z region.

After putting 'A' solid also, if space has existed in same Z region, then what is the property of that space?

I have maintained all through that they are two different entities.

2) By above quote, you are saying that space and matter (denserexistence) are two different things.

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

And you differentiate space as occupied space and unoccupied space.

You are saying a region as occupied space,where matter also has existed. Here According to you both space and matter are existed in same occupied space. Then how matter will different than the space? (If anything you say, that must must be correct in all conditions.)

How you differentiate matter and space? How we confirm matter and space are different? Suggest any experiments. Actually here you are calling only one thing with different names.

Is it not saying like, space and matter are both same existence? (Think with reasoning once again)

You have strong preconceived thought about space by this. You have made your mind fixed to space is like a container and all thing exist in this. You expect from nature that space must and should exist in this way. Otherwise you are not ready, to see nature as it is.

In my struggle to understand life, existence, and the Universe I have gatheredsome knowledge from what I have read and heard. Accordingly my understanding ofSpace is as follows;

Space is a formless, structureless, indestructible, indivisible, pure,one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and whichgives space to all the Matter of this Universe.

All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planetsetc that have a shape and size, occupy space. This shows that Space exists.

All physical objects move freely in this Space. This shows that the Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. So it must bedevoid of any structure or forces. So it is formless & vacuous.

Did you have read my paper without these strong preconceived opinions about space? It seems not.

You are not testing my predictions and you are not taking my reasoning with open minded. You have to take my predictions and reasoning with open minded, to get convince yourself.

I have defined existence. i.e.

Q. What is an existence ?

A.Existence is a size or volume, which has contained same average density. (size may contain nil density also.)

Q. How we have to differentiate different existences?

A.Difference in average density in a considered volume is an indication of different existences.

In this thread many times you have, talked about rational thinking.

Does your rational thinking; will accept these definitions (existence and differentiation of existences)?

If your rational thinking not accepts these, then by giving any examples of this universe, prove these definitions are wrong and give your definition about existence and differentiation of existences, which is testable.

According to my definition, if we will consider anything as space then that size or volume must and should contain nil average density.

You are saying that space has the property "let to occupy by matter". With this, you also saying that till empty space has existed in same Z region, even after putting 'A' solid in that region.

'A' solid does not have nil average density. Then how you say, in same Z region empty space has existed. In your thinking, Does nil average density and greater than zero average density are same? (zero average density = greater than zero average density ?)

(In paper, it is assumed that in Z region, empty space has existed and A and B are solid rocks.)

If space has existed in same Z region and if it has property to be occupied by matter, then why it has lost its occupying property, when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region?

If without any property space has existed in same Z region, then it implies empty space of Z region does not have any property.

I ask you, that accepting an existence without any property,is it comes under your rational thinking?

In this universe, if any existence has existed without any property, then please show me that existence.

(I am again saying that if give any property to space that must apply in every condition.)

As per established science (or as per you) space has the property "allow itself to be occupied by matter".

But according to my paper and also in reality, space is a size or volume and it has nil resistance property for a motion and it is easily displaced. Because, it does not contain any density in it. It is empty.

*If empty space has existed in same Z region (after putting A solid also), then a question will arise that, why this Z region has showed high resistance, for B solid's movement towards Z region (when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region)?

Always empty space will not show any resistance for any motion. In a shorttime, it will be easily displaced by motion of other denser existence.

In any region, if any movement has faced any resistance or it taken some more time to move, then pure empty space has not existed in that region. You can check this by experiments also.

Normally an existence takes least time to displace empty existence than any other denser existence.

My first prediction says "resistance for any existence movement is mainly depending on density of another existence, which has existed, in the direction of force ".

If density of another existence is high, then an existence takes more time to displace that. If density other existence is low or nil density then an existence will take less time to displace that.

Space is empty; it has nil resistance, therefore an existence take very least time to displace that.

(And second prediction says "An existence speed will be greater than zero,if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence, which has existed,in the direction of force or net force".)

You are saying that empty space has existed in Z region, (even after placing A solid in it).

You have to think, that why empty space of Z region showed high resistance for movement of B solid. While empty space has the property of nil resistance for movement and existed in Z region (in your view) even after putting A solid in it.

Anilkumar, I think you are discussing only to defend your previous argument (it is character of "I am All U R Not" peoples). You are not discussing to receive true knowledge. Therefore you are not receiving my reasoning with open mind.

After giving reasoning also if you are not ready to accept that then I am helpless to convince you.

Your argument must focus on the flaws I pointed out.

I have answered flaws and questions raised by you. I hope you also answer question raised by me.

One thing you have to remember that, blindly accepting is the process of accepting others people statement without any test or experiment.

To test and exam my predictions are ready. You have to test these predictions.

(Mainly you check, "Resistance for movement" prediction and if you give any property to space, then it must apply in every condition. In my paper 'space' property is showing nil resistance for a movement and you can apply it to any condition. Where is resistance for a movement,there is no pure space. Where is no resistance, there is pure space. Once you haveto think in this way.)

If any faults you see in my prediction then please make me familiar about that and without placing preconceived thought away, you will not get convinced.

Edited March 22, 2012 by URAIN

Anilkumar · April 3, 2012

I guess you know that GR is about geometry . . . goemetry of space-time . . .

A gravitional theory based on gravitional field will have a completely different set of equations and will inherently be a completely different model . . .

. . . please kindly come up with a model and make predictions . . .

