Photonic self-tucking structure (split from Why Does Mass Curve Space-time?)

pcalton · January 25, 2015

Spacetime is a folly. All light has curvature trajectory.

Mordred · January 26, 2015

Spacetime is a folly. All light has curvature trajectory.

Umm no it doesn't lasers is a good example.

pcalton · January 26, 2015

Not all light have equal curvature. Not all light have identical velocity either.

Edited January 26, 2015 by pcalton

Mordred · January 26, 2015

Your going to need to provide some references. Photon paths follow geodesics

pcalton · January 26, 2015

Geodesics are curved.

"Photons," as you call them, don't follow the path they make the path.

Mordred · January 26, 2015

Geodesics are the shortest path in curved space. In Euclidean geometry the shortest path between two points is a straight line. In curved space it's not the case. Your argument denies curved space.

Which by the way is extremely well tested.

Photons do not make a path they follow geodesics

GR is extremely well tested

pcalton · January 26, 2015

Geodesics are the shortest path in curved space. In Euclidean geometry the shortest path between two points is a straight line. In curved space it's not the case. Your argument denies curved space.

Which by the way is extremely well tested.

Photons do not make a path they follow geodesics

GR is extremely well tested

Yes, I am denying curved space, curved SpaceTime and tests proving otherwise. All physics is flawed in trying to explain or describe "Gravity."

Rather than warped SpaceTime fabric explaining gravity and light being influenced by that same SpaceTime warping, it is solely the behavior of light. The same measurements could be made without the ludicrous and mad idea of of turning time and space from verbs to nouns. That's why Einstein stuck his tongue out at the gullible science community.

Please capture me some time particles and mail them too me, I could use a few extra years.

I use the term, "Photon," loosely.

**Strange** · January 26, 2015

I use the term, "Photon," loosely.

Your entire post is pretty loose and lacking in evidence or theory.

pcalton · January 26, 2015

Yes, of course it is. In order to process the theory, first time to switched back to a verbs. Without that first step it is nothing more than overfilling an already full vessel.

My theiry undoes SpaceTime-fabric warping to produces a gravity-like effect.

It is only a few that are willing to toss out the mad idea of turning time into physical form. Let alone being able to cognitively shred the fabric of SpaceTime would require a lobotomy or a rare open mindedness.

Most would rather insult the messenger and message in preference to abolishing all their pomp and circumstance, lambskin scrolls, and whistling in the dark founding sources.

Something as simple as admitting that time is not a physical form blocks the science-minded in lala land.

But, thanks for the discussion.

If anyone out there in cyber-world reads this and thinks they are ready to overcome the effects of one little noun please chim in.

**Strange** · January 26, 2015

Yes, of course it is. In order to process the theory, first time to switched back to a verbs. Without that first step it is nothing more than overfilling an already full vessel.

My theiry undoes SpaceTime-fabric warping to produces a gravity-like effect.

The perhaps you can present your theory (in the Speculations forum) and show us how well its predictions match observation.

Mordred · January 26, 2015

Yes, I am denying curved space, curved SpaceTime and tests proving otherwise. All physics is flawed in trying to explain or describe "Gravity."

Rather than warped SpaceTime fabric explaining gravity and light being influenced by that same SpaceTime warping, it is solely the behavior of light. The same measurements could be made without the ludicrous and mad idea of of turning time and space from verbs to nouns. That's why Einstein stuck his tongue out at the gullible science community.

Please capture me some time particles and mail them too me, I could use a few extra years.

I use the term, "Photon," loosely.

Then you need to find some evidence to support your ludicrous claims.

As mentioned GR is well tested, physics does not instantly take any claim at face value, GR has been fought tooth and nail trying to prove wrong. GUess what, that hasn't happened.

Now on to your ridiculous claim that light naturally curved. I mentioned lasers, if light naturally curved laser would quickly lose coherence, once it leaves the laser.

If light naturally curves on its own every image we view in space would be highly distorted we wouldn't even be able to see beyond our own galaxy due to the resultant distortions.

Go ahead try it lets say the light path from a star curves 1 degree per Mpc. Would you see an object at 4000 Mpc. Would angles add up to 180 degrees?

