Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR

**swansont** · May 25, 2012

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

If you do not know that nature of Space, how can you decree that it cannot have some attribute?

owl · May 30, 2012

Anilkumar,

I finally got around to reading this entire thread (in two installments over two sessions.) I hope you are not discouraged by the mainstream establishment here.

I agree with you. My threads will verify that. I had one specifically on the scholarly debate on the nature of spacetime and the "'what curves" ontological question. It is in the philosophy section, I think, but like most of my threads, it was shut down.

I leave it to you to understand why.

No "hijack" here, just some late support, having just finished the thread.

How can empty space or 'spacetime' (but for forces and material content) be "curved by matter?" Sorry, not a question for science... just mere ontology... and philosophy of science is not welcome here.

I agree that space is the emptiness in which all things and forces exist (not, of course, "empty" where occupied), and that space as the absence of things, the void between and within "things' can not be acted upon and made to curve.

I hope you don't give up. I'm not allowed to speak about "spacetime" here anymore, so hope you carry on until you are censored.

Edit; here is a link to my attempt at a "scholarly" thread on scientific debate about "spacetime":

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56135-spacetime-ontology-the-scholarly-debate/

It is found on pg 4 of the archives in the philosophy section... deleted from "owls content" to which you were referred early in the thread.

Edited May 30, 2012 by owl

Anilkumar · June 23, 2012

Immortal, Swansont & Owl;

Sorry for the delay in replying. I got stuck into something else.

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

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.

Immortal

You have mistaken. You have derived a superfluous meaning, a meaning that you would love to derive. It shows you love to be lead by popularity & not critical thinking. You staunchly wish to stick to & defend popular thoughts/beliefs by all means. That is the reason you developed a superfluous meaning.

When I said these words

"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 two questions [bolded now] must be read in the context of the questions before & after them. What I was saying was, that even though we know that Space exists and we also know its nature, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying the existence of Space, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying that we know the nature of Space. The convenience adopted by us or to be precise the prevailing thought, that Space gets curved is that, it wants to hold on to its illogical Hypothesis and at the same time is incapable of holding on to the observable behavior of Space, so it has conveniently washed off its hands by denying the existence of Space itself. And so I asked "should we be doing this, for convenience's sake? I.e. denying and dropping or washing our hands off with well known facts to accommodate for an illogically assumed hypothesis"

The two things can not co-exist i.e. the illogical hypothesis that the Space gets curved and the fact that the Space is vacuous. Riemann geometry says Space is curved, because it is not capable of saying it in terms of anything else. So that does not mean that something has to be curved. Something is curved only if it is in its nature to be curved. So we [i.e. those of us who believe in the popular thought that Space gets curved] have conveniently dropped the facts and chosen to stick to our prevailing thought, the illogical hypothesis that Space is curved. And at the same time dropped "critical thinking" too and stuck to 'following of popular beliefs'.

I suggest rereading of the post with this intended meaning, and not to squeeze out any superfluous meaning which you feel pleasant.

I did not present those questions as possible conclusions. Instead I said it is too luxurious to come to those conclusions.

Adopting the tactics of convenience is Unscientific. As is; staunch defending of illogical popular beliefs by deriving superfluous meanings of posts is. These are the dirty tactics of those Attorneys who are trying to defend a crooked client and not the methods of scientific thinkers. It is disingenuousness.

I feel; dropping critical-thinking & choosing popular-following can be catastrophically fatal like the Attorney's saving of a crook can be to her and to the society as a whole.

For a scientific thinker; Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning [as opposed to Coercion] are 'the God', I suppose. They [Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning] can surely and certainly lead us to enlightenment, like God would, if he existed.

Note: The repeated words in bracket, and under-linings were deemed necessary to prevent superfluous meanings being derived and later unnecessary long curative discourses from my side, like the one above.

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

If you do not know that nature of Space, how can you decree that it cannot have some attribute?

Why Swansont? We know the existence of Space and its behavior/nature.

Structure is a Physical attribute. Since we know from our observations that Space is Vacuous-ness, it can not have a structure i.e. curvature. Only Physical bodies can have Physical attributes.

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

Anilkumar,

. . . I agree with you. . .

. . . No "hijack" here, just some late support, having just finished the thread. . .

Thanks.

. . . How can empty space or 'spacetime' (but for forces and material content) be "curved by matter?". . .

. . . I agree that space is the emptiness in which all things and forces exist . . . and that space as the absence of things, the void between and within "things' can not be acted upon and made to curve. . .

Nicely put.

. . . Edit; here is a link to my attempt at a "scholarly" thread on scientific debate about "spacetime":

http://www.sciencefo...holarly-debate/

It is found on pg 4 of the archives in the philosophy section... deleted from "owls content" to which you were referred early in the thread.

I read it now, but I have to re-read to understand it.

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

I don't want to discuss the things discussed below here on this thread. But since the issues have been mentioned here, I feel it is my responsibility to give my opinion this one time. Further discussion, if any on this, can be taken up on another new thread as it is not the subject of this thread.

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

. . . but like most of my threads, it was shut down. I leave it to you to understand why. . .

The role of the Speculation section, I suppose, is to discuss separately those thoughts and opinions which are critical of the established concepts and those which are fresh. But I believe Criticism can also arise from our own Ignorance as much as it arises from Inquisitiveness, Innovativeness, Enthusiasm, even Ostentatious-ness and Brashness etc.

Though the business of handling criticism is nerve wrecking sometimes, but I feel, any person, forum or entity would be doing justice to its own purpose only when he/she/it/they adopt the method of reasoning patiently and logically, taking all the criticism calmly and not adopting any iniquitous tactics like labeling all criticism as Crack-pottery, deriving superfluous meanings from posts and also when one gets exhausted with better ideas to convince, then tell the other person, whom you are trying to convince, that "you are too naive' or say 'you are a dead horse, no amount of flogging will help you'.

Crack-pottery can not be stopped by calling a person a 'Crackpot'. Only reasoning can stop him.

. . . I hope you don't give up. . .

The question of my giving up doesn't arise. I firmly believe Truth can not be destroyed by any means. It shall prevail no matter what. It can not be destroyed by tactics. It does not need the backing of endorsements. Truth does not gain anything from the endorsee but instead the endorsee stands to gain from the Truth by endorsing it. Truth is self evident. Once it is bared, no thing in this Universe has the power to conceal it again. No amount of evading, opposing or disharmony would be fruitful in destroying it.

. . . I hope you are not discouraged by the mainstream establishment here. . .

That which is Mainstream is not always the Truth.

I want to know the Truth. I have perceived something as True because it is based on logical reasoning, and there is evidence to support it, and I have presented it. A convincing counter argument has to be presented to prove that I am wrong.

I am not discouraged by anything here. In fact I love this Forum. I suggest the spirit of Sportiveness, Friendliness, Reasoning and Coolness will keep anybody's going smooth. In fact I have encouraged my son to become a member too, as I feel it is useful in learning and getting a better understanding of scientific concepts. And he has started making good use of it.

. . . hope you carry on until you are censored. . .

I have no clue as to why you were censored. But my views on Censorship are depicted in the following quotes;

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him. - John Morley

The sooner we all learn to disapprove than go for censorship; the better off society will be. Censorship cannot get at the real evil; it is an evil in itself. - Granville Hicks

To reject the word is to reject the human search. - Max Lerner

Censorship encourages people to believe nonsense. - John Christopher

He is always the severest censor of the others who has the least worth of his own. - Elias Lyman Maggon

The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas, not censorship. - Alfred Whitney Griswold

I feel Reasoning, not Censorship is the weapon of Science.

And but also:

it is evil & unjust on our part, to assume in advance, that I would be subjected to Censorship.

I joined this forum to get knowledge of and to clear my doubts on, scientific concepts and not to criticize scientific concepts. I got a better understanding of things like Free fall, Gravitational potential, EMF, Satellites in orbits etc thanks to affectionate interaction from the members & the people behind the forum. There is no denying that. But I could not digest the spacetime curvature hypothesis. So I have expressed my differences.