Let's keep things that we are not certain about, like whether Gravity is a field or a particle, aside for a while and focus our discussion on things we are very certain about.

How do we ascertain that the 'geometry' [about which the GR is]; is the geometry of spacetime?

How do we ascertain that the 'geometry' [about which the GR is]; is not the geometry of the path of the motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter?

. . . this is just philosophical rambling. . .

No.

Why because, there is convincing evidence that Space exists and Space is Vacuous. I have stated reasons for that. So it can not have a geometry. And so the geometry that the mathematics of GR indicates is not the geometry of spacetime, instead it is the geometry of the path of the motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter. To be continued after the next para . . .

{So that leaves out Gravity, and also whether it is a field or a particle, in this context. But I would like to believe it to be a field similar to other fields like Electric and Magnetic. And I would define that, the 'Field' is nothing but an area of influence of an object in which the paths of the motion of other objects, that the object has an affinity towards, get affected.}

Continued . . . The differential geometry of GR estimates the amount of that influence. It does not say where that influence comes from.

It is we who are saying, it comes from spacetime. But I would prefer to say it comes from the 'influence'.

Whether it comes from the spacetime or the 'influence', its estimation by GR with the help of Differential geometry stands accurate.

Scientific models are just models they aren't reality by itself and its wrong to assert or conclude that nature is the way the models are, science only says nature behaves based on these scientific models, it doesn't say it is the way it is as described by those models.

Shouldn't the behavior, based on the scientific model, which Science attributes to nature, be a reality?

There is a difference between saying space exists and saying space exist in this way and it is like this or it is like that. The accepted models of science gives the best ontology based on its accuracy. This is the difference between a layman or a philosopher and a scientist, a scientist backs up his assertions with predictions and tests his assertions. Your new hypothesis doesn't make any new predictions and hence its philosophy, its not science or give us a method to falsify your hypothesis.

The predictions that you are pointing out, in regards with the GR are the predictions regarding the curvature in the path of the motion. I have no objection over that. There is curvature; [the curved path of motion], and there is the tool [rather a great tool, because it does not require any information regarding the source of the curvature to calculate the amount of curvature]; to measure that curvature. The tool is mathematical. The curvature is estimated accurately. But only the estimation of the curvature is available. No information regarding the source of the curvature is available.

And the spacetime curvature theory is nothing but Philosophy. We can't even call it philosophy, because it is illogical too. It is absurdity.

Is space made up of chunks of blocks?

Is it a rubber sheet?

Is it a void?

Is it digital?

Is it a crystal? Does it have a structure? a symmetry?

Chunks of blocks, Rubber sheet, Digital signal, Crystal would all require an Empty, structure-less, Space to exist, because they have spatial extent.

How can I know what it is?

How did you know it gets curved? You say you don't even know it exists.

I have already stated things by which we can know it exists and what it is.

In my struggle to understand life, existence, and the Universe I have gathered some knowledge from what I have read and heard. Accordingly my understanding of Space is as follows;

Space is a formless, structureless, indestructible, indivisible, pure, one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and which gives space to all the Matter of this Universe.

All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. This shows that Space exists.

All physical objects move freely in this Space. This shows that the Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. So it must be devoid of any structure or forces. So it is formless & vacuous.

From all the above we can conclude that the Space is an empty vacancy which is formless and structure-less.

So it does not have any properties other than letting itself to be occupied. So it can neither affect nor get affected by anything.

What more evidence do we need to know the Space?

Where does the Matter get the place it occupies, from? Where the place for Matter, to move about & interact, comes from? Why do we say we don't know what Space is? What prevents us from recognizing it?

. . . just because your argument is logical we don't accept it . . .

It is not my logical argument, but it is the way that Space behaves. We can certainly ascertain the existence of an entity and its properties on the basis of its behavior when we interact with it. At every instant we live in, and interact with, Space. And that is how it behaves with us.

Logical reasoning or rationalism can be wrong, the point of science is to know how nature works, just because your argument is logical we don't accept it at the end of the way all we want to know is that Is nature really that way? and hence testing is required.

----------------------------------------&

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

"a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted." – This is a big joke being played on Science by those who are under the illusion that they are Scientific and think they know how Science works.

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

One won't be a good scientist if one considers that statement to be a big joke

Though I stick to my words, this debate could be the subject of another thread.

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

What was "evident" (your word) to Aristotle and the ancients was not so evident for galileo. It depends on how you scrutinize.

And so is spacetime curvature hypothesis. It is not even evident, it is just a hypothesis.

Also let me ask you do you believe in Special Relativity.And Why do you think it was discovered.

Yes of course I have confidence in SR. I believe it was developed due to the failure of the aether hypothesis and that different measurements by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference in terms of spacetime relationships and aether is unnecessary.

It is mentioned on wikipedia here ;"];

quote

This theory [sR] has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction & time dilation.

unquote

But I don't find anything counterintuitive regarding Length contraction and Time dilation. I could give reasons. I find them to be just observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the states/conditions of different observers. And those differences in the states/conditions are nothing but "differences in the spatio-temporal positions of observers". So naturally when your spatio-temporal position is different, your view/observation too is different.

qsa, your efforts would be only helpful to me if you could give clarifications to the objections that are preventing me from comprehending the spacetime curvature hypothesis, than testing me to check if I am entitled to raise such objections or suggest alternatives. I believe no title on Earth can give the ability to curve to Space.

