Gravity.

[too-open-minded]

So is it an attraction between objects with mass or is it a distortion in space-time caused from objects with mass?

 

I'm confused :/

[ElasticCollision]

The best way to think of gravity is simply that it is an attraction caused by an object relative to it's mass.

The easiest example being, of course: The Sun is larger than the Earth, therefore the Sun has a stronger gravity.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ElasticCollusion

[too-open-minded]

I'm not looking for an easy explanation lol but thankyou.

[StringJunky]

As is commonly said about gravity in GR: matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move, so, spacetime behaviour is the mediator between two bits of matter...they aren't exchanging anything so they aren't, strictly speaking, attracted to each other, like in magnetism where there is an exchange of virtual particles. I think there are ideas being worked where there is an exchange of virtual particles (gravitons) but it's not, as yet, mathematically sound.

[too-open-minded]

Thankyou for clarifying that for me. All I needed to hear.

[ajb]

You should also be aware that Einstein's general relativity, which describes gravity as space-time curvature, has Newtonian gravity as a limit.

[too-open-minded]

What do you mean by as a limit?

[A Tripolation]

What do you mean by as a limit?

 

That, in most cases, GR turns into Newtonian gravity. Just as SR turns into Newtonian motion at low speeds.

[too-open-minded]

I would question that but i'm starting to realize I just need to learn it for myself and gtfo of the physics forums for now lol.

Edited September 15, 2012 by too-open-minded

[pantheory]

too-open-minded,

 

So is it an attraction between objects with mass or is it a distortion in space-time caused from objects with mass?

This is a mainstream section of the Forum, Classical Physics. Only mainstream answers should be given here. The mainstream answer is that gravity is caused by non-linear distortions of space by matter, commonly called a warp of space-time.

 

Is this ultimately the correct answer? There are alternative ideas so it depends upon who you are asking and in what format or forum. If you want to discuss other ideas/ possibilities, other than mainstream, you could maybe ask the same question in the Speculation Forum but there maybe you don't need the "I'm confused" part. You may get lots of different opinions of possibilities and maybe you might want to argue your favorite hypothesis.

 

What do you mean by as a limit?

A limit is a mathematical term. For instance: the sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 etc. Complete the series with many additional fractions, add them together and their sum approaches the number 1, and their "limit" is equal to 1 .

 

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.

Wiki

//

Edited September 28, 2012 by pantheory

[ajb]

What do you mean by as a limit?

 

I mean that under certian natural approximations general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity. In that respect one can informally think of Newtonian gravity as "sitting inside" general relativity.

[rwjefferson]

dogma sows confusion

 

So is it an attraction between objects with mass or is it a distortion in space-time caused from objects with mass? I'm confused: /

 

Yes. The last time I checked and according to logic; if at least one part of an or question holds true, the right answer is yes.

Yes. You have every right and reason to be confused and yes; it is always better to be too-open-minded than to be severely-closed-minded.

 

Yes. The last time I checked this is the Classical Physics Forum. Classical Newton and Bernoulli clearly state force is inertial pressure differential. The conjecture that curvature (warp) is the same as force belongs in the Relativity if not the Pseudoscience Forum.

 

Do you know how to distill the inertial and gravitational properties of baryonic particles to the weakly inertial and gravitational properties of quantum particles?

What do you know of relatively infinite vacuum energy of 'empty' space?

 

peace

ron

[imatfaal]

dogma sows confusion

But not as dramatically as confusion sows more confusion

 

Yes. The last time I checked and according to logic; if at least one part of an or question holds true, the right answer is yes.

All Englishmen are Human (true - well true-ish). Socrates is/was human (true). Therefore, Socrates is English (bugger! two parts of the question were true - yet the conclusion was invalid and false) You need correct premises and sound logic to give a valid and correct answer.

 

Yes. You have every right and reason to be confused and yes; it is always better to be too-open-minded than to be severely-closed-minded.

ajb Pan, and A Trip's answers are cool - if you do not understand them or the consequences just holler

 

Yes. The last time I checked this is the Classical Physics Forum. Classical Newton and Bernoulli clearly state force is inertial pressure differential. The conjecture that curvature (warp) is the same as force belongs in the Relativity if not the Pseudoscience Forum.

The distinction between classical and non-classical can also delineate the presence of quantum mechanics and its ramifications. Relativity - and I presume you are considering just general relativity in your comments - is incredibly well backed-up by experimental verification, that it is difficult to comprehend and the maths is difficult is no reason to dismiss it.

