Is curvature the same as force?

Is curvature the same as force?

[censored]
physics.101
force is inertial differential
curvature is not the same as force
reaction is not the same as action [/censored]

Dynamic geometry dictates curvature is the same as force.

Can this be proved or is this pseudoscientific dogma?

Please offer your proof, not your insults.

bonus question
How many times must dynamic geometry be disproved before it is classed as pseudoscience?

peace
ron

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NO

Curvature is not the same as force. If in an analog situation, curvature is proportional to mass, not force.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At least you got something right. Curvature is not the same as force.

Now answer how many times dynamic geometry must be disproved before it is classed as pseudoscience.

ItS
peace
r~

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sorry.101
Is curvature the same as force?
take two

Thank you. I agree.
Curvature is not the same as force.

Is gravity a force?

ron

 

I'm not really allowed in this discussion, so instead of posting an answer, I will ask a question that is really an hidden answer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At what distance is a curve, a curve?

 

In the OP you ask for proof of a negative . That shows, of course, that you understand nothing of either science or logic. There is no point in any further discussion.

 

You can express the forces (ie what causes accelerations) caused by various forces (gravity, electromagnetism etc) in terms of curvature tensors.

You can express tidal forces in GR in terms of the Ricci tensor, which is expressible in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor. An interesting link between GR and gauge theory (the mathematical basis for much of quantum field theory) is that you can define the equivalent of the Riemann tensor for electromagnetism, electroweak and QCD.

The Riemann tensor is a rank 4 object, \(R^{a}_{bcd}\) and has symmetrices like \(R^{a}_{bcd} = -R^{a}_{bdc}\). In gauge theory there's the Maxwell tensor \(F_{\mu\nu}\), which is actually a sum of matrices, \(F_{\mu\nu} = \sum_{a}F_{\mu\nu}^{a}T^{a}\). But the matrices have components too, so we have a rank 4 object again, \((F_{\mu\nu})^{i}_{j} \sim F^{i}_{j\mu\nu}\). This has ALL the same symmetries as the Riemann tensor and obeys the same equations like the Bianchi identities, \(R^{a}_{[bcd]} = 0\) and \(R^{a}_{b[cd;e]}=0\).

Thus if you know how to do curvature differential geometry in GR you can do an awful lot in gauge theory too and vice versa.

 

logic.101

logic.101

Thank you. I agree.
gravity is a state of force
expression means the same as reaction
relative differential curvature is not the same as force

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
A firmament does not separate heaven from flatland earth. Stars are not lights embedded in a crystal sphere spinning around stationary earth. Centripetal does not counter centrifugal force. Planets do not wander epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle ad infinitum. Curvature of wing is not the force of levity. Curvature of space is not the force of gravity. Tensors do not curve space.

Thus if you are blinded by alphanumeric images, you too can loose track of reality. And propagate dogma, pseudoscience and hostility.

logic.101
gravity is a state of force
force is inertial differential
ipso facto
gravity is inertial differential
g=f=Δi

You can express inertial differential with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Gently tap a dense hammer against your own dense skull. With just the right moment of inertia, you too might see the lights.

Thus the burden lies still with you. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that space is not the relatively wimpy aether wind. Name one effect of gravity that is not predicted by fluent space.

Thus if you know how to parse the inertial differential between pioneering spacecraft and the relative drag of the weakly interactive massive quantum particle aether wind, you would know the curvature of the paths of spacecraft are not anomalous to reality.

ron

 

Huh?

 

Meaningless ad hominem word salad.

 

The question "Is curvature the same as force"
Is like the question "Is marmalade the same as taste"

It doesn't make any sense.

 

Your attempts at logic are a very strong force of levity however!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It isn't dogma or pseudoscience or hostility, it was an explanation of how curvature plays a role in both gravity and the other forces. Although there's a conceptual issue of whether curved space-time relates to a force the effect of gauge theories, which we do consider to be accelerating forces, is expressible in precisely the same manner as curved space-time.

This isn't pseudoscience because it has had its experimental predictions tested and verified to be accurate to within our ability to measure. In some cases we're talking about an accuracy to parts per trillion.

If you consider the most accurate and tested predictions in history as 'pseudoscience' then I think you need to find out what science actually means. That also might help to you see that my 'pictures' actually mean something. It's expressions like that which lead to understanding how GPS clocks behave and must be corrected so you can use it for navigation. This stuff has real world applications, it isn't mathematical navel gazing. The fact you don't understand it on even a conceptual level doesn't make that go away.

