[immortal]

Anilkumar, on 3 April 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

How do we ascertain that the 'geometry' [about which the GR is]; is not the geometry of the path of the motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter?

{So that leaves out Gravity, and also whether it is a field or a particle, in this context. But I would like to believe it to be a field similar to other fields like Electric and Magnetic. And I would define that, the 'Field' is nothing but an area of influence of an object in which the paths of the motion of other objects, that the object has an affinity towards, get affected.}

Your beliefs are not science.

Your still clinging to the old Newtonian world view.

John Wheeler said "Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve". This is the view accepted by science.

Its not "Matter tells how other Matter should move"

[Anilkumar]

immortal, on 3 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Your beliefs are not science.

But you have not given one scientific reason yet, to say I am wrong.

immortal, on 3 April 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

John Wheeler said "Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve". This is the view accepted by science.

Whereas, I have enlightened with enough empirical evidences regarding the behavior of Space & adequate logical reasons to say that what you stated above is wrong & not Science, throughout the thread.

Space doesn't have the property to tell anybody anything, nor do anything, leave aside bending. It has only the property of giving space for occupation to everything that occupies space. When something occupies space it is evident that Space exists. When something occupies Space without resistance, it is evident that Space has no internal forces. So Space has no internal structure.

This post has been edited by Anilkumar: 14 April 2012 - 01:46 AM

[immortal]

Anilkumar, on 14 April 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

But you have not given one scientific reason yet, to say I am wrong.

Whereas, I have enlightened with enough empirical evidences regarding the behavior of Space & adequate logical reasons to say that what you stated above is wrong & not Science, throughout the thread.

Space doesn't have the property to tell anybody anything, nor do anything, leave aside bending. It has only the property of giving space for occupation to everything that occupies space. When something occupies space it is evident that Space exists. When something occupies Space without resistance, it is evident that Space has no internal forces. So Space has no internal structure.

Earth dragging space-time as it rotates.

In that paper one can see how earth(matter) curves space-time and how that curvature of space-time tells the satellites to move and change their plane of orbit in the direction of earth rotation.

Quote

"We found that the plane of the orbits of LAGEOS I and II were shifted about six feet (two meters) per year in the direction of the Earth's rotation," Pavlis said. "This is about 10 percent greater than what is predicted by general relativity, which is within our margin of error of plus or minus 20 percent. Later measurements by Gravity Probe B, a NASA spacecraft scheduled to be launched in 2000, should reduce this error margin to less than one percent. This promises to tell us much more about the physics involved."

The frame-dragging effect was predicted by general relativity and the observations test those predictions to an amazing degree of accuracy. This is how science works.

You are of the opinion that science is wrong and your logical reasoning about space is right, that's not how it works, nature says your logical reasoning is wrong.

[qsa]

Anilkumar, on 3 April 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Yes of course I have confidence in SR. I believe it was developed due to the failure of the aether hypothesis and that different measurements by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference in terms of spacetime relationships and aether is unnecessary.

It is mentioned on wikipedia here;

quote

This theory [SR] has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction & time dilation.

unquote

But I don't find anything counterintuitive regarding Length contraction and Time dilation. I could give reasons. I find them to be just observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the states/conditions of different observers. And those differences in the states/conditions are nothing but "differences in the spatio-temporal positions of observers". So naturally when your spatio-temporal position is different, your view/observation too is different.

qsa, your efforts would be only helpful to me if you could give clarifications to the objections that are preventing me from comprehending the spacetime curvature hypothesis, than testing me to check if I am entitled to raise such objections or suggest alternatives. I believe no title on Earth can give the ability to curve to Space.

In all your posts I find no satisfactory clarification that could be of help to me to understand spacetime curvature hypothesis better. Instead I find discourses on the history of the development of Science.