Do you know how to distill the inertial and gravitational properties of baryonic particles to the weakly inertial and gravitational properties of quantum particles?

No - do you?

What do you know of relatively infinite vacuum energy of 'empty' space?

Let's not get non-classical in a question that can be more easily dealt with by discussing Einstein's relativity

 

peace

ron

I type this listening to the Aegean Sea, with the sun setting over it, a Mythos Hellenic beer to hand, and the Marriage of Figaro playing - a better definition of peace I have yet to find. Peace be with you too.

[Anilkumar]

too-open-minded,

 

This is a mainstream section of the Forum, Classical Physics. Only mainstream answers should be given here. The mainstream answer is that gravity is caused by non-linear distortions of space by matter, commonly called a warp of space-time.

 

Is this ultimately the correct answer? There are alternative ideas so it depends upon who you are asking and in what format or forum. If you want to discuss other ideas/ possibilities, other than mainstream, you could maybe ask the same question in the Speculation Forum but there maybe you don't need the "I'm confused" part. You may get lots of different opinions of possibilities and maybe you might want to argue your favorite hypothesis.

 

That was a brave, wise, honest and absolutely correct stand. Hats off. I agree.

 

And Imaatfal, it was really cool on your part; considering Pantheory's answer among the list of cool answers. Great.

 

Indeed IMHO it is the coolest and Truly righteous & courageous answer.

 

. . . The mainstream answer is that gravity is caused by non-linear distortions of space by matter, commonly called a warp of space-time.

 

Is this ultimately the correct answer? . . .

 

Yes, it is only a mainstream answer. Not the correct answer, because;

 

I have raised certain objections regarding the theory and they have not been answered but eluded. Moreover, I have given stringent Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental evidence that show that Space & Time cannot be warped and Relativity is an Illusionary effect.

 

This is a mainstream section of the Forum, Classical Physics. Only mainstream answers should be given here.

 

Even if they are wrong?

 

I think this canon needs to be debated.

 

It has to be decided whether this forum is meant for propagation of scientific knowledge and upholding scientific values OR for the propaganda of a wrong mainstream idea such as this.

 

If one goes on presenting & cultivating this wrong theory in the mainstream forum, all the while eluding the objections raised and not giving solutions to them and but instead, any Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental new/offbeat solutions provided are kept in the confines of the speculation forum and are not at least indicated as considerable alternative thoughts here – Then this amounts to nothing but utter propaganda of a wrong idea by taking of the unfair advantage of the rules of a forum and breeding a self-preferred theory and doing injustice, to the question poster, to Science and to Humanity.

 

Any theory should sustain itself from the strength of the Truth contained in it. It should not sustain itself on the strength of taking the unfair advantage of the rules of a forum. This is a flaw. That which sustains/protects itself on/behind the rules of a forum is no Science.

 

Pantheory, the approach of your post is a sound step towards correcting this flaw. In addition, it is great & heartening that Imaatfal considers it among the cool opinions.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Anilkumar

[too-open-minded]

I like the distortion of space-time thing.

 

I like to think if empty space as an illusion. with their always being something their, even between atoms.

 

The"vacuum" of space being just diffusion.

 

When space is occupied by bodies of mass the space around it is warped kind of like pressure.

 

 

 

With GR turning into newtonian gravity, I guess this is mainly because no matter the distance their is always some gravitational attraction?

 

I'm wondering if space-time could be held up by a mass of "ultra" subatomic particles? Something in my opinion has to be in lights way to make it propagate like a wave.

 

 

Sorry if i'm just spitting out rubbish, I don't start working for a degree until January.

[rwjefferson]

space is held up by inertia and energy

 

Space consists of quantum particles. The space around earth consists of baryonic particles. The low pressure in the eye of a hurricane distorts earth's atmosphere. What happens if you drill into relative infinite vacuum pressure? Each singular point of mass distorts quantum spacetime like low pressure distorts earth's atomsphere. What happens as sound encounters the sonic horizon barrier?

 

peace

ron

 

brainstorming is a trait of open minds

[too-open-minded]

Inertia and energy? I like that. I Kind of invision something like a higgs particle, countless numbers of them in constant motion holding up space.

[StringJunky]

Any theory should sustain itself from the strength of the Truth contained in it. It should not sustain itself on the strength of taking the unfair advantage of the rules of a forum. This is a flaw. That which sustains/protects itself on/behind the rules of a forum is no Science.

 

In science, this is how it's decided and all that matters here...I can't think of a better way of looking for "Truth":

 

[swansont]

Even if they are wrong?