In all your posts I find no satisfactory clarification that could be of help to me to understand spacetime curvature hypothesis better. Instead I find discourses on the history of the development of Science.

And certainly Science did not develop due to titles. Science developed due to two things. One is Inquisitiveness & the other is Expertise. Persons can posses either one of these two or occasionally a few gifted posses both characters. The Inquisitive are the seekers of Truth, Knowledge. They dig into issues around them and try to understand their surrounding world. Expertise is being extraordinarily well Informed & Skilled. The real Expert are I feel the noble human beings who are indifferent or less intrusive or meddling about the surrounding world, who wish to make a dignified and respectable living supported by the essentiality of their expertise. They have to be indifferent to the surrounding world because they have to intensely focus on gaining the expertise. [i am just trying to make a simple analysis of the driving force behind the development of Science.] Science developed due to the endeavor of searching, by seekers of Truth, facilitated by Experts. There is a lot of difference between choosing to become a scientist as an Expert and for seeking Truth. There is a universe of difference between being informed/skilled and seeking Truth. A person who gets informed or skilled can be conferred with titles as there is evidence for the effort put. But there is no guarantee that the person will alone bring us new knowledge. A seeker of Truth/Knowledge can certainly bring us the new things that she encounters on her path to seeking. And she gets recognized when she finds the Truth. But there is no guarantee that the person alone will find the Truth & gets recognized. Information & Skill are useful in handling the Known. Seeking is useful in finding the unknown. The aim of the person with Information & Skill is Service. The aim of the Seeker is Truth/Knowledge. The Seeker looks towards the informed & the skilled for information & conducting, while seeking. Together they guide each other, work hand in hand and this is how I feel Science developed. Getting one-self perfectly informed and skilled in prevailing matters is one thing. Being inquisitive, seeking to know the unknown, endeavoring to solve prevailing difficulties or glitches is another thing. Information & Skill are imparted by committed institutions. An Expert gets certified by those institutions. Inquisitiveness is an inherent character. There are no certificates for Inquisitiveness. An inquisitive farmer [a layman] who makes alterations, with the help of well informed & the skilled persons, to resolve glitches or to suit the local needs, in a globally manufactured agricultural equipment designed by Scientists, is also a Scientist. An inquisitive street mechanic who makes alterations in a carburetor to suit new necessities is also a Scientist. Expertise alone cannot bring development into Science. And similarly it becomes difficult for Inquisitiveness alone to bring knowledge on its own. Expertise and Inquisitiveness should join if knowledge is to be taken forward. Information & Skill are commodities that can be shared, and should be shared for betterment of life. Inquisitiveness when coupled with Skill can work for betterment of life. Without Inquisitiveness, Information would remain stagnant. Inquisitiveness brings new information. That new Information is tested with prevailing Information by the Expert. And if it leads to improvement, it is accepted. Or else it is discarded. [And sometimes ridiculed; the irony is, the Expert gives reasons and discards, while the non-Expert ridicules, but doesn't know the reasons.] Inquisitiveness & Expertise are the two engines that are driving the field of Science. Expertise demands toil. Inquisitiveness demands appetite for risk [because it could be a fruitless search in the dark]. Expertise helps the Expert to make a living. The inquisitive, by searching in the dark stake their life. Expertise is always fruitful in at least making a living. Inquisitiveness is occasionally fruitful. An expert is a Scientist. An inquisitive layman or a child is a Scientist as well. [i am not saying a child would contribute to science, but Inquisitiveness can do in the long run]. An Expert aims at gaining expertise. An inquisitive person yearns to know things, which can further lead to new Information. And there are the occasionally gifted, who are both inquisitive & expert at the same time.

I seek Truth. I have no fondness for acquiring skills. I just want to know the Truth. And that is the reason why I don't have titles.

The aim of my life is to know life, before death comes. I don't know whether I will know it or not. But I shall keep seeking.

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

Hello URAIN,

I apologize for the delay of my postings. It takes me time to convert my thoughts in to right words. Perhaps I am taking precautions not to say anything that I would have to apologize later.

Though a reply to your entire post would take a lot of time for me, I have decided to respond to you at least with what I felt immediately after reading your post. And then later, I could bring up the rest, after pondering in detail over your post.

. . . 1) You accept space as an existence and it has a property.

But again you indirectly say that space will lose its occupying property, when we place 'A' solid in 'Z' region (Your have said this, when B solid has not occupied same Z region), and you say that without any property, space will exist in the Z region.

After putting 'A' solid also, if space has existed in same Z region, then what is the property of that space? . . .

. . . If space has existed in same Z region and if it has property to be occupied by matter, then why it has lost its occupying property, when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region?

If without any property space has existed in same Z region, then it implies empty space of Z region does not have any property.

I ask you, that accepting an existence without any property,is it comes under your rational thinking?

In this universe, if any existence has existed without any property, then please show me that existence.

(I am again saying that if give any property to space that must apply in every condition.)

As per established science (or as per you) space has the property "allow itself to be occupied by matter". . .

. . . *If empty space has existed in same Z region (after putting A solid also), then a question will arise that, why this Z region has showed high resistance, for B solid's movement towards Z region (when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region)? . . .

. . . You are saying that empty space has existed in Z region, (even after placing A solid in it).

You have to think, that why empty space of Z region showed high resistance for movement of B solid. While empty space has the property of nil resistance for movement and existed in Z region (in your view) even after putting A solid in it. . . .