I find it funny that you call my 'pictures' (which are actually rendered equations) dogma and pseudoscience but you try to make your position more justified by flat out making up a meaningless equation. It's like creationists knocking real scientific research but they then put on lab coats and give (or try to give) themselves laughable doctorates so as to try to steal some of the respectibility science has gathered. Science has that image because it's produced results. My equations are science not because they are complicated (they are actually very basic on the scale of things) but because they really mean something which can be put to practical use!

No, the burden is on you. You're claiming the existence of something never seen and in many cases (as there's multiple aether concepts) experimentally falsified.

Since there is no one single aether concept the requirement is on you to define precisely what you're talking about and derive the quantitative predictions from such principle so it can be tested. There are aether models which can give all the same predictions as say special relativity but they fail to develop further and explain things like frame drag due to rotating objects. You asked to name one phenomenon an aether model can't explain. I'll give you the 3 standard problems I typically ask people touting their pet theories on the forum, the precession of Mercury, the differential cross section of electron+positron to muon+antimuon and the running coupling of the strong force. I'll even be generous, you need only get within 5% of the experimentally measured values. Please provide an aether model which can accurately predict the specific results of those phenomena.

The fact there might be an aether construct which can model all currently known phenomena accurately doesn't make it science to consider it on a par with current models. There could be a god but until someone provides viable reason or evidence it won't be part of science. There could be a planet made of cheese and populated by Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) somewhere but should we start making statements about their society and beliefs? Of course not, there's no point building on top of a completely baseless and arm waving guess. There's many many extensions to the Standard Model we could construct, which would be consistent with current SM experiments so we must temper our decisions by reason and evidence, rather than whatever the hell we feel like.

If you can't provide a model based on aether which can be made consistent with current experimental data or provide experimental evidence an aether exists why should anyone take you any more seriously than someone claiming Bigfoot exists?

 

Questions like this are due to the use of geometry as a model for certain laws of physics.

General Relativity uses 4D geometry as a model of what used to be called a gravitational field. There is a strong isomorphism between the mathematics of curved 4D space & many of the laws of physics, especially the laws relating to gravity & acceleration.

It is a very powerful model, not a reality. Without going into details, there is a 2-person game played with the the Ace through the 9 of Spades (or any other suit).

You can use Tic-Tac-Toe strategy to play the card game correctly. You can use the best card game strategy to play Tic-Tac-Toe correctly. Each game is a model of the other. They are isomorphic to each other.

Note that in reality: Tic-Tac-Toe is not a card game; The card game is not Tic-Tac-Toe. Each is a model of the other.

In reality: 4D space is a useful model for laws relating to gravitation & acceleration. This does prove or indicate that 4D space is curved or that gravity curves space.

 

admission by omission

admission by omission

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
A firmament does not separate heaven from flatland earth. Stars are not lights embedded in a crystal sphere spinning around stationary earth. Centripetal does not counter centrifugal force. Planets do not wander epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle ad infinitum. Curvature of wing is not the force of levity. Curvature of space is not the force of gravity. Tensors do not curve space.

The above assumptions are pseudoscience because curvature is reaction to inertial differential. The above assumptions are pseudoscience because not even the most powerful 'model' by any other 'Name' is the same as force. The above assumptions are pseudoscience because the best proof is insult and straw men.
The above assumptions are marked as beastly dogma as they growl and snarl 'silence' when confronted with self evident truth.
bad dogma

gravity.101
gravity is another name for the aether wind
to measure the drag and direction of the aether wind, stand on a scale and look up

That I cannot calculate the roving eye of an F6 does not mean I do not recognize the power of a supersonic vortex. I find the logic funny; that because air is hard to see, wind cannot exist; it can only be curvature or god that sways the mighty tree.

Thank you. I will agree.
There is not one effect of gravity or van der vvaal's or weak or any other state of force that is not consistent with inertial pressure differential.

I'll give you two more advanced problems I typically ask all students of fluent dynamics. Can you graph the curvature of earth's own atomsphere along lines of iso baryonic pressure differential? (hint - look at weather maps of cyclones) This problem is for astronauts: Can you calculate the progression of a drop of quicksilver as it orbits around the working end of the space station vacuum cleaner?

peace
ron

P.S. Keep me posted if you have any luck in solving the first.