 

I think this canon needs to be debated.

!

Moderator Note

Not here. Being wrong is not against the rules (unless you take to the extreme of soapboxing). Hijacking threads is.

 

It has to be decided whether this forum is meant for propagation of scientific knowledge and upholding scientific values OR for the propaganda of a wrong mainstream idea such as this.

!

Moderator Note

This is not an either/or issue. There is nobody here that can make the determination that mainstream science is wrong; that's a matter of scientific consensus. The rules of the forum dictate that answers to inquiries be mainstream science, and that non-mainstream discussions happen in the appropriate place. It is inappropriate to complain or question that in a thread dedicated to some other topic; we have a subforum for discussion of suggestions and comments about the forums.

 

Response to this modnote should not take place in this thread.

 

——————

 

space is held up by inertia and energy

!

Moderator Note

Speaking of hijacking…

 

Stop This.

[too-open-minded]

I mean that under certian natural approximations general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity. In that respect one can informally think of Newtonian gravity as "sitting inside" general relativity.

 

So is Newtonian gravity "sitting inside" general relativity because no matter the distance their is always some gravitational attraction?

 

 

 

 

 

[rwjefferson]

who will lead the weigh

 

I'm wondering if space-time could be held up by a mass of "ultra" subatomic particles? ~ So is Newtonian gravity "sitting inside" general relativity because no matter the distance their is always some gravitational attraction? ~ Inertia and energy? I like that.

I like that your own honest responses show you might be potentially smarter than the current undercover moderator charged with preventing the hijacking of your own particular OP thread.

 

def: bang~entropy

the universe expands by inertial energy and levity and collapses by gravity

 

time is only relatively constant

Are you familiar with the three laws that demonstrate Newton's first rule holds true? Have you heard Einstein disproves Newton's second rule? Time is only relatively constant.

 

Place a drain in the ocean. No matter how fast or far away you might try to row; you and your dingy are still drawn toward lower pressure. Remember that quantum particles are only weakly interactive and thus more likely to pass through or by baryons. Remember that quantum particles are subject to gravity and accelerate toward greater mass.

 

If only there were an easy scale or way to measure the drag of wimpy particles accelerating through you toward relative greater earth mass.

 

peace

ron

 

.007:

get back to your post

having a good conversation with the OP is not even relatively close to the same as hijacking

[Anilkumar]

I like the distortion of space-time thing.

 

I like to think if empty space as an illusion.

 

 

If the search were for the theory that which is Likable to you Personally, it would be typical to your Liking.

 

If the search were limited to acquainting yourself with the Mainstream theory, it is another thing. It would end up like you replied to strungJunky's post, that;

 

Thankyou for clarifying that for me. All I needed to hear.

 

Mission accomplished!

 

But then you said;

 

I would question that but i'm starting to realize I just need to learn it for myself and gtfo of the physics forums for now lol.

 

I like to think if empty space as an illusion. with their always being something their, even between atoms.

 

The"vacuum" of space being just diffusion.

 

When space is occupied by bodies of mass the space around it is warped kind of like pressure.

 

With GR turning into newtonian gravity, I guess this is mainly because no matter the distance their is always some gravitational attraction?

 

I'm wondering if space-time could be held up by a mass of "ultra" subatomic particles? Something in my opinion has to be in lights way to make it propagate like a wave.

 

 

Inertia and energy? I like that. I Kind of invision something like a higgs particle, countless numbers of them in constant motion holding up space.

These posts show that you are trying to critically learn. And;

 

Critical learning is the best method when you are on the path to seek knowledge, and so;

 

If the search were for seeking knowledge, it is yet another thing, wherein;

 

You are entitled to know all that is happening in the field, and;

 

You will have to inform yourself of the inconsistencies in a theory being discussed too, then;

 

It is your Justified Right and our Righteous Duty to apprise you of those inconsistencies, from the point of view of doing justice to the seeker. However, once I give you offbeat opinions I would evoke the wrath of the Moderator because; there is a Forum for Mainstream where the mainstream views are orated, there is a Forum for the Offbeat where the Offbeat views are scrutinized, but there is no forum for the Critical Learner to Explore Truth, where both Mainstream & Offbeat views are critically discussed and try each other out and the process becomes a great experience for both parties trying to convince each other and Truth triumphs.

 

Find your way.

 

Good luck.

 

 

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

 

 

In science, this is how it's decided and all that matters here...I can't think of a better way of looking for "Truth":

 

What is the proof that the Corpus underlying the Curvature indicated by the Riemannian Geometry is the space-time?