Those of us who are critiquing established concepts of Science on the Forum may be finding it difficult to introduce our thoughts, which is natural. But for those of us who are trying to comprehend the established concepts of Science, the Forum is of great help. And in both these cases the concepts of Science are being put to test i.e. by both the Students and Critiques of Science. Whatever the outcome, ultimately it is Science/Knowledge that wins and not Critiques & people. And in that way, I feel the Forum is doing a great service to Science & the people.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · June 23, 2012

Immortal

You have mistaken. You have derived a superfluous meaning, a meaning that you would love to derive. It shows you love to be lead by popularity & not critical thinking. You staunchly wish to stick to & defend popular thoughts/beliefs by all means. That is the reason you developed a superfluous meaning.

Positivism of Science is the accepted consensus adopted by practicing physicists, its not a popular belief, they have simply accepted that they don't know, you are the one who is claiming something new and the onus is on you to show that we can know the 'nature' of space-time and the kind of experiments to know the attributes of space-time. I am welcoming your ideas but what you're not understanding is that Science doesn't work by Logical Positivism, Science goes by observations and only the observations are treated as real. What I'm criticizing is your way of doing science, you need to make predictions and come up with experiments to show that space-time indeed has certain attributes. You're not doing this but instead you're restating the same thing again and again which is very annoying. You need to come up with experiments if you want the mainstream scientists to take your ideas seriously.

Don't make such conclusions about me, you don't know that I have argued against the Positivism of Science else where in this forum, your assumptions about me is plainly wrong.

When I said these words

"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 two questions [bolded now] must be read in the context of the questions before & after them. What I was saying was, that even though we know that Space exists and we also know its nature, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying the existence of Space, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying that we know the nature of Space. The convenience adopted by us or to be precise the prevailing thought, that Space gets curved is that, it wants to hold on to its illogical Hypothesis and at the same time is incapable of holding on to the observable behavior of Space, so it has conveniently washed off its hands by denying the existence of Space itself. And so I asked "should we be doing this, for convenience's sake? I.e. denying and dropping or washing our hands off with well known facts to accommodate for an illogically assumed hypothesis"

The two things can not co-exist i.e. the illogical hypothesis that the Space gets curved and the fact that the Space is vacuous. Riemann geometry says Space is curved, because it is not capable of saying it in terms of anything else. So that does not mean that something has to be curved. Something is curved only if it is in its nature to be curved. So we [i.e. those of us who believe in the popular thought that Space gets curved] have conveniently dropped the facts and chosen to stick to our prevailing thought, the illogical hypothesis that Space is curved. And at the same time dropped "critical thinking" too and stuck to 'following of popular beliefs'.

I suggest rereading of the post with this intended meaning, and not to squeeze out any superfluous meaning which you feel pleasant.

In Science we make models, they are mere representations of external reality, it should not be assumed that things will be exactly in the way out there as it is decribed in the models, asking can space be really curved is same as asking like do photons really have the attribute of polarisation or are they just mere concepts extrapolated from our model? We don't know what space-time actually is and hence we actually don't know what it is that really gets curved.

I did not present those questions as possible conclusions. Instead I said it is too luxurious to come to those conclusions.

You're making a strawman argument, the scientific consensus is that we don't know the nature of space-time, they have not concluded that space really gets curved. If this is your stand then I don't see what your criticisms are, you've misunderstood the accepted consensus. They are not living in a luxury.

For a scientific thinker; Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning [as opposed to Coercion] are 'the God', I suppose. They [Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning] can surely and certainly lead us to enlightenment, like God would, if he existed.

I agree.

Anilkumar · June 29, 2012

. . . What I'm criticizing is your way of doing science, you need to make predictions and come up with experiments to show that space-time indeed has certain attributes. You're not doing this but instead you're restating the same thing again and again which is very annoying. You need to come up with experiments if you want the mainstream scientists to take your ideas seriously.

I have done it & presented below. But I suppose there is no place for Annoyance in scientific discussions. I feel, Science is for gathering & imparting knowledge.

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

Respected ladies, Gentlemen & Immortal,

Following are the falsifiable Methods, by which, we can ascertain that Space exists and it cannot be curved; and consequently Time too.

Method 1:-

Let us consider two axioms first;

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

To prove or falsify this Axiom, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted. Now I suppose; I don't have to get into the nitty-gritty of saying "Take a lump of physical matter of volume x cubic centimeters and . . ."

2. All physical objects move freely in Space. [Newton's first law, can be taken as a reference. – "Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it."]

To prove or falsify this Axiom also, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted.

Axiom 1 implies that;

Space exists.

Axiom 2 implies that;

The Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance.

This again implies that,

Space must be devoid of any structure or forces.

This again implies that,

Space is formless & vacuous. [see also, Method-2]

By the implications of Axioms 1 & 2 we conclude that:-

Space is a structure-less, formless, vacuous; so it can not get curved.

Prediction:-

Every physical matter particle in this Universe can be moved or displaced to any part of the Universe by applying a force equal to counter the following factors;

The inertial mass of that object.
The Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces that are holding that particle in its current position/state.
Any other factor which is holding that particle in its current position/state or is hindering its displacement, the origin of which [or the cause of which] is physical Matter and nothing else.

No other factor, that does not originate from [or the cause of which is not] the Physical matter of this Universe, needs to be countered.

Because;

"The Space which is the fundamental entity responsible for the existence of this Universe, which gives space to all the physical Matter of this Universe, to remain stationary in one place or to move about freely, is nothing but an empty vacuous that does not have a structure, inertial mass or any other physical attribute, so doesn't exert any force on anything of this Universe."

Method 2:-

Let us consider the axiom;

The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter of the Universe is caused by the four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force.

OR

The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter is a consequence of their constituent four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force. I.E. these four fundamental forces give Physical structure to all the physical matter of the Universe.

This axiom implies that;

Any entity that possesses a physical structure emanates the four Fundamental forces.

Prediction:-

Wherever the four fundamental forces are detected, there will be detected, the presence of a 'Physical matter' from which they are being emanated. Empty Space does not emanate any fundamental forces.

Because;

"Space does not have a physical structure and it cannot emanate any fundamental forces. So Space cannot get curved. And the case of the Time is similar too."

Method 3:-

Let us consider the following axioms;

Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions.
Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of description of the extent of Curvature.

Axiom 5 implies that;

Riemann geometry studies the Curvature of the surfaces of bodies, but it cannot ascertain as to which the corpus is, that is responsible for that Curvature.

Prediction:-

With the help of Riemann geometry we can study the Curvature of surfaces/manifolds but we cannot determine or decide anything about the corpus that has caused that Curvature.

So;

"When Riemannian geometry attributes Curvature to things, on the basis of that, we cannot come to any conclusions regarding the corpus that underlies the curvature."

And finally;

If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] of the paths of motion of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies, then how would Riemann geometry be accurate in measuring an effect of Gravity, at all? OR

If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] why are the results of GR/Riemannian geometry concurrent with observed facts, while Riemann geometry has nothing to do with Gravity? OR

If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] why should the results of the Riemannian geometry, useful in studying the Curvature of manifolds, when applied to studying the effects of Gravity like GPRS, Light bending etc, be in match with the observed facts, while Riemann geometry has no relation to Gravity at all?

That takes us to method 4.

Method 4:-

Let us consider the following axioms;

Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions.
Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of Curvature.
All the events in the Universe occur in 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions.
Minkowski space is a 4-dimensional coordinate system; the coordinates of which are 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions.
Riemann geometry was employed to study the events in the universe because of the axioms I, III & IV.
The Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles or its manifestations, moving/passing through the Gravitational field of a body, is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Gravitational force of that body. [Like for example- The curvature of the path of light passing in the vicinity of Sun is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Sun's Gravity.]

These above axioms imply that;

Riemannian geometry studies the Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 1

Gravity leads to Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 2

From 1 & 2;

Riemannian geometry studies Gravity.

This is the Overlap/match/concurrence.

Prediction:-

When any Particles of matter which are in motion are passed in the area of influence of an applied Force [even artificial force acting at a distance works] their paths of motion are altered/curved and subsequently if the resultant curved path of the particles is studied with the help of Riemannian geometry, then the Riemannian geometry presents the magnitude and effects of the Force applied in terms of the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the paths of motion.