And certainly Science did not develop due to titles. Science developed due to two things. One is Inquisitiveness & the other is Expertise. Persons can posses either one of these two or occasionally a few gifted posses both characters. The Inquisitive are the seekers of Truth, Knowledge. They dig into issues around them and try to understand their surrounding world. Expertise is being extraordinarily well Informed & Skilled. The real Expert are I feel the noble human beings who are indifferent or less intrusive or meddling about the surrounding world, who wish to make a dignified and respectable living supported by the essentiality of their expertise. They have to be indifferent to the surrounding world because they have to intensely focus on gaining the expertise. [I am just trying to make a simple analysis of the driving force behind the development of Science.] Science developed due to the endeavor of searching, by seekers of Truth, facilitated by Experts. There is a lot of difference between choosing to become a scientist as an Expert and for seeking Truth. There is a universe of difference between being informed/skilled and seeking Truth. A person who gets informed or skilled can be conferred with titles as there is evidence for the effort put. But there is no guarantee that the person will alone bring us new knowledge. A seeker of Truth/Knowledge can certainly bring us the new things that she encounters on her path to seeking. And she gets recognized when she finds the Truth. But there is no guarantee that the person alone will find the Truth & gets recognized. Information & Skill are useful in handling the Known. Seeking is useful in finding the unknown. The aim of the person with Information & Skill is Service. The aim of the Seeker is Truth/Knowledge. The Seeker looks towards the informed & the skilled for information & conducting, while seeking. Together they guide each other, work hand in hand and this is how I feel Science developed. Getting one-self perfectly informed and skilled in prevailing matters is one thing. Being inquisitive, seeking to know the unknown, endeavoring to solve prevailing difficulties or glitches is another thing. Information & Skill are imparted by committed institutions. An Expert gets certified by those institutions. Inquisitiveness is an inherent character. There are no certificates for Inquisitiveness. An inquisitive farmer [a layman] who makes alterations, with the help of well informed & the skilled persons, to resolve glitches or to suit the local needs, in a globally manufactured agricultural equipment designed by Scientists, is also a Scientist. An inquisitive street mechanic who makes alterations in a carburetor to suit new necessities is also a Scientist. Expertise alone cannot bring development into Science. And similarly it becomes difficult for Inquisitiveness alone to bring knowledge on its own. Expertise and Inquisitiveness should join if knowledge is to be taken forward. Information & Skill are commodities that can be shared, and should be shared for betterment of life. Inquisitiveness when coupled with Skill can work for betterment of life. Without Inquisitiveness, Information would remain stagnant. Inquisitiveness brings new information. That new Information is tested with prevailing Information by the Expert. And if it leads to improvement, it is accepted. Or else it is discarded. [And sometimes ridiculed; the irony is, the Expert gives reasons and discards, while the non-Expert ridicules, but doesn't know the reasons.] Inquisitiveness & Expertise are the two engines that are driving the field of Science. Expertise demands toil. Inquisitiveness demands appetite for risk [because it could be a fruitless search in the dark]. Expertise helps the Expert to make a living. The inquisitive, by searching in the dark stake their life. Expertise is always fruitful in at least making a living. Inquisitiveness is occasionally fruitful. An expert is a Scientist. An inquisitive layman or a child is a Scientist as well. [I am not saying a child would contribute to science, but Inquisitiveness can do in the long run]. An Expert aims at gaining expertise. An inquisitive person yearns to know things, which can further lead to new Information. And there are the occasionally gifted, who are both inquisitive & expert at the same time.

I seek Truth. I have no fondness for acquiring skills. I just want to know the Truth. And that is the reason why I don't have titles.

The aim of my life is to know life, before death comes. I don't know whether I will know it or not. But I shall keep seeking.

-----------------------------------

The many contradictions in your statments tells that you want to blieve what you believe regardless.

First , you ask for an answer, yet you confess you don't want to rely on "expertise". So you want just words that make "sense" without any mathematical proofs, sorry no such thing in science. Lets say somebody comes up with the correct theory, he states it and stops. NOBODY will take his words no matter how correct in reality, he must show the work. So you must accept the scientific methods first which you seem to have a big problem with. NO other talk will help. But if you do understand how and why scientific methods are used then the problem automatically disappears for you.

