Curved spacetime?

[Alan McDougall]

Sorry, I just wondered why you didn't know what 'whoever' meant.

Hi Stringjunky - I take your point. Fair enough. It is just that I see no purpose in trying to decide a metaphysical question in physics. It makes for an interesting discussion but it is not going go anywhere. We have to say that 'fabric of space-time' and 'curved space-time' is a metaphor. To establish that is it is any more than this would not be possible in physics. The idea that it is any more than a metaphor is not a testable scientific theory.

 

I thought I was agreeing with Swansont but giving the reason for the necessity of his agnostic view. I didn't mean to suggest we should talk about metaphysics, just that there is a limit to the discussion within physics.

 

Also, I felt that Alan (if he is proposing the reality of the 'fabric') might not realise that he was proposing a metaphysical theory.

 

I don't dismiss the metaphysical, science simply will never explain everything, in my opinion there are things that will remain unsolved. I don't, however, think that suggestion the reality of spacetime, by using a metaphor, makes it into a metaphysical subject.

[MigL]

Sorry Strange.

I'm guilty of the same mistake that I've accused Alan of.

[Alan McDougall]

What if space time is actually "Pure Still Time" a stand alone entity. How bout this, what if the illusion of gravity is relative the amount of pressure from the mass body against "PST" So when someone says to me bending of space time due to a massive body, this to me is a false staement, it is in my theory the displacement of the "PST" trying to return to its point of origin. I have had a thoery for about 25 years that may explain universal movement and including the dark matter problem can be accounted for and why. Interested.........First time Ive ever shared my thoughts with anyone so forgive the spelling and grammar.

 

Start a separate thread under speculations, I am interested in any new theory, who knows you might be the next Einstein

Alan McDougall, on 07 Jan 2014 - 4:43 PM, said:

I did mention Ellington's and his test with the position of the planet "Mercury during an eclipse" Mercury appeared from behind the moon before it should have

 

Do I get it right yet, I will in future not trust my memory but get first if what I think is correct ?

 

I did mention Ellington's Eddington and his test with the position of the planet "Mercury during an eclipse" Mercury appeared from behind the moon Sun before it should have

[Strange]

No. Not Mercury. And not "appeared from behind the Sun before it should have".

 

Again, here is a simple description of the experiment. Why not read it? Does it mention Mercury?

Einstein’s theory of general relativity is tested, May 29, 1919 | EDN

Edited January 9, 2014 by Strange

[Alan McDougall]

No. Not Mercury. And not "appeared from behind the Sun before it should have".

 

Again, here is a simple description of the experiment. Why not read it? Does it mention Mercury?

Einstein’s theory of general relativity is tested, May 29, 1919 | EDN

 

 

 

You are right I am baffled by my fixation on the planet Mercury Stars, which had absolutely nothing to do with the event?

[Spyman]

Actually there was three tests of relativity:

 

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916

• the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
• the deflection of light by the Sun
• the gravitational redshift of light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[Alan McDougall]

Actually there was three tests of relativity:

 

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916

• the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
• the deflection of light by the Sun
• the gravitational redshift of light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

 

I knew that the precession of Mercury orbit had something to do with curvature of spacetime, but sadly I just used my faulty memory instead of checking out my facts before posting on the topic at hand. Sorry guys I am only frail old man!

[MichaelHDurso]

Has anyone thought about the gravitational dip in spacetime is a 3D outer layer of another object like an atmosphere and like it said spacetime is like a net figuritivly. So i think if your in gravity there is a limit to the spacetime net. Here is what i think the "3d net" or dip in spacetime which causes gravity as told in the theory of relativity is like the sphere cage at a circus with the motorcyclist when we put up satellites they need a specific speed in order to keep orbiting they are gliding in a zone aka net of spacetime in which they keep slowly descending to the point where it hits atmosphere which creates friction causing the satellite to burn up so basically the atmosphere is touching spacetime. with asteroids that become a meteor its the same thing but with velocity as a circumstance cutting through the net going in atmosphere without orbiting causing it to burn up or crash. With us sending objects out of orbit we use thrust to create momentum that is strong enough to break the net sending the object to the far parts of unknown. I think a dip on a single plane isn't right it doesn't make sense how objects can orbit around the earth any direction if its diped one way so thats why i say sphere

P.S. Everyone be nice it is only an idea on how it might work and i know im challenging a most known theory in history but hey scientist can only discover by challenging the things that might need change or is wrong. I don't know a lot about physics I just know the basic ideas. I pretty sure my idea isn't accurate. i think it seems logical but that is just me. Its my opinion and interpretation.
Feedback is welcome!