I.E. Riemannian geometry is incapable of measuring the magnitude of the Force applied, but instead it measures the effect of that force in terms of the curvature created by that applied Force; accurately.

But just because Riemannian geometry cannot determine what caused the curvature/alteration in the path, we cannot deny the existence of the Force applied and say that the spacetime coordinates of the path of motion are curved.

And so;

"The quantity of the Force applied is directly proportional to the quantity of the Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles passing through the area of influence of the Force applied."

I.E. Curvature is proportional to Force.

So when we get the measure of the Curvature correctly, we are in fact getting the measure of the effects of Gravity accurately. That is precisely the reason why GR/Riemann geometry works.

So here;

"The magnitude of the Gravitational force of a body is directly proportional to the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the path of the motion of matter & its manifestations passing through the Gravitational field of that body."

And;

This concurrence or the matching of the mathematical results of GR/Riemannian geometry & the observed facts, do not sanction us the authority to deny the existence of Gravitational force and substitute it with curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is just an interpretation of Gravitational force by Riemann geometry.

The concurrence occurs purely due to the proportionality.

The above implications can be restated as follows:-

Riemannian geometry measures the extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 1

Magnitude of Gravitational force is proportional to extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 2

From 1 & 2;

"Riemannian geometry measures the effect & magnitude of the Gravitational force in terms of quantity of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion."

"I.E. Riemannian geometry interprets the effects of Gravity in terms of extent of Curvature."

And this is the reason why, we are able to measure/predict accurately the Curvature of the paths of motion of matter in the Gravitational field of macro bodies with the help of GR/Riemannian geometry. GR is nothing but Riemannian geometry as applied to the events occurring in the 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system.

So from all the above methods we can deduce that "Space cannot get curved" and consequently Time too should not warp.

Thanks & Regards.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Anilkumar

HenryB · June 29, 2012

If everything in the universe is destined to return to its starting point and become motionless what’s the point?

immortal · June 29, 2012

Prediction:-

When any Particles of matter which are in motion are passed in the area of influence of an applied Force [even artificial force acting at a distance works] their paths of motion are altered/curved and subsequently if the resultant curved path of the particles is studied with the help of Riemannian geometry, then the Riemannian geometry presents the magnitude and effects of the Force applied in terms of the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the paths of motion.

I.E. Riemannian geometry is incapable of measuring the magnitude of the Force applied, but instead it measures the effect of that force in terms of the curvature created by that applied Force; accurately.

But just because Riemannian geometry cannot determine what caused the curvature/alteration in the path, we cannot deny the existence of the Force applied and say that the spacetime coordinates of the path of motion are curved.

And so;

"The quantity of the Force applied is directly proportional to the quantity of the Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles passing through the area of influence of the Force applied."

I.E. Curvature is proportional to Force.

So when we get the measure of the Curvature correctly, we are in fact getting the measure of the effects of Gravity accurately. That is precisely the reason why GR/Riemann geometry works.

So here;

"The magnitude of the Gravitational force of a body is directly proportional to the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the path of the motion of matter & its manifestations passing through the Gravitational field of that body."

And;

This concurrence or the matching of the mathematical results of GR/Riemannian geometry & the observed facts, do not sanction us the authority to deny the existence of Gravitational force and substitute it with curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is just an interpretation of Gravitational force by Riemann geometry.

The concurrence occurs purely due to the proportionality.

So from all the above methods we can deduce that "Space cannot get curved" and consequently Time too should not warp.

Thanks & Regards.

It seems you're problem is with the second postulate of General Relativity and you're directly contradicting what Einstein said.

Second postulate of GR states that -

"In the vicinity of any point, a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference in the absence of gravitional effects."

Let me ask you a simple question why does in a space ship or in a lift under acceleration a light beam from a torch appears to bend downward? There is no gravitional field anywhere near it, no gravitional force exists and yet the light bends downwards, why?

You are still sticking with the Newton's theory of Gravitational attraction and one of the advancements made by Einstein's theory of General Relativity is that there is no gravitional force of attraction.

Your conclusion is incorrect too based on the available experimental evidence and observations.

Can you try again?

Anilkumar · July 24, 2012

It seems you're problem is with the second postulate of General Relativity and you're directly contradicting what Einstein said.

Second postulate of GR states that -

"In the vicinity of any point, a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference in the absence of gravitional effects."

No Immortal,

I do not have any problems with anything.

But the space-time curvature hypothesis is the one that has problems with itself, and we are feeling it difficult to recognize it.

Let me ask you a simple question why does in a space ship or in a lift under acceleration a light beam from a torch appears to bend downward? There is no gravitional field anywhere near it, no gravitional force exists and yet the light bends downwards, why?

This is a good question. And the answer to this question is in two parts. The first part deals with – As to why Light bends in the Lift? And the second part deals with - Whether Light really bends inside the Lift? Though the two questions seem contradictory with each other, but you will recognize that they are not, as you go through.

As to why Light bends in the Lift

The case of the lift is a case of imitation, of the conditions, in a reference frame; of the conditions similar to those in the reference frame that exists inside a Field of Gravitation. When conditions in two frames are similar, the perception and behavior of things inside those reference frames also tend to be similar. Acceleration is one of the characteristics of Gravitational field. When a reference frame is subjected to a condition of being in acceleration, light and other things inside it, behave [or are perceived to behave] as they, behave [or are perceived] inside a field of Gravity.

I.E. the lift is a simulation, of the reference frame which exists inside a Gravitational field. The case of the Lift was considered to understand and reveal the characteristics of Gravity. But that Lift, or a frame in acceleration, cannot become a substitute to Gravitation. Gravitation is a natural property of Matter, it's not space-time curvature. Besides Acceleration it has other characteristics like, Affinity towards other Matter.

Freefall is the thought experiment that led us to GR. But Freefall also lead us to the mistake of discarding Space & Time as mere measurements of the Foot-ruler & the Clock. Freefall showed us that the characteristic of Gravity is similar to a frame in acceleration. We rushed to substitute Gravity with Acceleration. But there was an oversight. Gravity has a cause, a natural cause. It comes from something. And we had to name that something, we had to assign it to something. Now since we had ruled out Gravity, and but we had to give a reason for the fall of the objects, the orbits of the planets etc or as a whole for all the effects of Gravity, we looked at other possibilities. The Riemann geometry was pointing towards 'Curvature'. [The Riemann geometry can only point towards 'Curvature' but nothing else. Because it interprets everything in terms of how curved is something.] But curvature of what? There was nothing to assign that Curvature to. So the Curvature of the coordinate system, the space-time, itself was considered. But how could the ingredients of the space-time, the non-physical Space & Time, bend? We convinced ourselves that we don't know how they can bend and what they are. But now, we know from Methods 1 & 2 in the last post, that they cannot bend and what Space is.

Now I request you to try to answer these questions.

Why do Matter particles accelerate towards each other?

I.E in the case of the Lift you artificially/manually accelerate it by applying a force on it OR you take a frame that is already in a state of acceleration due to some unknown cause. But here, why would Matter particles accelerate towards each other? For what reason? Where does that force of attraction come from?

Or where would you bring the force with which you accelerate the lift, from?

Now don't say that space-time curvature does it. We know for sure that Space, Time and so space-time, do not possess the ability to get curved.

The space-time curvature hypothesis has done a lot of damage to our thinking process about Space & Time for a century and forced us to discard them as mere notions. A century of Human thought has been wrestled away.

The GR is basically a tool to measure the effects of the Gravity. Please do not come to any conclusions regarding Space & Time with the help of that tool. The tool does not say anything about the behavior of Space & Time. It does not say anything regarding Gravitational field, either.

. . . Your conclusion is incorrect too based on the available experimental evidence and observations.

I have discussed regarding where the strength of the accuracy of the available experimental evidence and observations that you point to, come from; under the sub-heading 'Method-4', in the last post.

. . . You are still sticking with the Newton's theory of Gravitational attraction . . .