Second, you accept SR that says space and time strech and contract yet you do not accept GR!! and you say it is evident against all other people like you yourself showed from wiki. Since nobody expected that ,and it just became clear when very high speed are taken into account which we normaly do not experience. BTW, there are techniques to derive GR from SR(in a heuristic way).

Third, you by passed my arquement about matter being treated as "points" in both classical and quantum which is NOT an "evident" thing. BTW, do you accept QM.


But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.


I do not care if you have the specific titles or not, but you must have studied the subject as if you would have been trying to get the title. There are many people whom physics is not their main subject, yet I know many that know the subject even more than typical physicist. You can guess why ,right!

This post has been edited by qsa: 14 April 2012 - 10:46 AM

[immortal]

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.

I agree that the education system which is to blamed here, coming from the same state as Anil, I don't think even if he would have finished college it would have been easy for him to understand how science works without showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.


In fact the teachers here are still teaching the Lamarckian view of evolution and not much knowledge is given about the scientific method and the way it works.

[Anilkumar]

immortal, on 14 April 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

Earth dragging space-time as it rotates.

In that paper one can see how earth(matter) curves space-time and how that curvature of space-time tells the satellites to move and change their plane of orbit in the direction of earth rotation.



The frame-dragging effect was predicted by general relativity and the observations test those predictions to an amazing degree of accuracy. This is how science works.

You are of the opinion that science is wrong and your logical reasoning about space is right, that's not how it works, nature says your logical reasoning is wrong.

There is no denying the fact that there are shifts in the orbits of the two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites in the 1997 experiment and then later, drifts in the four Gyroscopes of the Gravity Probe B experiment of 2004/5.

It would be fine if your honored education would give you the ability to make clear as to;

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are due to distortion of the spacetime by the Earth?

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are not due to the effect of the presence of Gravitational field around the Earth like the presence of electric & magnetic fields around an electric charge & a magnet respectively?

The spacetime curvature and the Gravitational field theory are two models which try to explain those shifts/drifts.

I am not asserting that the Gravitational field theory is absolutely the right model, it may need some corrections. But I am of the opinion that the spacetime distortion model is totally a wrong model, because Space can not be distorted.


---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Second, you accept SR that says space and time strech and contract yet you do not accept GR!! and you say it is evident against all other people like you yourself showed from wiki. Since nobody expected that ,and it just became clear when very high speed are taken into account which we normaly do not experience. BTW, there are techniques to derive GR from SR(in a heuristic way).

Space does not stretch. The observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the conditions of observers create the illusion that the Space distorts. The length contraction is an observational discrepancy not a physical change. And GR/Mathematics can precisely give an estimation of these discrepancies.

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Third, you by passed my arquement about matter being treated as "points" in both classical and quantum which is NOT an "evident" thing. BTW, do you accept QM.

Does QM prove that spacetime is the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR.


---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *
I do not wish to carry forward any discussions such as below and those other than the spacetime curvature hypothesis. Since the issues have been raised, I am responding this one time and would not be responding in future, and would appreciate if such discussions are not put forward, because these will lead us no where near understanding spacetime curvature.
---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

The many contradictions in your statments tells that you want to blieve what you believe regardless.

First , you ask for an answer, yet you confess you don't want to rely on "expertise". So you want just words that make "sense" without any mathematical proofs, sorry no such thing in science. Lets say somebody comes up with the correct theory, he states it and stops. NOBODY will take his words no matter how correct in reality, he must show the work. So you must accept the scientific methods first which you seem to have a big problem with. NO other talk will help. But if you do understand how and why scientific methods are used then the problem automatically disappears for you.

It is a pity that such thinking exists in Science fraternity.