 

This is a big misconception; about the space-time curvature hypothesis, that it is a tested hypothesis. The Mathematics of GR/Riemann geometry estimates the Curvature. It has stood the tests. However, the very mysterious thing and the delusive part are; the space-time curvature hypothesis is riding piggyback on the Mathematics by sneaking in.

 

There is absolutely no proof at all, that the Corpus underlying the Curvature indicated by the Riemannian Geometry is the space-time.

 

Whereas, there is stringent Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental proof to show that the Space & Time cannot be curved.

 

Evidence is being discarded to put in its place an Assumption. [i hope I am not violating rules again.]

 

 

 

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

 

 

space is held up by inertia and energy

 

Space consists of quantum particles. The space around earth consists of baryonic particles. The low pressure in the eye of a hurricane distorts earth's atmosphere. What happens if you drill into relative infinite vacuum pressure? Each singular point of mass distorts quantum spacetime like low pressure distorts earth's atomsphere. What happens as sound encounters the sonic horizon barrier?

 

peace

ron

 

brainstorming is a trait of open minds

 

Rwjefferson,

 

I suppose, too-open-minded is a student who just wants to critically understand what the prevailing comprehension of Gravity is.

 

Brainstorming is a group or individual creativity technique by which efforts are made to find a conclusion for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its member(s). – Wiki

 

 

So this thread of his, IMHO, is not the place to do Brainstorming and find a solution to 'What Gravity really is?'.

 

Moreover, if one has a new idea, one has to first put it for scrutiny in the Speculations forum and then if the idea stands up firm against the scrutiny and promises to answer the inconsistencies in the prevailing theory satisfactorily, then the new idea attains the status of getting mentioned as an alternative thought.

 

I entered this discussion because, the current mainstream space-time curvature theory was being put as though it is the Ultimate correct answer all the while when the inconsistencies that I have shown in it have not been answered but eluded and I have also given Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental solutions that pinpoint the inconsistencies.

 

Therefore, it is absolutely established that there are inconsistencies in the space-time curvature theory. Therefore, think over if Pantheory's answer is the best answer to this thread.

 

It is appropriate; only when a new idea put up by us in speculations forum, stands against the scrutiny there, that it can be mentioned as an alternative thought in the main forum. You & I have to keep our offbeat ideas to the offbeat forum. I was forced to add a few words about my offbeat views, to show why it is necessary for the OP to look at the scrutinized alternative idea and that the Mainstream idea is not the correct answer.

 

However, that evoked the wrath of the Moderator, because there is a lack of a separate section in the Forum, for the Critical inquirer/learner who wants to Explore Truth, where both Mainstream & Offbeat views can be presented, critically discussed and sweat & try each other out. The Question poster who posts in the main forum to critically learn & seek knowledge is barred from coming into contact with an offbeat thought that has corrected the inconsistencies of the Mainstream theory and stood the scrutiny in the offbeat forum. This is injustice to the inquirer. Nevertheless, nothing can be done about it, now. I will debate it in another thread. [if you have anything to say, let us discuss it there.]

 

Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom. – Plato

 

I have already evoked the wrath of the Moderator once. I don't want to do it again.

 

Sorry, Swansont.

 

Good luck, question posters. Let us see what can be done about it to better the current rules of the forum, in future. After all this is Our, Lovely forum. We shall strive to make it Lovelier. Anyways,

 

The world comes to know the Truth, when someone braves to authenticate it.

 

Keep at it Pantheory,

 

Keep at it Imaatfal.

 

The world needs personality like yours.

 

Good job.

 

The road to attain greatness is difficult for any person or entity. It is no different for a forum. When there is uncertainty over the next step, Righteousness is the leading light. The path of Righteousness is the only path that leads to greatness because it is Right; and being Right is Greatness.

 

And discussion is the only process to find the Right, because a Discussion, conducted with Righteousness as the leading light by its discussing members, segregates Right from Wrong.

 

Let's discuss this in another thread.

 

Thank you, everybody.

 

I am saying good bye to this thread.

 

It is not good to stay in a place where you are not allowed to speak the Truth.

 

It is not good to stay in a place where Speaking Truth amounts to Breaking rules.

 

It is not good to stay in a place where you are forced to amuse yourself with Falsehood.

 

If Rules stop Truth from being said, they need to change.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Anilkumar

[too-open-minded]

Well what are the inconsistencies of space-time curvature theory if their are any?

 

I'm not tripping, I understand that mainstream scientific views are the way they are because their the only thing we have any evidence for.