No, I stick with Logic & Reasoning.

You seem to prefer the illogical & impractical space-time curvature hypothesis, I don't understand why.

. . . Can you try again?

Immortal, I am trying, nonstop, since twenty years. This is all part of that 'Trying'. These are the matters that are obstructing me from comprehending the space-time curvature hypothesis.

. . . and one of the advancements made by Einstein's theory of General Relativity is that there is no gravitional force of attraction.

It is a pity we have considered it 'Advancement', for a century. It is in fact a Decline.

And I am sorry for myself and others, because now I know that all my [and the entire mankind's] efforts for twenty [hundred] years, put to understand an absurd nonsensical theory, are in vain.

It is a mystery, and History has revealed it many times that beliefs, even when truth is before hand, are hard to renounce.

Is Truth so distasteful?

Is Popularity so appealing, even to the extent of imbibing our ability to think? Even to the extent of making us suppress Truth?

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

This following material or the following content of this paper carries high value, because it will totally abolish a scientific concept about Gravitational field, which is prevailing for more than a century and was advocated by geniuses like Albert Einstein and others. I have not made this paper public anywhere in the world and not authorized anybody to make it public. It needs to be peer reviewed and then made public in a good mainstream scientific journal or published in the form of a book. Good mainstream scientific journals & book publishers are inclined to publish only unpublished articles. The Author of these ideas or the following material is hoping to publish it in a good mainstream scientific journal or publish it in the form of a book. And so he would like to protect his rights from being infringed. And consequently he has applied for copyright registration. Though the author declared these matters and discussed on the scienceforums.net, it does not amount to publishing in the form of an article in a mainstream scientific journal or in the book form.
The following matter/content or this attachment to the thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" is a scientific paper. It is an intellectual property. Its owner is the person with the, Member's Display Name -'Anilkumar', on the website scienceforums.net. It is the person who has started this thread-"Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" which is a split from the thread "Curved Space" which was also started by him. No person, institute or website is authorized to copy, duplicate, distribute or reproduce in any manner, in any language and in any kind of media. Violation of which will lead to legal action.
To scienceforums.net :- This following material or the following content of this paper, needs to be peer reviewed and then made public in a scientific journal, or in the form of a book. Good mainstream scientific journals & book publishers are inclined to publish only unpublished articles. I hereby request secienceforums.net to safeguard the copyright interests of the author taking into account the seriousness of the matter content of the paper. I have provided this material to scienceforums.net for discussions. And it can be used for, only discussions on this thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" till the time it is made public elsewhere by me, the author.

- Anilkumar.

Respected Ladies, Gentlemen & Immortal,

I think the lift experiment is probably the biggest intellectual blunder of mankind.

Does light really bend in the elevator?:-

Let us now see if its bends or not.

Like I had said earlier that the Length contraction and the Time dilation effects are illusions, now let us question if the bending of light inside an accelerating Lift is real?

No, absolutely not. Light does not bend here. It is an illusion, too. There is no real bend in the Light beam inside the Lift. This is a wrong concept.

Please click on the link below to open the attached file.

Post Attachment.pdf

Edited July 24, 2012 by Anilkumar

ACG52 · July 24, 2012

I didn't notice, is this in the nonsense thread... oh, wait, I see it is.

Carry on.

Anilkumar · July 25, 2012

Beloved Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is only through Figures [drawn in the attachment], can I prove that the bending of Light is an illusion. And unfortunately I don't know how to draw figures directly on the Forum page.

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

I didn't notice, is this in the nonsense thread... oh, wait, I see it is.

Carry on.

ACG52, I am not the person who writes nonsense deliberately. I have written this because I am convinced that I am right, and hoping to be corrected if I am wrong.

Otherwise why would I present it on a Forum; like this, where nonsense can't be written? I would have amused myself by . . . . I presented it here hoping to get the valuable opinion of the sensible people on the Forum, so that I can know whether I am right or wrong.

But I also know that it is part of life that there are people who say something is nonsense without even placing an argument, because they don't have one and at the same time don't want to give up their stand. What are Discussion Forums meant for? For arguing or, just for saying something is nonsense without arguing.

But at the same time I also know that God has created the sane people too, who are lovely enough to give a patient hearing even to the imprudent and give their kind advice.

Can't you show me where I am wrong?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Anilkumar

qsa · July 25, 2012

When you want to get good at something, how you spend your time practicing is far more important than the amount of time you spend.

- From Moonwalking with Einstein

Anilkumar · July 27, 2012

When you want to get good at something, how you spend your time practicing is far more important than the amount of time you spend.

- From Moonwalking with Einstein

Thank you, for keeping me posted with good standards.

But don't you think, it would have been more appropriate and genuinely helpful, to have identified the errors in the "Drawing, that I suppose, confirms the bending of Light as illusory", or to have indicated where you notice errors in my logic regarding "Why Ernst Mach's objections on Newton's Bucket experiment are improper", or to have specified why "my ideas on Motion" are wrong or regarding any other mistakes you found in any other things that you read in the attachment, than to have quoted from a best seller?

I suppose that would have been the, good standard.

Giving an elusive answer or opinion/Totally abstaining from giving an answer or opinion, by the question raiser [to an, answer, to the question raised]; is not one of the good forum standards, I suppose.

Talking of good standards, instead of placing supporting argument, also shows; the absence of supporting argument and not a good standard too.

Thank you

Edited July 27, 2012 by Anilkumar

qsa · July 27, 2012

I suppose that would have been the, good standard.

That is exactly my point. Use good standard to talk and do physics, these prose just don't cut it. You must have some formulas, simulations or some way to quantify, that IS standard physics.

I will elaborate. As a matter of fact, this problem is endemic in the world. People graduate from universities with very little good grasp of fundamentals (sometimes even PHDs). Compounding the problem is that the majority will work in something very different from their specialty, so when they go into the other areas to me they become super inefficient. you see a chemical engineer becomes a salesman, a stiff as a rock. or an architect who becomes a businessman who makes up the science of business as he fire fights. I am not against doing something else, but going into something without MASTERING its fundamentals is the craziest thing I have seen humans do. But I do understand that people have to take what comes their way and they have little time and stamina to start over. But that is NOT your case I gather.

A case in point, just an example among thousands I have seen. When I and my brothers graduated and joined our family business it was only one of my brothers had graduated from a good Swiss business school. Our small father's business started growing since we were educated and everybody pitched a bit of his knowledge,but we faced a major problem that got us on each other's nerves. We sold a lot but no cash in bank, only our stock was mushrooming, we knew that but we did not know how much stock was appropriate. after one year of infighting, finally I had to go to the library/bookstore and buy me whole lots of books on inventory and operation research books.

It turned out that all the knowledge needed for good inventory was part of the business school classes, but my brother did not really grasp it. So when I started explaining all the formulas involved(EOQ and so on) , now he remembers!! We got our stock and related issues under control by QUANTIFYING everything and applying the properSCIENTIFIC model to the problems. Also,I became a good businessman by approaching the business problems in a scientific way( although business is science and art) and mentored all my subordinates to do the same. Scientific methods is all about quantifying to get to the heart of the problem and its solution, no matter what the discipline is.

Sorry for the long post. I just thought it might be useful for all the young people out there.

So get your standard strait for any particular area you are going to be involved in.

Edited July 27, 2012 by qsa

immortal · July 27, 2012

We faced a major problem that got us on each other's nerves. We sold a lot but no cash in bank, only our stock was mushrooming, we knew that but we did not know how much stock was appropriate. after one year of infighting, finally I had to go to the library and buy me whole lots of books on inventory and operation research books.

Operations research is a must for any kind of organisation or enterprise to be successful optimizing the best solution given a set of constraints. I'm glad you realized that in the end.

qsa · July 27, 2012

Operations research is a must for any kind of organisation or enterprise to be successful optimizing the best solution given a set of constraints. I'm glad you realized that in the end.

Me too. Applying the simplest scientific methods allowed us to be the biggest in our area.

http://middleeastinteriors.com/section.asp?secid=725

immortal · July 27, 2012

Me too. Applying the simplest scientific methods allowed us to be the biggest in our area.

http://middleeastint...n.asp?secid=725

That Says it all.