. . . if you give any property to space, then it must apply in every condition. . .

Consider this . . .

An 'x' cubic meter of empty Space can give space to only 'x' cubic meter of Matter or less but not more than that.

I will come up with the remaining response ASAP.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · April 3, 2012

How do we ascertain that the 'geometry' [about which the GR is]; is not the geometry of the path of the motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter?

{So that leaves out Gravity, and also whether it is a field or a particle, in this context. But I would like to believe it to be a field similar to other fields like Electric and Magnetic. And I would define that, the 'Field' is nothing but an area of influence of an object in which the paths of the motion of other objects, that the object has an affinity towards, get affected.}

Your beliefs are not science.

Your still clinging to the old Newtonian world view.

John Wheeler said "Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve". This is the view accepted by science.

Its not "Matter tells how other Matter should move"

Anilkumar · April 14, 2012

Your beliefs are not science.

But you have not given one scientific reason yet, to say I am wrong.

John Wheeler said "Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve". This is the view accepted by science.

Whereas, I have enlightened with enough empirical evidences regarding the behavior of Space & adequate logical reasons to say that what you stated above is wrong & not Science, throughout the thread.

Space doesn't have the property to tell anybody anything, nor do anything, leave aside bending. It has only the property of giving space for occupation to everything that occupies space. When something occupies space it is evident that Space exists. When something occupies Space without resistance, it is evident that Space has no internal forces. So Space has no internal structure.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · April 14, 2012

But you have not given one scientific reason yet, to say I am wrong.

Whereas, I have enlightened with enough empirical evidences regarding the behavior of Space & adequate logical reasons to say that what you stated above is wrong & not Science, throughout the thread.

Space doesn't have the property to tell anybody anything, nor do anything, leave aside bending. It has only the property of giving space for occupation to everything that occupies space. When something occupies space it is evident that Space exists. When something occupies Space without resistance, it is evident that Space has no internal forces. So Space has no internal structure.

Earth dragging space-time as it rotates.

In that paper one can see how earth(matter) curves space-time and how that curvature of space-time tells the satellites to move and change their plane of orbit in the direction of earth rotation.

"We found that the plane of the orbits of LAGEOS I and II were shifted about six feet (two meters) per year in the direction of the Earth's rotation," Pavlis said. "This is about 10 percent greater than what is predicted by general relativity, which is within our margin of error of plus or minus 20 percent. Later measurements by Gravity Probe B, a NASA spacecraft scheduled to be launched in 2000, should reduce this error margin to less than one percent. This promises to tell us much more about the physics involved."

The frame-dragging effect was predicted by general relativity and the observations test those predictions to an amazing degree of accuracy. This is how science works.

You are of the opinion that science is wrong and your logical reasoning about space is right, that's not how it works, nature says your logical reasoning is wrong.

qsa · April 14, 2012

Yes of course I have confidence in SR. I believe it was developed due to the failure of the aether hypothesis and that different measurements by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference in terms of spacetime relationships and aether is unnecessary.

It is mentioned on wikipedia here ;

quote

This theory [sR] has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction & time dilation.

unquote

But I don't find anything counterintuitive regarding Length contraction and Time dilation. I could give reasons. I find them to be just observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the states/conditions of different observers. And those differences in the states/conditions are nothing but "differences in the spatio-temporal positions of observers". So naturally when your spatio-temporal position is different, your view/observation too is different.

qsa, your efforts would be only helpful to me if you could give clarifications to the objections that are preventing me from comprehending the spacetime curvature hypothesis, than testing me to check if I am entitled to raise such objections or suggest alternatives. I believe no title on Earth can give the ability to curve to Space.

In all your posts I find no satisfactory clarification that could be of help to me to understand spacetime curvature hypothesis better. Instead I find discourses on the history of the development of Science.