Oh an i'm uneducated, for right now atleast

 

I'm sure/(hope) most astronomists believe that their is more to the universe than meets the eye but because the observable universe looks flat, we must go with the universe being flat to work with.

Edited October 9, 2012 by too-open-minded

[Anilkumar]

Well what are the inconsistencies of space-time curvature theory if their are any?

 

. . . I understand that mainstream scientific views are the way they are because their the only thing we have any evidence for.

Oh an i'm uneducated, for right now atleast

 

I'm sure/(hope) most astronomists believe that their is more to the universe than meets the eye but because the observable universe looks flat, we must go with the universe being flat to work with.

 

[To the moderators:- Since I am being asked for the presenting of the inconsistencies and the objections notified/raised by me, it becomes my responsibility and so I am presenting the scientific Methods by which those inconsistencies can be established scientifically. I suppose, that does not violate any Rule of the forum, that I am aware of, since I am limiting myself just to presenting & establishing scientifically, only the objections and hence not giving any offbeat solutions here.]

 

I would also like to post these following contesting inquiries from another thread also here because, my following response would satisfy them and also because my reply which is relevant to this thread as well as to those posts from the other thread, cannot be posted there where the above two inquiries were raised because my reply is not the subject of that thread. I.E. those questions are relevant to this thread whereas my reply is not relevant to that thread where they were posted. So I have to give an answer to those posts here since, my reply would be relevant to this thread as well as those posts from the other thread as an Example.

 

There is a fine line here between scientifically based speculation and "pulling stuff out of thin air".

 

Mainstream science needs people to find the holes and gaps in our understanding. People then attempt to fill these gaps, which can involve a lot of initial speculation and creativity. The point is that this will be based on current scientific thinking and constructed using the right language, which for physics will inevitably be mathematics.

 

The problem with open forums is that people can present their ideas, well founded or not, as if they were scientifically accepted. Those of us that are educated in science can usually spot such posts, usually the language is just wrong. I imagine for the layperson this cannot be so easy.

 

 

What we usually get is a mishmash of misused terminology and hand-waving, narrowly focused on one small area of science, with a dash (or more) of megalomania which manifests itself as "This is all true because I'm right, dammit!" or some similar attitude. What we don't get is anything resembling a model, with testable predictions and a way to potentially falsify it, that fits in with the breadth and depth of existing evidence.

 

Swansont & Ajb, I have placed well-founded, Logical, ways to potentially falsify, Model with testable predictions and indisputable evidence based on current scientific thinking that pinpoint the holes and gaps in our understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis.

 

The following are the Methods that establish scientifically, the inconsistencies in the space-time curvature hypothesis:-

 

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 cannot get curved.

 

Prediction to test the correctness of this Method:-

 

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;

 

A. The inertial mass of that object.

 

B. The Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces that are holding that particle in its

current position/state.

C. 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 like the Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces, so doesn't exert and is incapable of exerting any force on any Matter particle of this Universe."

 

Method 2:-

 

Let us consider the axiom;

 

1. 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 to test the correctness of this Method:-

 

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;

 

1. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions.

 

2. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of description of the extent of Curvature.

 

These Axioms imply 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 to test the correctness of this Method:-

 

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;

 

Why GR/Riemann geometry works?

 

That takes us to method 4.

 

Method 4:-

 

Let us consider the following axioms;

 

1. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions.

 

2. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of Curvature.

 

3. All the events in the Universe occur in 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions.

 

4. Minkowski space is a 4-dimensional coordinate system; the coordinates of which are 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions.

 

5. Riemann geometry was employed to study the events in the universe because of the axioms 1, 3 & 4.

 

6. 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 to test the correctness of this Method:-

 

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 space-time 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 space-time. Thus the curvature of space-time 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. - 3

 

Magnitude of Gravitational force is proportional to extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 4

 

From 3 & 4;

 

"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 space-time coordinate system.

 

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

 

Please clarify; why from these Methods, we cannot infer that Gravity is not space-time curvature?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Anilkumar

[too-open-minded]

Anilkumar, I might be misunderstanding you because I have no knowledge of most of the things you are talking about but

 

You did mention empty space, do we eve have any evidence of completely null and void empty space?

 

Personally I think "space-time" is warped. Except theirs no such thing as nothing, no such thing as empty space. Their is something their and it is kind of compacted.

 

Then again at one point I thought dark energy was just light moving faster so yeah probably don't know wtf i'm talking about lol.

yet

Edited October 12, 2012 by too-open-minded