Anilkumar · August 3, 2012

That is exactly my point. Use good standard to talk and do physics, these prose just don't cut it. You must have some formulas, simulations or some way to quantify, that IS standard physics.

I will elaborate. As a matter of fact, this problem is endemic in the world. People graduate from universities with very little good grasp of fundamentals (sometimes even PHDs). Compounding the problem is that the majority will work in something very different from their specialty, so when they go into the other areas to me they become super inefficient. you see a chemical engineer becomes a salesman, a stiff as a rock. or an architect who becomes a businessman who makes up the science of business as he fire fights. I am not against doing something else, but going into something without MASTERING its fundamentals is the craziest thing I have seen humans do. But I do understand that people have to take what comes their way and they have little time and stamina to start over. But that is NOT your case I gather.

A case in point, just an example among thousands I have seen. When I and my brothers graduated and joined our family business it was only one of my brothers had graduated from a good Swiss business school. Our small father's business started growing since we were educated and everybody pitched a bit of his knowledge,but we faced a major problem that got us on each other's nerves. We sold a lot but no cash in bank, only our stock was mushrooming, we knew that but we did not know how much stock was appropriate. after one year of infighting, finally I had to go to the library/bookstore and buy me whole lots of books on inventory and operation research books.

It turned out that all the knowledge needed for good inventory was part of the business school classes, but my brother did not really grasp it. So when I started explaining all the formulas involved(EOQ and so on) , now he remembers!! We got our stock and related issues under control by QUANTIFYING everything and applying the properSCIENTIFIC model to the problems. Also,I became a good businessman by approaching the business problems in a scientific way( although business is science and art) and mentored all my subordinates to do the same. Scientific methods is all about quantifying to get to the heart of the problem and its solution, no matter what the discipline is.

Sorry for the long post. I just thought it might be useful for all the young people out there.

So get your standard strait for any particular area you are going to be involved in.

So you want a formula now, to say that Space exists. What is the formula that says Space does not exist, it's a notion? What a pity, despite your experience you can't differentiate between prose & logic. Everything I have said is based on logic, and logic is scientific method. But you think logic is not a good standard in science? I have presented falsifiable Methods in post #155. I have established beyond the slightest doubt that the light bending in the Lift is an illusion. There is a simulation in Method 4. You could have brought out the errors in one of them. You could have brought out the irregularities in the steps taken by logic. You could have brought out the mistakes in the conclusions that have been derived logically. You don't discuss these things but keep bringing up a hoax created by your own self. These things have been discussed before. You disregard that. Such discussions or tactics can only be done to keep the mill running, helping none.

I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business. These are no reasons. It also shows there are no better reasons. And nothing can be derived by such discussions.

"A logical statement is wrong if it does not contain any formulas" – Kindly tell us the formula that gave you this outcome. This is another big joke.

And you claim to be part of the scientific world, with all your unconnected reasoning. God help Science & the scientific world and those who learn from you.

You need to expressly know that; [if you are so fanatic about Mathematics,]

"Mathematics is nothing but Logic in symbolic language" and, ---- I

"Formula is constructed using the symbols and rules of Logic". And, ---- II

"Whatever arguments I have given are absolutely logical" ---- III

From I, II and III, we can arrive to the conclusion that;

"Every argument I have presented is equivalent to and can be converted into Mathematical deduction".

When someone is placing logical arguments they are actually placing basic mathematical arguments. Logic is the basic ingredient of Mathematics. Without Logic there is no Mathematics.

I respect Mathematics because I respect Logic. Those who don't respect Logic don't know what Mathematics is. They are simply fascinated by its symbols and precision.

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

That Says it all.

Immortal, I find there is no point in discussing with you. When an issue is properly answered, the issue ends. You don't even care to read the answer [leave aside discussing appropriateness/inappropriateness of the answer], exclusively written to address the issue raised by you but you keep repeating the question. It shows you are least interested in addressing the issue, but more interested in keeping it inconclusive. Your intentions seem disingenuous. You are not concerned with the Logic/Science/Knowledge involved in my arguments. You have concerned yourself more with establishing that you can't be wrong. You are trying to establish that the hoax you were clinging to is impossible to be wrong. You need to give Truth, its place my friend. In order to show that you are not wrong; you are running about searching for pretexts to pit against. The more one tries to establish the Wrong, the more one converts oneself into a guardian of Falsehood. We need to be judicious enough to know that Truth is indestructible. It cannot be subdued, smothered.

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

If among two opposing arguments our argument happens to be false and if we are feeling the [unnecessary] pinch, considering that to be a 'defeat' then;

Do you know which is the Greatest Victory?

It is conceding defeat, when we come to know that we are opposing Truth.

Do you know who is the one; that is victorious, when one concedes defeat to Truth?

It is our Prudence that becomes victorious.

Do you know who is the one; that loses when we concede defeat to Truth?

It is the Falsehood in us that loses.

Who the victorious is, depends upon, who you consider you are; the Prudence or the Falsehood.

Truth does not endeavor to defeat, it only enlightens.

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

I didn't notice, is this in the nonsense thread... oh, wait, I see it is.

Carry on.

ACG52, I am not the person who writes nonsense deliberately. I have written this because I am convinced that I am right, and hoping to be corrected if I am wrong.

Otherwise why would I present it on a Forum; like this, where nonsense can't be written? I would have amused myself by . . . . I presented it here hoping to get the valuable opinion of the sensible people on the Forum, so that I can know whether I am right or wrong.

But I also know that it is part of life that there are people who say something is nonsense without even placing an argument, because they don't have one and at the same time don't want to give up their stand. What are Discussion Forums meant for? For arguing or, just for saying something is nonsense without arguing.

But at the same time I also know that God has created the sane people too, who are lovely enough to give a patient hearing even to the imprudent and give their kind advice.

Can't you show me where I am wrong?

This is in continuation with post#160

You were pretty swift [within five minutes I suppose] in calling my post nonsense, but you couldn't show me where I was wrong, as fast as that.

I feel your reply was the one that was nonsense for the following reasons;

You called it nonsense without having an argument.
You gave the comment without even caring to read the post in totality along with the [necessary] attachment.
And due to all the above reasons your post was, abusive. [being abusive is the first characteristic of a Non-scientist]

Let me tell you who the Non-scientist is;

A Non-scientist is a person who does not recognize shortcomings even when someone sincerely makes them obvious.

The scientist recognizes it with pleasure since she loves truth.

The Scientist lives for Science/Knowledge, so cares for [the shortcomings of] science.

The Non-scientist lives on Science/Knowledge, so cares for the stand [that he has taken].

Like the politician who talks on public service. But actually lives on it.

When you tell someone is nonsense; you also have to tell why? If you don't know the 'why?', then you are nonsense.

The scientist knows why he thinks someone is nonsense, and tells it.

The Non-scientist doesn't know. He calls someone nonsense to secure his stand and to please himself and others like him, [and save his stand point] because he is a Nonsense, Inconsiderate and a Nuisance too.

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

Giving curt answers like 'Nonsense', 'Ridiculous babble' without giving any reasons, is nothing but Wrath; the wrath which is born out of impatience, intolerance and the pride of possessing the extra/more information. People tend to make wrong statements because there is lack of right information with them. But that does not give the person with more information to spill his wrath on the less informed.

How would you like it; if someone walking behind you is in hurry and also possesses a bit of extra muscles and pushes you aside with his elbow while you are walking on a street, because you were not walking as fast as him & so obstructing his way?

The humane qualities [like being patient and tolerant] in human beings make them great beings and not their extra possessions.

In a discussion forum someone says something wrong because she doesn't know it is wrong. Only when she says it; will the world come to know it is wrong and only then it can correct it. If you create such an atmosphere [by spilling your wrath over those who say wrong things] where in people hesitate to say what they want to say in fear of incurring your wrath lest she say something wrong; then you and your waste wrath are responsible for keeping the world ignorant.

