Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Dec 15, 2019.

  1. river

    Messages:
    13,284

    What properties , physically , does space have ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,177
    Does being able to bend count as a property?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    13,284
    No , many things bend .

    But not space .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,177
    We've already been through this. I don't care what your opinion is about that, because you have nothing to back up your claim (as usual).

    Do you have anything substantive to add to this latest faith-based statement of yours, or are we done here?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    13,284
    No we are not done here , faith in Einstein , in bending of space , is a mathematical concept . Not based in physical reality .
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,177
    Einstein's mathematical theory supports all the experiments and observations made in circumstances where the theory is applicable. The alternative theory - that space does not bend - makes erroneous predictions about many experiments and observations, specifically those ones that are in the domain where the bending of space is important.

    So, the faith-based position that space does not bend is not based in physical reality, whereas Einstein's theory of relativity is solidly grounded in physical reality, experimentally tested and supported by literally millions of separate pieces of physical data.

    In case you're unclear about this, this means that you're wrong and Einstein is right.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    13,284
    Its not space that bends , it is the energy and matter , in space , that bends .
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,177
    That's not what the theory says.

    A reminder: if you are going to make scientific claims, you need to back them up with appropriate argument or evidence on this forum. Please think about this during your time away.
     
  12. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Suppose we were an observer on a planet that was orbiting a neutron star which was in its final (say less than 100 revolutions) before its entry into the star.

    Would it be any easier in these circumstances to take measurements that would show the curvature of spacetime in that area (between the observer and the neutron star) ?

    Would the decay of the orbit facilitate these measurements whereas in our own solar system the orbits are too stable (with the exception of phenomena like the precession of Mercury) for us to make them easily?

    Would the extreme environment I have suggested change anything fundamentally?
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,543
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16
    https://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817.php
    I'm fairly confident you can make the appropriate general connections and conclusions.
     
  14. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Would an observer sited at one of those neutron stars be able to make measurements that would give different (ie not two times pi) relative values in the circumference vs radius of circles he might attempt to draw?

    Same with triangles....

    If so ,that would show the curvature of space and time ,wouldn't it?

    And the gravitational waves would also show this to observers the other side of the Universe....
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,543
    Exterior to the NS surface, then within GR there is a first-order in metric departure from Euclidean geometry. The proper radial distance between two concentric circles centred about the NS, is greater than would be observed in flat space. Time component doesn't enter consideration - assuming static conditions i.e. no free-fall is happening.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,132
    We don't need neutron stars to demonstrate the geodesic nature of worldlines in spacetime.

    The Eddington Experiment during the 1919 Solar eclipse showed the bending of light rays near the Sun.
     
  17. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    That may be true but ,Judas like (it was him wasn't it?) , I would like the evidence to be as vivid as possible.

    In a schoolroom in the NS how big would a student's drawn circle be to exhibit non Euclidean characteristics?

    1 foot radius enough for the drawn circle to no longer be "local"?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,132
    I see a trade off between "visually obvious" and "conveniently demonstrated".
    Neutron stars are both physically exotic and very remote, making for a pretty imaginary demonstration. That's my opinion; YMMV.

    For reference, the Sun bends light rays from stars by only seconds of arc. A deflection too small to be seen by eye.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  19. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    I meant (doubting)Thomas btw.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,630

    And you would be correct! Space is simply what is between you and me and the Moon and beyond....Time simply stops everything from happening together. The rest is fairy tale nonsense.
    Spacetime of course is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. the concept spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion.
    So in effect light does not bend per se. It is spacetime that bends in the presence of mass and/or energy. Light simply follows geodesics in that curved/bent spacetime.
    This has been positively verified many times by many methods...the prehelion shift of Mercury, gravitational lensing are the most recognised.
    The BB was the evolution of this space and time we now call spacetime. ..the four forces were unified as one superforce, and we had no matter at all, until this superforce at around t=10-35th second started to decouple. This created false vacuums and phase transitions and the excesses of energy went into creating our first particle.
    As Dave so wisely told you, drop the fairy tale books, pick up a science book, accept that you are not any learned professional, and learn from those learned professionals and the words and evidence of the greats of the past on whose shoulders they stand.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,630
    No no no!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Judas was the bloke who sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and betrayed him with a kiss according to myth. The bloke who doubted his mythical resurrection was Thomas!! And that's where the saying 'doubting Thomas"comes from.
    How's that from my Altar boy days!!
     
  22. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Oh thee thou art of little faith

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,630

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Spacetime which evolved at the BB, is as pure a vacuum as it is possible to get and its generally flat geography warps, twists, bends, curves in the presence of mass/energy. Even light/photons curve spacetime an infinitesimal amount, due to its momentum.
     

Share This Page