Instead of randomly denying GR, perhaps you should spend time understanding why the model works and what it really means.

Your argument is essentially " I don't like chocolate,"

" have you tasted it"

"No I just don't like it"

It's easy to discount something you obviously don't understand. Guess what, if you took the time to understand it, it's not as ridiculous as you might think.

By the way space time is not something mystical fabric. That's pop media crap

pcalton · January 26, 2015

It has already been proven by accident trying to prove Eintein:

"Einstein predicted that light should be bent by gravity. Sir Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the 1919 Total Eclipse of the Sun. The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near to the Sun. Their positions showed that the light had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted. The experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.

Answered by: John Pindar, B.S., Physics teacher (Secondary), Newton-le-Willows, UK"

Either Albert was joking or making fun of the science minded.

However, this proves light has a curved trajectory, it is the why that was wrong.

Skedaddle, get over there and spout off your theory, you are messing with our made up minds, isn't that what you mean?

This forum, "Why does mass curve space-time," caught my attention because of its absurd premise.

**Strange** · January 26, 2015

Skedaddle, get over there and spout off your theory, you are messing with our made up minds, isn't that what you mean?

No, I mean show us that your theory works at least as well as GR. Either that or stop making empty comments.

pcalton · January 26, 2015

Then you need to find some evidence to support your ludicrous claims.

As mentioned GR is well tested, physics does not instantly take any claim at face value, GR has been fought tooth and nail trying to prove wrong. GUess what, that hasn't happened.

Now on to your ridiculous claim that light naturally curved. I mentioned lasers, if light naturally curved laser would quickly lose coherence, once it leaves the laser.

If light naturally curves on its own every image we view in space would be highly distorted we wouldn't even be able to see beyond our own galaxy due to the resultant distortions.

Go ahead try it lets say the light path from a star curves 1 degree per Mpc. Would you see an object at 4000 Mpc. Would angles add up to 180 degrees?

Instead of randomly denying GR, perhaps you should spend time understanding why the model works and what it really means.

Your argument is essentially " I don't like chocolate,"

" have you tasted it"

"No I just don't like it"

It's easy to discount something you obviously don't understand. Guess what, if you took the time to understand it, it's not as ridiculous as you might think.

By the way space time is not something mystical fabric. That's pop media crap

Don't let me waste your time, because you surely are with me. What? You don't think I understand your science mind? It's no surprise you come back at me with your believed facts. Science has turned into religious dogma for most of you guys, alternative ideas you treat like "Sin," get that hermitic out of here, chain him in the dungeon.

**Strange** · January 26, 2015

alternative ideas you treat like "Sin," get that hermitic out of here, chain him in the dungeon.

Not if you demonstrate that the alternative idea works.

andrewcellini · January 26, 2015

Skedaddle, get over there and spout off your theory, you are messing with our made up minds, isn't that what you mean?

more like you are trying to chip away at a strong foundation without any tools (evidence).

pcalton · January 26, 2015

It's really quite simple. Photons have a curved trajectory because of multiple-directional forces because of a self-tucking structure.

Mordred · January 26, 2015

It's really quite simple. Photons have a curved trajectory because of multiple-directional forces because of a self-tucking structure.

Look up photon then look up what forces interactions affect the photon.

Answer one only electromagnetic. Not the weak force not the strong force.

Gravity also does not directly influence the photon.

Space time curvature does. Now what does space time curvature really mean?

Space is geometric volume, ONLY.

space time is any mathematical model of space with the time component.

Gravity is an influence upon particles. It cannot influence an empty volume.

Gravity affects space time as an influence upon the particles contained within the volume of space time.

In other words treat space time as a fluid ( perfect fluid or ideal gas)

Higher gravity wells have a higher energy density, energy density per volume has a pressure influence depending upon the particles equations of state.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

The stress energy tensor of the Einstein field equations show the energy momentum relations and includes the energy density to pressure relations.

see the matrix on this page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

Space time curvature is an energy density distribution curve of the influences of gravity upon particles.