After all a discussion forum is meant for spreading knowledge through discussions and not for abusing of the less-informed by the knowledgeable or for venting the wrath (born out of the pride of possessing extra something) by the knowledgeable on the unknowing. A forum is not a place like the Coliseum where the skilled [possessing extra combat techniques] kill the unskilled and others watch in amusement. The difference between the informed and the ignorant is nothing but extra/more information. That extra something doesn't give you the right to take a dig at those with less possessions. And mind it sometimes the extra information you posses & think is right could be wrong also.

If you think what I am saying is nonsense, substantiate it with reasons and discuss. We both will know who nonsense is. If I am proved nonsense I will thank you for removing my ignorance. If you are incapable of giving reasons, you don't have the right to say it is nonsense. You can't run away after spilling your waste wrath on me. I don't need it; I will return it to you. If you want to give information give it. If you want information take it from those who give it.

Don't instill fear in innocent hearts.

This forum is for exchanging Information not Waste.

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

I have been accused of trying to single handedly rewrite GR. This is off-beam thinking. If I wanted to do that, why would I be here? I would have straight away written a small book and self published it. I have come here thinking that "Look I feel people haven't noticed this. Let me keep this before them. Though my idea is correct, I cannot be accurate in all aspects. Here wiser people would give it a better shape. And together we could give birth to a better picture of our knowledge about Gravity, Space, Time, GR and other things". At the very beginning of this thread or I think "Curved space" thread I used the phrase "This thread will correct . . .". I did not use the phrase "I will correct". I started this thread, which does not mean this thread is exclusively mine. It belongs to everybody who participated in it. And I also said ". . . and we all will be part of this". Sooner or later someone ought to have done this. We are doing it now. What is wrong with it? Why are you maligning this effort?

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

But when I am perturbed by sinister motives I always pacify myself with gems of these words.

"People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.

If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.

For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."

― Kent M. Keith

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

I know I have been into some silly talk not concerning the subject of the thread at times. But I never did it unless I was provoked & dragged into it with the ill intentions of derailing/hijacking my doing. I have seen; there are some great people on the forum like D H, AJB, Swansont, Spyman, Mellinia, Michel123456, Ewmon, IM Egdall & some others [i haven't observed many] who control emotions and strictly confine their posts to Pure Arguments concerning the subject [concentrating on giving solutions to issues raised, logically criticizing the argument, providing related evidence etc]. Someone has rightly said 'Honesty is the mark of wisdom'. Besides everything else this forum helps us to evolve into better persons by allowing us the opportunity to watch great wise people closely.

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

To the moderators,

I have issues pertaining to theories expressed in some posts of other threads. I cannot discuss them there because my arguments would be considered offbeat/speculative. I would like to discuss them here because the issues concern and are relevant to the subject of this/my thread. If I am not allowed to do this, I request the moderators to guide me as to how & where I may discuss them.

. . . There's a basic problem with your question: Let us suppose that I am in a rocket capable of travelling at .9c, ... What do you mean by this? There's a problem with that 0.9c itself. With respect to what? The way you stated that "let us suppose" makes it appear that you think there is some universal reference against which one can measure velocity. There isn't. Everything is relative. . . .

". . . You think there is some universal reference against which one can measure velocity. There isn't. Everything is relative. . ."

Respected sir,

I think there is Universal reference against which one can measure velocity. And so everything is not relative.

And the Universal reference against which one can measure velocity is the – "Absolute Space".

[i have given below the excerpts of the detailed explanation of 'Why/How Space is absolute?' stated in the attachment on Post#158 of this thread.]

In the Minskowski space-time; the place of each co-ordinate [x, y, and z] of the 3-dimensional Space is fixed in this Universe. They do not move with respect to each other. Each chunk of Space has a unique place of itself in the Universal Space. When some Matter particle moves, it moves with respect/relative to these fixed points or we can say it changes these co-ordinate points or gets displaced from point to point. But each space-time point remains where it is. Each co-ordinate point of Space is in the same place since the beginning of this Universe and will remain in that same place for the future infinite times, because it is vacuous. There is nothing to get displaced in it. And so also the state of rest of a stationary object too is absolute because it is holding an absolute part of the absolute Space, i.e. a stationary object identifies itself with the absolutely stationary co-ordinate points of the absolute Space, which it is resting at. A particle in the state of rest behaves like a fixed co-ordinate point of the Space.

"The state of anything that is stationary relative to the stationary space-time co-ordinate points is absolute. The state of anything that is in motion relative to the space-time co-ordinate points or a stationary object is also absolute."

All objects that are stationary/at rest are at absolute rest with each other. They are not moving relative to each other either in Space or in Time. And the velocity of an object that is moving with respect to an object at rest is also absolute.

[i respectfully request you to kindly encourage by taking a look at the Attachment on Post#158 and the falsifiable methods by which I feel we can establish that Space is vacuous stated in Post#155 on Page-8 of this thread. It would help substantiate my above statement.]

Thank you.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · August 3, 2012

Immortal, I find there is no point in discussing with you. When an issue is properly answered, the issue ends. You don't even care to read the answer [leave aside discussing appropriateness/inappropriateness of the answer], exclusively written to address the issue raised by you but you keep repeating the question. It shows you are least interested in addressing the issue, but more interested in keeping it inconclusive. Your intentions seem disingenuous. You are not concerned with the Logic/Science/Knowledge involved in my arguments. You have concerned yourself more with establishing that you can't be wrong. You are trying to establish that the hoax you were clinging to is impossible to be wrong. You need to give Truth, its place my friend. In order to show that you are not wrong; you are running about searching for pretexts to pit against. The more one tries to establish the Wrong, the more one converts oneself into a guardian of Falsehood. We need to be judicious enough to know that Truth is indestructible. It cannot be subdued, smothered.

Well my reply was to qsa's off topic mention of advantages of using operations research in any kind of organisation which wants to be successful.

I did read your entire post and got disinterested when you said the bending of light is an illusion because my physics textbook says,

"Einstein proposed that a beam of light should also be deflected downward or fall in a gravitational field. Experiments have verified the effect, although the bending is small. A laser aimed at the horizon falls less than 1cm after traveling 6000km."

There is no attractive force here, it bends because of the curvature of space-time of the earth. In the same way the light bends in a lift accelerating upward in empty space depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

As to your question of "Why do Matter particles accelerate towards each other?"

That's because when a charged particle is projected or accelerated in a magnetic field just like in particle accelerators by superconductors which generate high magnetic fields they are deflected because it experiences a magnetic force. So I don't see what was your point. Again both electric field and magnetic field are two different aspects of a same entity called as the electromagnetic field and which field manifests separately depends on the frame of reference of the observers.

qsa · August 4, 2012

So you want a formula now, to say that Space exists. What is the formula that says Space does not exist, it's a notion? What a pity, despite your experience you can't differentiate between prose & logic. Everything I have said is based on logic, and logic is scientific method. But you think logic is not a good standard in science? I have presented falsifiable Methods in post #155. I have established beyond the slightest doubt that the light bending in the Lift is an illusion. There is a simulation in Method 4. You could have brought out the errors in one of them. You could have brought out the irregularities in the steps taken by logic. You could have brought out the mistakes in the conclusions that have been derived logically. You don't discuss these things but keep bringing up a hoax created by your own self. These things have been discussed before. You disregard that. Such discussions or tactics can only be done to keep the mill running, helping none.

I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business. These are no reasons. It also shows there are no better reasons. And nothing can be derived by such discussions.

"A logical statement is wrong if it does not contain any formulas" – Kindly tell us the formula that gave you this outcome. This is another big joke.

And you claim to be part of the scientific world, with all your unconnected reasoning. God help Science & the scientific world and those who learn from you.

You need to expressly know that; [if you are so fanatic about Mathematics,]

"Mathematics is nothing but Logic in symbolic language" and, ---- I

"Formula is constructed using the symbols and rules of Logic". And, ---- II

"Whatever arguments I have given are absolutely logical" ---- III

From I, II and III, we can arrive to the conclusion that;

"Every argument I have presented is equivalent to and can be converted into Mathematical deduction".

When someone is placing logical arguments they are actually placing basic mathematical arguments. Logic is the basic ingredient of Mathematics. Without Logic there is no Mathematics.