[Endercreeper01]

Has anyone thought about the gravitational dip in spacetime is a 3D outer layer of another object like an atmosphere and like it said spacetime is like a net figuritivly. So i think if your in gravity there is a limit to the spacetime net. Here is what i think the "3d net" or dip in spacetime which causes gravity as told in the theory of relativity is like the sphere cage at a circus with the motorcyclist when we put up satellites they need a specific speed in order to keep orbiting they are gliding in a zone aka net of spacetime in which they keep slowly descending to the point where it hits atmosphere which creates friction causing the satellite to burn up so basically the atmosphere is touching spacetime. with asteroids that become a meteor its the same thing but with velocity as a circumstance cutting through the net going in atmosphere without orbiting causing it to burn up or crash. With us sending objects out of orbit we use thrust to create momentum that is strong enough to break the net sending the object to the far parts of unknown. I think a dip on a single plane isn't right it doesn't make sense how objects can orbit around the earth any direction if its diped one way so thats why i say sphere

 

P.S. Everyone be nice it is only an idea on how it might work and i know im challenging a most known theory in history but hey scientist can only discover by challenging the things that might need change or is wrong. I don't know a lot about physics I just know the basic ideas. I pretty sure my idea isn't accurate. i think it seems logical but that is just me. Its my opinion and interpretation.

Feedback is welcome!

Do you have mathematics to support your idea?

[Alan McDougall]

Has anyone thought about the gravitational dip in spacetime is a 3D outer layer of another object like an atmosphere and like it said spacetime is like a net figuritivly. So i think if your in gravity there is a limit to the spacetime net. Here is what i think the "3d net" or dip in spacetime which causes gravity as told in the theory of relativity is like the sphere cage at a circus with the motorcyclist when we put up satellites they need a specific speed in order to keep orbiting they are gliding in a zone aka net of spacetime in which they keep slowly descending to the point where it hits atmosphere which creates friction causing the satellite to burn up so basically the atmosphere is touching spacetime. with asteroids that become a meteor its the same thing but with velocity as a circumstance cutting through the net going in atmosphere without orbiting causing it to burn up or crash. With us sending objects out of orbit we use thrust to create momentum that is strong enough to break the net sending the object to the far parts of unknown. I think a dip on a single plane isn't right it doesn't make sense how objects can orbit around the earth any direction if its diped one way so thats why i say sphere

 

P.S. Everyone be nice it is only an idea on how it might work and i know im challenging a most known theory in history but hey scientist can only discover by challenging the things that might need change or is wrong. I don't know a lot about physics I just know the basic ideas. I pretty sure my idea isn't accurate. i think it seems logical but that is just me. Its my opinion and interpretation.

Feedback is welcome!

 

I cant grasp exactly what you are saying, you are right there is nothing wrong about challenging a theory.

[MichaelHDurso]

 

I cant grasp exactly what you are saying, you are right there is nothing wrong about challenging a theory.

Thank you I wish i had the intellect to do physics math

[Endercreeper01]

Thank you I wish i had the intellect to do physics math

Everyone has the ability to do physics math. Just keep trying, and you will succeed.

[I-try]

 

 

 

 

I have no hesitation in agreeing with this statement made by ajb because physicists generally appear to refuse to go beyond the bounds referred to as scientific procedure. Any person attempting to change concepts in physics are required to supply a mathematical description; the concept must be capable of measurement and be backed by experimental evidence.

 

General Relativity supplies the mathematics, can be subject to measurement and is backed by highly accurate measurements. Even so, the fundamental dynamic information supplied by GR although extremely accurate, does not supply any information regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of the subjects of debate in this thread because the answers so consistently sought must be in the realm covered by philosophy as indicated by the example supplied below..

 

Adhering to the word NOTHING to be referring to non-existence, then we are generally speaking of the existence of the fundamental dynamic reality, the separation of which confers reality on the concept we call space, etceteras.

I have no idea of what happened to the quote I indicated. However it referred to the how and why of physical reality as being mainly in the realm of philosophy.