And certainly Science did not develop due to titles. Science developed due to two things. One is Inquisitiveness & the other is Expertise. Persons can posses either one of these two or occasionally a few gifted posses both characters. The Inquisitive are the seekers of Truth, Knowledge. They dig into issues around them and try to understand their surrounding world. Expertise is being extraordinarily well Informed & Skilled. The real Expert are I feel the noble human beings who are indifferent or less intrusive or meddling about the surrounding world, who wish to make a dignified and respectable living supported by the essentiality of their expertise. They have to be indifferent to the surrounding world because they have to intensely focus on gaining the expertise. [i am just trying to make a simple analysis of the driving force behind the development of Science.] Science developed due to the endeavor of searching, by seekers of Truth, facilitated by Experts. There is a lot of difference between choosing to become a scientist as an Expert and for seeking Truth. There is a universe of difference between being informed/skilled and seeking Truth. A person who gets informed or skilled can be conferred with titles as there is evidence for the effort put. But there is no guarantee that the person will alone bring us new knowledge. A seeker of Truth/Knowledge can certainly bring us the new things that she encounters on her path to seeking. And she gets recognized when she finds the Truth. But there is no guarantee that the person alone will find the Truth & gets recognized. Information & Skill are useful in handling the Known. Seeking is useful in finding the unknown. The aim of the person with Information & Skill is Service. The aim of the Seeker is Truth/Knowledge. The Seeker looks towards the informed & the skilled for information & conducting, while seeking. Together they guide each other, work hand in hand and this is how I feel Science developed. Getting one-self perfectly informed and skilled in prevailing matters is one thing. Being inquisitive, seeking to know the unknown, endeavoring to solve prevailing difficulties or glitches is another thing. Information & Skill are imparted by committed institutions. An Expert gets certified by those institutions. Inquisitiveness is an inherent character. There are no certificates for Inquisitiveness. An inquisitive farmer [a layman] who makes alterations, with the help of well informed & the skilled persons, to resolve glitches or to suit the local needs, in a globally manufactured agricultural equipment designed by Scientists, is also a Scientist. An inquisitive street mechanic who makes alterations in a carburetor to suit new necessities is also a Scientist. Expertise alone cannot bring development into Science. And similarly it becomes difficult for Inquisitiveness alone to bring knowledge on its own. Expertise and Inquisitiveness should join if knowledge is to be taken forward. Information & Skill are commodities that can be shared, and should be shared for betterment of life. Inquisitiveness when coupled with Skill can work for betterment of life. Without Inquisitiveness, Information would remain stagnant. Inquisitiveness brings new information. That new Information is tested with prevailing Information by the Expert. And if it leads to improvement, it is accepted. Or else it is discarded. [And sometimes ridiculed; the irony is, the Expert gives reasons and discards, while the non-Expert ridicules, but doesn't know the reasons.] Inquisitiveness & Expertise are the two engines that are driving the field of Science. Expertise demands toil. Inquisitiveness demands appetite for risk [because it could be a fruitless search in the dark]. Expertise helps the Expert to make a living. The inquisitive, by searching in the dark stake their life. Expertise is always fruitful in at least making a living. Inquisitiveness is occasionally fruitful. An expert is a Scientist. An inquisitive layman or a child is a Scientist as well. [i am not saying a child would contribute to science, but Inquisitiveness can do in the long run]. An Expert aims at gaining expertise. An inquisitive person yearns to know things, which can further lead to new Information. And there are the occasionally gifted, who are both inquisitive & expert at the same time.

I seek Truth. I have no fondness for acquiring skills. I just want to know the Truth. And that is the reason why I don't have titles.

The aim of my life is to know life, before death comes. I don't know whether I will know it or not. But I shall keep seeking.

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

The many contradictions in your statments tells that you want to blieve what you believe regardless.

First , you ask for an answer, yet you confess you don't want to rely on "expertise". So you want just words that make "sense" without any mathematical proofs, sorry no such thing in science. Lets say somebody comes up with the correct theory, he states it and stops. NOBODY will take his words no matter how correct in reality, he must show the work. So you must accept the scientific methods first which you seem to have a big problem with. NO other talk will help. But if you do understand how and why scientific methods are used then the problem automatically disappears for you.

Second, you accept SR that says space and time strech and contract yet you do not accept GR!! and you say it is evident against all other people like you yourself showed from wiki. Since nobody expected that ,and it just became clear when very high speed are taken into account which we normaly do not experience. BTW, there are techniques to derive GR from SR(in a heuristic way).

Third, you by passed my arquement about matter being treated as "points" in both classical and quantum which is NOT an "evident" thing. BTW, do you accept QM.

But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.

I do not care if you have the specific titles or not, but you must have studied the subject as if you would have been trying to get the title. There are many people whom physics is not their main subject, yet I know many that know the subject even more than typical physicist. You can guess why ,right!

Edited April 14, 2012 by qsa

immortal · April 14, 2012

But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.

I agree that the education system which is to blamed here, coming from the same state as Anil, I don't think even if he would have finished college it would have been easy for him to understand how science works without showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

In fact the teachers here are still teaching the Lamarckian view of evolution and not much knowledge is given about the scientific method and the way it works.

Anilkumar · April 21, 2012

Earth dragging space-time as it rotates.

In that paper one can see how earth(matter) curves space-time and how that curvature of space-time tells the satellites to move and change their plane of orbit in the direction of earth rotation.

The frame-dragging effect was predicted by general relativity and the observations test those predictions to an amazing degree of accuracy. This is how science works.

You are of the opinion that science is wrong and your logical reasoning about space is right, that's not how it works, nature says your logical reasoning is wrong.

There is no denying the fact that there are shifts in the orbits of the two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites in the 1997 experiment and then later, drifts in the four Gyroscopes of the Gravity Probe B experiment of 2004/5.

It would be fine if your honored education would give you the ability to make clear as to;

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are due to distortion of the spacetime by the Earth?

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are not due to the effect of the presence of Gravitational field around the Earth like the presence of electric & magnetic fields around an electric charge & a magnet respectively?

The spacetime curvature and the Gravitational field theory are two models which try to explain those shifts/drifts.

I am not asserting that the Gravitational field theory is absolutely the right model, it may need some corrections. But I am of the opinion that the spacetime distortion model is totally a wrong model, because Space can not be distorted.

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

Second, you accept SR that says space and time strech and contract yet you do not accept GR!! and you say it is evident against all other people like you yourself showed from wiki. Since nobody expected that ,and it just became clear when very high speed are taken into account which we normaly do not experience. BTW, there are techniques to derive GR from SR(in a heuristic way).

Space does not stretch. The observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the conditions of observers create the illusion that the Space distorts. The length contraction is an observational discrepancy not a physical change. And GR/Mathematics can precisely give an estimation of these discrepancies.

Third, you by passed my arquement about matter being treated as "points" in both classical and quantum which is NOT an "evident" thing. BTW, do you accept QM.

Does QM prove that spacetime is the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR.

