Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

Rpenner,

I was intrigued by your behavior, so I looked for your past posts. Fortunately it was not so taxing, I got the answer in your post in the thread "is the GOD on science forum ??.

You are actually attempting to use your nice and trained analytical ability to assess the poster...well I cannot stop you, but that does not appear to be your cup of tea....Focus on the scientific data analysis only. You are venturing into a different field with a pretentious authoritative tone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People have tried that when addressing your content, but you just parrot your anti-mainstream agenda as if it's supposed to be a valid argument against the observed evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I saw a passing straw, carried down the stream.
I saw a passing straw, as though in dream.
I saw a passing straw, detached from sod,
And clutching it so tight, it was The God.

 

You keep dreaming. I need no straws, I provide bundle of straws to those who are sinking......

 

James R,

I am a bit tired and I am sure someone else (i will prefer Qreeus or Schmelzer) will take you on, on this. I would appreciate if Rpenner demonstrates the fair and neutral approach in responding to your post.

I will simply say, forget it, it is not only not science, it is not even philosophy. Force does not bend or curve...mass does not bend or curve....acceleration does not bend or curve...but spacetime bends or curves ? Moreover quite interesting that you have almost equated the curvature of spacetime with the Euclidean Curvature of an object.

As long as spacetime remains mathematical tool, I have no problem, as soon as you give certain physical properties things are bad. I will tell you, a wordline of any object will curve in presence of a gravitational source.....it will have curvature. Similarly wordline of a photon may curve.......remove the confusing term spacetime as space+time, simply call it the motion metric of an object. Life will be much simpler. Let me tell you it is bizarre to even think that space has curvature like Euclidean curvature of an object. Don't you see that a point around a source mass will have infinite curving directions, which direction a poor object will take ?

 

That would because the mathematics of curved manifolds was developed in the 18th and 19th century as surfaces embedded in Euclidean spaces, and only at the end of the 19th century because a field of study of themselves independent of any embedding.

It is quite interesting mathematical history. It's not a relevant part of an argument against the physicality of space-time. But if you knew enough about General Relativity to have a qualified opinion on it, you would already know that.

Tangent vector, scalar quantity, Tangent vector, 4-dimensional local Lorentzian manifold. Your argument, such as it is, is apples and oranges. Numbers and vectors defined as differential quantities can't "bend" but manifolds can and the way we test if they are curved is by looking at their geometry.

One evidence that space-time curves is gravitational redshift. If rate of time is a function of position, then space-time displacement vectors don't obey the law of parallelograms of flat space-time. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParallelogramLaw.html
Thus \(\vec{A} + \vec{B} \neq \vec{B} + \vec{A}\) when A is change-of-position and B is waiting at a position for a certain length of time.

Thus the physical geometry of space and time is not flat with the only alternative being curved. A good model for this physical geometry is the geometry of General Relativity's space-time. You have offered no argument against this, so one wonders what you think "physical" things are.

 

Rpenner,

Rate of time with respect to what ? Rate in general is defined with respect to time....so you have to tweak with definition here because dt/dt = 1.

Secondly I have no new definition for physical thing....the relevant definition is that it should concern with energy or matter. How is your mathematical tool called spacetime has any concern with energy or matter ?

People may jump that look it is curved by energy / mass, how Silly ??

 

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time cannot exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

They will jump in because that is what is observed. Matter/energy produces gravity or spacetime curvature...Why? we don't know. Maybe when we finally obtain a validated QGT, we may have an idea.
Gravity according to GR is dictated by the geometric properties of spacetime.
That's no excuse for god botherers though to install their "god of the gaps"crap.

 

Another simplec argument, since you agreed with James equating the curvature of spacetime with Euclidean curvature of the object....

See an object placed at the top of a sphere will start moving on the curvature of sphere if perturbed slightly ? Why ? Because gravity is there... In gravity less scenario this object will not move with small perturbation.

Now why objects should move in the curved spacetime ? Where is the cause ? Mason has made a stone sphere, but object moves on perturbation due to gravity...similarly your mass has curved the spacetime, but what makes it move ?

 

Paddoboy,

So you are saying that spacetime or space whatever is different from matter and energy ?

 

See, this is such a BS and stupid statement on science forum.

I will rephrase...

The God produces gravity or spacetime curvature....Why, we don't know. May be when we finally obtain a validated TG (Theory of God), we may have an idea.

Both are pure nonsense for science, both are matter of faith, which has nothing to do with science...

 

I've given you a definition from Sten Odenwald.
If you havn't the mental capabilities to understand it properly, not much I can do.
Here's the crux again....
"experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe"

Perhaps your confusion is because you do not understand the BB theory. The BB theory simply was the evolution of "spacetime" [as we know them] Matter/energy evolved later.

 

Wrong again. Both are matters of observations.
Science describes what we see: It does not necessarily tell us why, which you obviously cling to like a leech with your god of the gaps spaghetti monster.

 

This will make life much simpler. But will create other problems. Like no gravitational field no spacetime...flatness goes out... SR is on paper only...

See Paddoboy, please open some high school physics book and learn about Electric Field and Magnetic Field and their curved lines.. Come back and tell, if you can produce some similarity with gravitational field ?

 

It shows our inability to find out "why"....

 

Obfuscating again? Desperado tactics?
fact: What you think or believe holds no sway on this forum or the scientific world.
I'm sure there are fairy tale forums if you search long enough.
They may accept your pretentious nonsense.

 

Not necessarily. Of course you would love it to be that way...this is the same god of the gaps argument all religious fanatics and nuts love to push.
Again, science tells us how the universe is via observations and experimentations....if we discover that why in the process, all well and good...if not, stiff shit.

 

You should read properly and then respond...

You are telling that the God concept is matter of observation ?