I respect Mathematics because I respect Logic. Those who don't respect Logic don't know what Mathematics is. They are simply fascinated by its symbols and precision.

Mathematics is more than just logic. You can google about mathematicalPhilosophy and foundation and get acquainted. By the same talk, it seems that Iwill not be able to find out what is wrong with your theory because you willdrag the conversation endlessly just like you're trying to do with DH post.That is why I found it fruitless to take that direction, but concentrated even on a more fundamental mistake you are making.

And that is, how we model in physics. The word space (space-time) is used to denote certain aspect of the physics under consideration and the words do not have absolute meaningin the sense that you are imagining. For example in Loop Quantum space takes on a probabilistic and discontinuous aspect, as long as the theory is consistent(and agree with classical limit and have an experimental support) those aspects are accepted. This has been repeatedly been explained to you, and many other examples of physics have been given to you, like what is a particle, but you just shut your ears to them. It should suffice that we give you hints and not be your teacher. There is ample material out there for you to study. There are thousands of books on the subject that will do better job than me on the specific details. But I feel you do not have the proper background even for you to understandwhat is being said to you.

You want to do physics without going through the motion, if you respect mathematics then do it, don't just talk. It is a requirement of doing physics, you can't pick and choose. Now, if you think you are doing a philosophy of physics the requirement is doubly stringent. We trust the methods of science because even as we are in first grade we check for 4+4=8 by raising four fingers with each hand and count. We do experiments on the facts given to get corroborated. In my Master's thesis after months of searching finally took the model of the motor I was using plugged the parameters of the motor and the condition under which it operated into six simultaneous differential equations and simulated. The results perfectly matched the behavior of the motor that is why we trust science, it works in front of our eyes, and we learn why.

There is ample room to add, but not before you learn the trick of the trade. I gather you are still young, so you MIGHT be able to do it since you feel you really need to understand what reality is.

Moreover, I have noticed that you keep talking about honesty and all. But please be honest with yourself first for your own good. And when I mentioned success in business it was with intent of the example of using scientific methods, so DON'T twist words.

BTW, I speak from experience with science ever since I was young. I discovered this only when I was 16 see attachment

http://planetmath.or...nCalculus2.html

also

a patent for a robot. see attachment

not to mention my qsa theory (see my profile).

Publication_and_grant_fees_2009-14518.pdf

qsa · August 4, 2012

Anil, let me add something which might help you.

As I started college (engineering) I started getting interested in physics. So I read every article about physics in scientific american, then after graduation I started reading the popular books. While I could understand the overall ideas but I was so frustrated that I could not really understand. So I would look up the books on the more advanced physics and found the equations so daunting and I would put them aside hoping that somehow reading more popular articles and books will close the gap. It never did work and I forced myself to dig into those complicated work and do my best to understand. That really worked, slowly slowly I got to feel that thing were finally making sense, and it was not really any different from learning engineering.

My bible became the fantastic two volume book. So concise and deep.

http://books.google....AAJ&redir_esc=y

Even now as I am getting old and my brain is rusty still I am learning more and more complicated stuff. That is why I tell you that you might be able to do it if you gather enough strength.

Edited August 4, 2012 by qsa

Anilkumar · August 7, 2012

. . . I did read your entire post and got disinterested when you said the bending of light is an . . .

You did not read the attachment. Your getting disinterested is unfounded, because you haven't read the reasoning given in the attachment.

I did not say bending of light is an illusion.

I said bending of light in a Lift is an illusion.

. . . "Einstein proposed that a beam of light should also be deflected downward or fall in a gravitational field. Experiments have verified the effect, although the bending is small. A laser aimed at the horizon falls less than 1cm after traveling 6000km." . . .

I have no disagreement with this except the 'also' in it, bracketed by me. And this again shows you hadn't read the attachment, when you posted the above.

. . . There is no attractive force here, it bends because of the curvature of space-time of the earth. In the same way the light bends in a lift accelerating upward in empty space depending on the frame of reference of the observer. . .

Please read the attachment [and Method-4 in Post#155 later again] and then see if you feel what you have said above is wrong.

. . . As to your question of "Why do Matter particles accelerate towards each other?"

That's because when a charged particle is projected or accelerated in a magnetic field just like in particle accelerators by superconductors which generate high magnetic fields they are deflected because it experiences a magnetic force. So I don't see what was your point. Again both electric field and magnetic field are two different aspects of a same entity called as the electromagnetic field and which field manifests separately depends on the frame of reference of the observers.

I had Matter particles with mass, in mind. Not magnet/charged particles.

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

. . . But please be honest with yourself first for your own good. And when I mentioned success in business it was with intent of the example of using scientific methods, so DON'T twist words. . .

Don't derive superficial meanings. Read the line again.

. . . I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business. . .

I have asked you to tell me why my logical statements are wrong. They cannot be wrong by mentioning that you became successful in business by using scientific methods. What I am saying here is that, you are not giving relevant reasons to prove that my logical statements are wrong.

This is as good as saying that,

"Give me better relevant reasons to prove that my logical statements are wrong. Your claim that you were successful in business by using scientific methods is not a relevant proof to prove that my logical statements are wrong".

If you want, I will add what you are exclusively highlighting, and that I had omitted thinking that it is understood.

"I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business by using scientific methods"

Basically you are attacking a straw-man created by yourself.

The straw-man created by you here is, your claim that "a logical statement is not scientific".

And then you are attacking that straw-man by saying,

"Success in business came by using scientific methods, so one should use scientific methods."

The basic thing is that you don't have a proof that my arguments are wrong. So you are giving irrelevant reasons. And now you are on to hype something else, more irrelevant. Throughout the thread you have given the most irrelevant reasons.

. . . Moreover, I have noticed that you keep talking about honesty and all. . .

Science is about being honest. It is about knowing the Truth. So when we are discussing about science matters we need to be honest. If one is not honest while discussing science matters one is not scientific.

. . . you willdrag the conversation endlessly just like you're trying to do with DH post. . .

You will see that your prediction will be wrong, about DH post.

. . . You want to do physics without going through the motion, if you respect mathematics then do it, don't just talk. It is a requirement of doing physics, you can't pick and choose. Now, if you think you are doing a philosophy of physics the requirement is doubly stringent. We trust the methods of science because even as we are in first grade we check for 4+4=8 by raising four fingers with each hand and count. We do experiments on the facts given to get corroborated. In my Master's thesis after months of searching finally took the model of the motor I was using plugged the parameters of the motor and the condition under which it operated into six simultaneous differential equations and simulated. The results perfectly matched the behavior of the motor that is why we trust science, it works in front of our eyes, and we learn why. . .

Do you at least acknowledge what a Mathematical proof is?

Here is a gist of it from here & here

A Mathematical proof is a demonstration that if some fundamental axioms are true, then a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions deduced from those axioms are a necessary consequence of the axioms, in the sense that if the axioms are true then the conclusions must also be true. Mathematical proofs are often articulated in a Natural Language such as English, and are expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments, intended to convince the truth of the statement of the conclusions beyond any doubt.

Such arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a proof, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, a picture alone may be sufficient to prove.

The picture in the attachment proves that The Light bending in a Lift is an illusion.

The falsifiable methods given in Post#155 and the figure in the attachment on Post#158 are perfect examples of the above explanation.

And also I have given predictions and experiments to derive empirical evidence from. And there is a simulation in Method 4. I think this is sufficient proof to establish something.

But my revered friend qsa, mere proofs are not sufficient to make a person accept Truth. That person must also have a good heart, which has the willingness to give Truth its due place.

. . . Mathematics is more than just logic. You can google about mathematicalPhilosophy and foundation and get acquainted. . .

. . . And that is, how we model in physics. The word space (space-time) is used to denote certain aspect of the physics under consideration and the words do not have absolute meaningin the sense that you are imagining. For example in Loop Quantum space takes on a probabilistic and discontinuous aspect, as long as the theory is consistent(and agree with classical limit and have an experimental support) those aspects are accepted. This has been repeatedly been explained to you, and many other examples of physics have been given to you, like what is a particle, but you just shut your ears to them. It should suffice that we give you hints and not be your teacher. There is ample material out there for you to study. There are thousands of books on the subject that will do better job than me on the specific details. But I feel you do not have the proper background even for you to understandwhat is being said to you. . .