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

I do not wish to carry forward any discussions such as below and those other than the spacetime curvature hypothesis. Since the issues have been raised, I am responding this one time and would not be responding in future, and would appreciate if such discussions are not put forward, because these will lead us no where near understanding spacetime curvature.

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

The many contradictions in your statments tells that you want to blieve what you believe regardless.

First , you ask for an answer, yet you confess you don't want to rely on "expertise". So you want just words that make "sense" without any mathematical proofs, sorry no such thing in science. Lets say somebody comes up with the correct theory, he states it and stops. NOBODY will take his words no matter how correct in reality, he must show the work. So you must accept the scientific methods first which you seem to have a big problem with. NO other talk will help. But if you do understand how and why scientific methods are used then the problem automatically disappears for you.

It is a pity that such thinking exists in Science fraternity.

Qsa, the scientific method that you are exclusively mentioning in all your posts, is a hoax/trick to prevent critical scientific thinking, from questioning established scientific beliefs.

It is a pity that the Science fraternity does such tricks to prevent critical scientific thinking, from questioning established scientific beliefs.

The question of Scientific method, Mathematical proof, Prediction does not arise in the issue I have raised. The issue here is a "terribly wrong assumption", "the assumption that the curvature that the mathematics of GR indicates, comes from the spacetime", OR the assumption that the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR, is the spacetime. It has been assumed that the spacetime brings the curvature, without the base of any scientific method or mathematical proof or empirical evidence. "spacetime curvature" is a baseless, meaningless, illogical assumption.

It is a pity that the scientific fraternity fails to recognize that it is "an assumption" which does not have any base.

The assumption that the curvature comes from Space is wrong because, there is stringent evidence that the Space exists, and has such properties that are in clear conflict with the hypothesis of curvature.

. . . what we do in physics . . .

Bolded; by me.

Physics or Science for that matter is not the sole estate of anybody. It is an open project of those who love to think, and surely & certainly not the sole estate of those who want to earn OR extract a living from it.

But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.

This reminds me of a lecturer in my college days. He was a gold medalist. But his ability to give Lectures was very inferior. [Taking a Gold medal is different thing and giving a convincing lecture is a different thing. A gold medal can be had by reproducing answers to questions in precise textual words & other stuff. But to give a convincing lecture, one needs thorough knowledge regarding the subject.] In addition his English too was extremely poor. [in India English is the language for most college level technical studies.] There were two Classes, Class-A & Class-B. I was in Class B. He used to teach us on the subject 'Electrical Machines'. His lectures were a waste of time. What he used to do was just read from a text book of a good Author, reproduce some diagrams, write some headings and highlights from the text book on the board, kill the time & bolster his job. He had struggled for the medal in order to get a decent job & he had achieved it, and now somehow he struggled to fit into the shoes of the job by hook or crook. He did not exhibit his performance by imparting knowledge to his pupils, instead he exhibited that he was doing his job by concerning himself with other less important things, but things, that would reinforce his power over his pupils, i.e. things like students coming to the class on time, finishing the assignments on time, neatness of the assignments, and even the sitting posture of the students in the class. If some student presented him with any doubt, his favorite answer was 'I can tell you everything regarding that matter but your unripe brains do not have the ability to grasp all that. So what you do is, just go through the text and learn it by heart'.

Class-A had a different lecturer for the same subject. It was Professor. F A Naik. Even today, after twenty five years, Honey trickles in my heart when I utter his name. He was not a gold medalist. But he had such tremendous knowledge and skill to convince, that he would convert even the toughest problem into a sweet toffee. And above all he was a great human being. He had so much of affection towards his pupils that each and every student respected him as a father figure. If there was any strife between the students and the management & there was an impasse, the management would run to him and his word would calm the students. Such was the loving bond between him & the students. He throbbed to solve every problem of each and every student of the college, including their health, financial, and even psychological depressions. The students had nick-named him affectionately as "Bangarada Manushya" [meaning – Man of golden heart. And our Medalist was nick-named as "Rolled gold"].

It so did happen that, on every Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday, the 'Electrical machines' Period coincided for both Classes A & B, i.e. Prof. Naik, would be teaching the same subject for Class A that Mr. Medalist would be teaching to Class B at the same time on those days. And one fine day I had an idea and I skipped Mr. Medalist's class and went and took the permission of Prof. Naik saying that I wanted to sit in his class, to which he readily agreed and that's it, I started sitting in Class A for his lectures. After a few days some of my friends followed suit. We used to share benches with our friends of Class A. And later after a few weeks, almost the whole of the students of Class B started gathering in Class A for the period. There weren't enough benches. Students used to sit on the floor. And some even used to stand at the back of the class room throughout the period. It felt like Heaven. It used to feel like some guide has taken us on a ride to show the beautiful things of the world. Prof. Naik knew how to deal with unripe brains. It is a different story that Mr. Medalist complained. But the number of students that got through the examination in that subject was cent percent.

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

I agree that the education system which is to blamed here, coming from the same state as Anil, I don't think even if he would have finished college it would have been easy for him to understand how science works without showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

In fact the teachers here are still teaching the Lamarckian view of evolution and not much knowledge is given about the scientific method and the way it works.

Your education has become a prejudice to you, I suppose.