It is not some magical material that stretches, bends etc.

This is the problem with pop media articles. They supply the simple analogies but not what those analogies represent in terms of differential geometry

That article you posted above is due to space time curvature. It does not mean light is naturally curved in its trajectory.

**Phi for All** · January 27, 2015

!

Moderator Note

This is non-mainstream speculation, and can't live where students might mistake it for test answers. It's also a hijacking of another thread topic. I'm moving it to our Speculations section. pcalton, if you're posting here on SFN, we assume you've read our rules, and this section has some special ones. We want you to back up assertions with evidence, and try to answer questions as much as possible. All criticism is aimed at making your idea better, or showing it to be false, nothing is personal.

**swansont** · January 27, 2015

!

Moderator Note

Also some guidelines for posting. Thus far you are long on assertions and short on any kind of support. That's not a sustainable strategy.

Sensei · January 27, 2015

You don't think I understand your science mind? It's no surprise you come back at me with your believed facts. Science has turned into religious dogma for most of you guys, alternative ideas you treat like "Sin," get that hermitic out of here, chain him in the dungeon.

Your depiction how science works is flawed.

Experimental scientist is making experiments (can be random accident), discovering something, making equations allowing further predictions, and sharing with the rest of science community.

Science community is reproducing experiment, and after confirming observation, it's becoming part of knowledge learned in universities and schools.

That's why it's important to make experiments, to not lose healthy look (which happens to pure theoretic scientist I am afraid. And they're starting making bizarre theories. It's easy to spot them, as they are not based on experiments).

My theiry undoes SpaceTime-fabric warping to produces a gravity-like effect.

But you didn't presented us your theory.

There is no physics theory without math equations allowing to calculate and predict future/past.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Sensei

pcalton · January 27, 2015

Provide one single thread of evidence that proves time has physical form.

Mordred · January 27, 2015

There is none that's not what GR states

Provide one single thread of evidence that proves time has physical form.

This is your misunderstanding. Time in GR is treated as a vector

Time affects reaction rates of particles. Here is some of the tests

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-10-fundamentals-physics-einstein-dilation-quantum.html

pcalton · January 27, 2015

Does the moment that happened just a moment ago still exist? Does the future end when it is now? Man made-up time. To measur intervals during now. As soon as a nano-second occurs it is gone forever. Any use of time in form or concept is a construct of the human mind and is not real. To do experiments involving time is pure fantasy and can only prove more fantasy.

Even measuring velocity incorporating time further clouds reality.

The problem with sciences is they all involve observers, even rational scientists who claim they remove the observer from their aussumptions are deducting based of some observation made at sometime.

What I think science-minded folks need to accept is that body-sensory devices are too frail and inadequate to collect sufficient data to compute with body brains that distort, filter, and delet data for processing. Human body sensory devices enhanced by technology bare make I dent in surmountable information necessary for accurate evaluation of reality. Further, distortions with numbers and factors and constructs that defy reality can be nothing more than the building of religion. And, the non-conformists are ridiculed and cared out because they don't by into the trucks scientist pull on the gullible.

Mordred · January 27, 2015

This isn't the forum for philosophy,

Regardless of your opinions of Human frailty we can make accurate predictions using GR. That's the purpose of any good model. Even more so those predictions match experimental evidence.

Is this the final answer of course not. There is still ongoing research and tests to couple quantum gravity and GR. No theory is ever final. However until something better comes along. GR is extremely useful and accurate.

As mentioned science isn't some conspiracy. Not everyone works for NASA or any one government. Science doesn't work that way.

In order to measure you must observe.

Unless you have some hocus pocus way to measure without some form of observation or interaction.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Mordred

Sign In

Photonic self-tucking structure (split from Why Does Mass Curve Space-time?)

Recommended Posts

pcalton

Mordred

pcalton

Mordred

pcalton

Mordred

pcalton

Strange

pcalton

Strange

Mordred

pcalton

Strange

pcalton

Strange

andrewcellini

pcalton

Mordred

Phi for All

swansont

Sensei

pcalton

Mordred

pcalton

Mordred

Browse

Activity

Important Information