Anil, let me add something which might help you.

As I started college (engineering) I started getting interested in physics. So I read every article about physics in scientific american, then after graduation I started reading the popular books. While I could understand the overall ideas but I was so frustrated that I could not really understand. So I would look up the books on the more advanced physics and found the equations so daunting and I would put them aside hoping that somehow reading more popular articles and books will close the gap. It never did work and I forced myself to dig into those complicated work and do my best to understand. That really worked, slowly slowly I got to feel that thing were finally making sense, and it was not really any different from learning engineering.

My bible became the fantastic two volume book. So concise and deep.

http://books.google....AAJ&redir_esc=y

Even now as I am getting old and my brain is rusty still I am learning more and more complicated stuff. That is why I tell you that you might be able to do it if you gather enough strength.

All this is a continued build-up on your original hoax.

You say "Mathematics is more than just logic."

So you at least agree that Logic is a factor in Mathematics.

And Mathematics is scientific.

And my arguments are logical.

And that itself shows that my arguments are scientific.

You keep building on that hoax because, you don't find anything wrong in my arguments, but you want to maintain that 'you can't have been wrong spending all those years doing science'. So you think that the difference in the time spent, doing science between you & me is the cause of the difference in perception of the space-time curvature hypothesis between you & me.

No my elderly friend.

The difference is that, you are not thinking logically. That is the mistake.

The GR described those things that were enigmatic, till the time it arrived. And that made us believe that GR gives the right picture of the world around us. But the thing is that GR only describes the effects of Gravity. Or to be precise; GR describes the effects of Relativity meticulously. But to consider, that itself is the Absolute picture of the world around us would be a great blunder. If you want to continue with that blunder, I have no problem. It was my duty to apprise you. I have fulfilled it. God won't have any reasons to hate me.

GR is a theory that describes and accounts the effects of Relativity. It is not a theory of Gravity.

Relativity is just an illusion created by the [magnitude of the] relative motion of the observer's reference frame with the observed frame. It is not the real picture of the world around us. [This is the logical conclusion that has been derived by the attachment on post# 158. If some are not interested to take a look, I have no problem. If some consider that, what they believe is Science and all that others say against it is not Science and so it is least necessary to take a look at what others say, I have no problem.]

And my respected elderly friend the fact remains that, to say one's number of years spent doing science or the conclusion that one can't be wrong is a proof for holding something as the Truth, is not scientific method.

You talk of scientific method. Let me tell you which is the best and the foremost scientific method.

Reasoning.

And also specific reasoning.

Shying away from it or giving irrelevant reasons is not science.

If we don't want to be proved wrong, we don't want to accept Truth and we are not being scientific. And it also shows we are cheating. And we are holding ourselves above Truth. Not a good humane quality.

. . . There is ample room to add, but not before you learn the trick of the trade. I gather you are still young, so you MIGHT be able to do it since you feel you really need to understand what reality is. . .

No I don't want to learn such tricks. I don't believe in supporting my claims with hoaxes. I love Science. I don't want to ruin it. And let me remind you, the real people of Science don't do such tricks. They are happy to welcome a Truth. And that is what is called as being scientific. Not hoaxing or using tricks.

[Now don't tell me again, that I am twisting words. It is you who is twisting the words by claiming that what I am saying logically is not scientific, throughout.]

. . . By the same talk, it seems that Iwill not be able to find out what is wrong with your theory because . . .

Yes certainly by the same talk, you will not be able to find out what is wrong with my theory because . . .

There is nothing wrong with it. It is logical, it is falsifiable, it is empirical and it can be simulated. So you have to, create hoaxes, do some tricks etc to deny it.

. . . That is why I found it fruitless to take that direction, but concentrated even on a more fundamental mistake you are making. . .

And founded the straw-man, and said my logical statements are not scientific, because I have not spent many years doing science. Yes I haven't spent as many as you did, but you haven't shown what is wrong with my logical arguments. Just mentioning that I have not spent many years doing science can't make my arguments wrong. It only shows that you don't have an argument to show that my arguments are wrong, so instead you are clinging on to an irrelevant argument.

And the time period one takes to understand something is different for each person. Some don't understand even if they spend their whole lives meddling with something. It shows by the way you are arguing that you are an example.

It is rightly said. The more we cling to Falsehood, the more we degrade ourselves.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Anilkumar

immortal · August 7, 2012

You did not read the attachment. Your getting disinterested is unfounded, because you haven't read the reasoning given in the attachment.

I did not say bending of light is an illusion.

I said bending of light in a Lift is an illusion.

I have no disagreement with this except the 'also' in it, bracketed by me. And this again shows you hadn't read the attachment, when you posted the above.

Please read the attachment [and Method-4 in Post#155 later again] and then see if you feel what you have said above is wrong.

I had Matter particles with mass, in mind. Not magnet/charged particles.

It violates the equality of parts, you can't say one is an illusion and the other is real.

Anilkumar · August 10, 2012

It violates the equality of parts, you can't say one is an illusion and the other is real.

I am not saying it Immortal, the facts, the figures, the logic, the experiment say it.

It does not violate anything.

It simply shows that a frame in acceleration is not equivalent to a frame in Gravity, or that, Gravity is not only Acceleration.

immortal · August 10, 2012

I am not saying it Immortal, the facts, the figures, the logic, the experiment say it.

It does not violate anything.

It simply shows that a frame in acceleration is not equivalent to a frame in Gravity, or that, Gravity is not only Acceleration.

It does violate the equivalence principle.

In General Relativity the gravitational field and the curvature of space-time are indistinguishable, nothing is absolute.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec07.html

Anilkumar · August 17, 2012

It does violate the equivalence principle. . .

I don't understand why you come to that conclusion?

Whatever I have said has nothing to do with the Equivalence principle.

Whatever I have said throughout the thread is not based on the Equivalence principle.

Everything I have said stands to be true independent of the Equivalence principle.

. . . In General Relativity the gravitational field and the curvature of space-time are indistinguishable . . .

The reason for saying this is a [Deliberate?] clear lack of consideration of the behaviors of Matter, Space and Time.

See the inconsistencies in the above theory;

On the one hand, it says Space & Time are notions.
On the other hand it says Mass tells Space-time how to curve.

Does Mass tell the notions how to curve?

Again, see the inconsistencies in the above theory;

On the one hand, it says Space & Time are notions.
On the other hand, it says Space & Time are what we measure with the foot-rule and the clock.

Are we measuring notions?

Does it mean the measurements of the foot-rule and the clock are notions?

Again, see the inconsistencies in the above theory;

To the question 'How can Space & Time get curved?' the answers given are;

We don't know what Space & Time are. [A clear denial/concealing of the available information regarding Space & Time].
We don't know how Mass curves Space & Time. [An irrational assumption that Mass curves space-time is made on the basis of concealing/denying the knowledge of the available information regarding Space & Time, whereas Matter cannot do anything to Space and Time].

The denial/concealing of knowledge are done to accommodate the irrational theory.

However, the available information, which is being concealed or is being denied, clearly tells us that;

Mass/Matter can affect neither Space nor Time. Space & Time do not interact with anything in this Universe. Matter is the only thing that has the ability to interact and interacts with itself/other Matter. Matter cannot interact with Space other than just occupying it, because there is nothing in Space with which Matter can interact. It is vacuous. Space & Time do not have the ability to interact with anything, in this Universe.

This above information quoted in red is clearly available and I have made it obvious and its denial/concealing is not going to be helpful to us. Moreover, it will not help us get a clear picture of the Universe.

Concealing or deliberate denial or showing ignorance of the available information to create accommodation for an illogical hypothesis is not a scientific method.

In addition, it is not going to help us get appropriate picture of things around us.

. . . nothing is absolute.

http://abyss.uoregon...ures/lec07.html

Wrong. Everything is not Relative. I have given reasons for that in post#167.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Anilkumar

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