I respect Colleges, Universities, Teachers, Experts, the Skilled & the Scientists more than anything else in this Universe. Because they impart knowledge. And knowledge is the most precious thing, more than all the riches of the Universe put together. I dropped out of college because I did not want to become an Expert in any faculty, and did not wish to make a living out of that expertise. I had enough basic knowledge I needed and I wanted to free myself from the demands of gaining Expertise and wished to pursue only those studies which would interest/lead me to gain an understanding of Life & Universe. I have no regrets and I am pleased & fulfilled about my decision.

I have the least respect for the way of thinking that everything that is written in the books, professed in the Universities and that is widely accepted is in itself the absolute truth.

And it is wrong to consider that others do not show extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

India is the second nation from top, whose students get eligibility/admission to study in US & UK Universities among the foreign students aspiring to study in those countries. I don't think they become eligible due to their Lamarckian view of evolution or less knowledge about the Scientific method. The annual survey by the US' International Institute of Education (IIE), has quoted that India as a destination for US students to study abroad has increased by 44.4%. And according to an Indian Govt. survey as many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians. 34% employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM, 17% at Intel and 13% at Xerox are Indians. Also India is the premier destination in the world for business outsourcing. I don't think people with Lamarckian view of evolution & less knowledge about the Scientific method can handle that. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and Global Services Location Index 2009 have confirmed India's superiority in the outsourcing sector. China struggling to catch up is far behind. Leading Hong Kong HSBC economist Sherman Chan has stated that India will remain the top outsourcing destination because of its tech savvy and English proficient workforce no less efficient than their western counterparts but with low wages.

Or is the Lamarckian view of evolution becoming popular, of late? In that case, you will have to study in India to get that view.

And also an advocate of 'showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field' and also a critic of Lamarckian Evolution shouldn't have missed this MIT publication - "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?" ;

Quote

Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009,

"The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."

Unquote

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

I think such discussions won't give any credibility to the spacetime curvature hypothesis.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · April 21, 2012

There is no denying the fact that there are shifts in the orbits of the two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites in the 1997 experiment and then later, drifts in the four Gyroscopes of the Gravity Probe B experiment of 2004/5.

It would be fine if your honored education would give you the ability to make clear as to;

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are due to distortion of the spacetime by the Earth?

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are not due to the effect of the presence of Gravitational field around the Earth like the presence of electric & magnetic fields around an electric charge & a magnet respectively?

The spacetime curvature and the Gravitational field theory are two models which try to explain those shifts/drifts.

I am not asserting that the Gravitational field theory is absolutely the right model, it may need some corrections. But I am of the opinion that the spacetime distortion model is totally a wrong model, because Space can not be distorted.

For Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, he equated the effects of gravitation to an accelerated frame of reference Gravity and Acceleration and acceleration was a consequence of geometry or the curved surface of space-time From acceleration to geometry, his equations shows us how the curvature of space tells matter to move. Matter is not directly influencing the motion of other matter with a gravitational force or a field.

Gravitational field theory is derived from the same Einstein's equations, so you want to accept only part of the solutions from those equations and dismiss those solutions which says how much space-time has curved just because it contradicts your pre-concieved metaphysical notions of space-time?

I have the least respect for the way of thinking that everything that is written in the books, professed in the Universities and that is widely accepted is in itself the absolute truth.

In the absence of a better model to model reality the accepted consensus is what we know about nature of now, new models are accepted by testing those models and not solely based on logical reasons.

And it is wrong to consider that others do not show extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

That's not what I said. Read my post again.

India is the second nation from top, whose students get eligibility/admission to study in US & UK Universities among the foreign students aspiring to study in those countries. I don't think they become eligible due to their Lamarckian view of evolution or less knowledge about the Scientific method. The annual survey by the US' International Institute of Education (IIE), has quoted that India as a destination for US students to study abroad has increased by 44.4%. And according to an Indian Govt. survey as many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians. 34% employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM, 17% at Intel and 13% at Xerox are Indians. Also India is the premier destination in the world for business outsourcing. I don't think people with Lamarckian view of evolution & less knowledge about the Scientific method can handle that. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and Global Services Location Index 2009 have confirmed India's superiority in the outsourcing sector. China struggling to catch up is far behind. Leading Hong Kong HSBC economist Sherman Chan has stated that India will remain the top outsourcing destination because of its tech savvy and English proficient workforce no less efficient than their western counterparts but with low wages.

Its quite clear from this thread that irrespective of what your expertise is you need to know the Math in order to completely understand scientific concepts and to do some real science, sciences needs predictions to falsify certain claims and math provides it by quantifying it.

Or is the Lamarckian view of evolution becoming popular, of late? In that case, you will have to study in India to get that view.

And also an advocate of 'showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field' and also a critic of Lamarckian Evolution shouldn't have missed this MIT publication - "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?" ;

Quote

Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009,

"The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."

Unquote

Evolution by Natural Selection is blind, it has no purpose, the Lamarckian view that the conscious efforts of the organism is responsible for the novel changes in the body is wrong, there are prions, proteins which pass on certain traits for a short period of time when the environment changes and the same is for DNA methylation which go by non-Mendelian inheritance, these are all simply variations, natural selection is blind in deciding which traits will be passed on and which traits lead to an evolutionary dead end.

I think such discussions won't give any credibility to the spacetime curvature hypothesis.

It doesn't, but such discussions are important to understand how science works.

qsa · April 22, 2012

Space does not stretch. The observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the conditions of observers create the illusion that the Space distorts. The length contraction is an observational discrepancy not a physical change. And GR/Mathematics can precisely give an estimation of these discrepancies.

Does QM prove that spacetime is the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR.

In SR the observers measurement depends on his relative velocity and it is considered REAL and not an illution. That is your take which really shows what kind of a problem you are having.

The business of modeling physics have been going on for hunderds of years, and accepted by ALL humans. They accepted it because of the benefits. You must of heard, Knowledge is power, and that is attained by standard scientific methods. Hence, your assertion that such methods keep us in the dark is utterly incorrect, to put it mildly.

You have bypassed my arquement that in all areas of physics from hundred of years all we do is model. We use wavefunction in QM , and we don't even know if it is real or not, yet it works remarkably. Address this issue, do not run away from it. BTW, this is how science works. We make REASONABLE assumptions and if that leads to a theory that predicts something that we can measure in lab, then we say the assumptions are TRUE no doubt, unless a new knowledge comes to light.

Edited April 22, 2012 by qsa

Anilkumar · May 15, 2012

For Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, he equated the effects of gravitation to an accelerated frame of reference Gravity and Acceleration and acceleration was a consequence of geometry or the curved surface of space-time From acceleration to geometry, his equations shows us how the curvature of space tells matter to move. Matter is not directly influencing the motion of other matter with a gravitational force or a field.

Gravitational field theory is derived from the same Einstein's equations, so you want to accept only part of the solutions from those equations and dismiss those solutions which says how much space-time has curved just because it contradicts your pre-concieved metaphysical notions of space-time?

Hello everybody, hello Immortal.

The cause of the birth of the illogical "spacetime curvature" hypothesis

To say it in one simple sentence, the root cause of the birth of the illogical "spacetime" curvature hypothesis is;

"The attempt to explain Gravity, geometrically with the help of Riemannian geometry". I am not saying it is wrong to attempt to explain Gravity, geometrically with the help of Riemannian geometry, but instead I am saying it has lead to the wrong conclusion that Space gets curved.

Because;

When "Riemannian geometry" is employed to enumerate something, the results, after processing which, the Riemannian geometry presents to us is; in terms of "how much something is curved" or "how much some thing is not curved". But, as I also said earlier in the thread, it does not take into consideration whether, the entity that it is attributing the curvature to, is capable of getting curved or not.

But why was Riemannian geometry employed?

Because of the analogy & convenience,

All events occur in 4 spatiotemporal dimensions. And the description of the generalization from the geometry of a plane to that of a general curved surface could be generalized to higher dimensions with Riemannian geometry.
The transition from an inertial reference frame to a rotating reference frame is analogous to the transition from a Cartesian coordinate system to a Curved coordinate system.
To equate Gravitational field with a freely falling reference frame, the tidal forces must be eliminated; similarly to equate a Curved surface to a plane surface the Curvature must be eliminated.

So that's it.

---------------------Gravity = Curvature

But can Space get curved?

Can we prove that Space can get curved?

How would we explain the curvature of vacuous-ness of the Space?

How would we explain 'matter does not encounter any resistance while moving in free space'?

Isn't curvature an attribute of the physical bodies which have a structure, and internal forces of their own which keep them in that structure?

Or should we conveniently deny the existence of Space?

Or should we conveniently say that we don't know the nature of Space?

Or should we conveniently say that nature of something is not the subject of Science?

Can we attribute such properties to entities which contradict their nature?

No that would be too luxurious.

The spacetime curvature hypothesis is contradictory to the evident practical behavior of Space.

The basis for the hypothesis that Space gets curved is just an Analogy.

We need to change our interpretation.

The Curvature that the Riemannian geometry points to is the curvature in the paths of motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter.

Its quite clear from this thread that irrespective of what your expertise is you need to know the Math in order to completely understand scientific concepts and to do some real science, sciences needs predictions to falsify certain claims and math provides it by quantifying it.

The issue here is not Mathematics. The issue is whether Space has the ability to get curved or not.

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

In SR the observers measurement depends on his relative velocity and it is considered REAL and not an illution. That is your take which really shows what kind of a problem you are having.

In fact you should be saying this to yourself, because;

I did not say the "observer's measurement" is an illusion. I said the observational discrepancy i.e. the Length contraction or the distortion of Space is an illusion.

The business of modeling physics have been going on for hunderds of years, and accepted by ALL humans. They accepted it because of the benefits. You must of heard, Knowledge is power, and that is attained by standard scientific methods. Hence, your assertion that such methods keep us in the dark is utterly incorrect, to put it mildly.

I never said such methods keep us in the dark.

You have bypassed my arquement that in all areas of physics from hundred of years all we do is model. We use wavefunction in QM , and we don't even know if it is real or not, yet it works remarkably. Address this issue, do not run away from it. BTW, this is how science works. We make REASONABLE assumptions and if that leads to a theory that predicts something that we can measure in lab, then we say the assumptions are TRUE no doubt, unless a new knowledge comes to light.

We know that Space is real. We know its behavior. And we are conveniently running away from Space and its behavior, to accommodate an illogical assumption.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · May 25, 2012

Hello everybody, hello Immortal.

Or should we conveniently say that we don't know the nature of Space?

Or should we conveniently say that nature of something is not the subject of Science?

Let's stick with the above conclusions.

Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism, at least in the physical sciences. In The Universe in a Nutshell (p. 31) he writes:

Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by

Karl Popper

and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.

Sign In

Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DrRocket

imatfaal

swansont

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information