Qsa, the scientific method that you are exclusively mentioning in all your posts, is a hoax/trick to prevent critical scientific thinking, from questioning established scientific beliefs.

It is a pity that the Science fraternity does such tricks to prevent critical scientific thinking, from questioning established scientific beliefs.

The question of Scientific method, Mathematical proof, Prediction does not arise in the issue I have raised. The issue here is a "terribly wrong assumption", "the assumption that the curvature that the mathematics of GR indicates, comes from the spacetime", OR the assumption that the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR, is the spacetime. It has been assumed that the spacetime brings the curvature, without the base of any scientific method or mathematical proof or empirical evidence. "spacetime curvature" is a baseless, meaningless, illogical assumption.

It is a pity that the scientific fraternity fails to recognize that it is "an assumption" which does not have any base.

The assumption that the curvature comes from Space is wrong because, there is stringent evidence that the Space exists, and has such properties that are in clear conflict with the hypothesis of curvature.

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

. . . what we do in physics . . .

Bolded; by me.

Physics or Science for that matter is not the sole estate of anybody. It is an open project of those who love to think, and surely & certainly not the sole estate of those who want to earn OR extract a living from it.

qsa, on 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums.

This reminds me of a lecturer in my college days. He was a gold medalist. But his ability to give Lectures was very inferior. [Taking a Gold medal is different thing and giving a convincing lecture is a different thing. A gold medal can be had by reproducing answers to questions in precise textual words & other stuff. But to give a convincing lecture, one needs thorough knowledge regarding the subject.] In addition his English too was extremely poor. [In India English is the language for most college level technical studies.] There were two Classes, Class-A & Class-B. I was in Class B. He used to teach us on the subject 'Electrical Machines'. His lectures were a waste of time. What he used to do was just read from a text book of a good Author, reproduce some diagrams, write some headings and highlights from the text book on the board, kill the time & bolster his job. He had struggled for the medal in order to get a decent job & he had achieved it, and now somehow he struggled to fit into the shoes of the job by hook or crook. He did not exhibit his performance by imparting knowledge to his pupils, instead he exhibited that he was doing his job by concerning himself with other less important things, but things, that would reinforce his power over his pupils, i.e. things like students coming to the class on time, finishing the assignments on time, neatness of the assignments, and even the sitting posture of the students in the class. If some student presented him with any doubt, his favorite answer was 'I can tell you everything regarding that matter but your unripe brains do not have the ability to grasp all that. So what you do is, just go through the text and learn it by heart'.

Class-A had a different lecturer for the same subject. It was Professor. F A Naik. Even today, after twenty five years, Honey trickles in my heart when I utter his name. He was not a gold medalist. But he had such tremendous knowledge and skill to convince, that he would convert even the toughest problem into a sweet toffee. And above all he was a great human being. He had so much of affection towards his pupils that each and every student respected him as a father figure. If there was any strife between the students and the management & there was an impasse, the management would run to him and his word would calm the students. Such was the loving bond between him & the students. He throbbed to solve every problem of each and every student of the college, including their health, financial, and even psychological depressions. The students had nick-named him affectionately as "Bangarada Manushya" [meaning – Man of golden heart. And our Medalist was nick-named as "Rolled gold"].

It so did happen that, on every Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday, the 'Electrical machines' Period coincided for both Classes A & B, i.e. Prof. Naik, would be teaching the same subject for Class A that Mr. Medalist would be teaching to Class B at the same time on those days. And one fine day I had an idea and I skipped Mr. Medalist's class and went and took the permission of Prof. Naik saying that I wanted to sit in his class, to which he readily agreed and that's it, I started sitting in Class A for his lectures. After a few days some of my friends followed suit. We used to share benches with our friends of Class A. And later after a few weeks, almost the whole of the students of Class B started gathering in Class A for the period. There weren't enough benches. Students used to sit on the floor. And some even used to stand at the back of the class room throughout the period. It felt like Heaven. It used to feel like some guide has taken us on a ride to show the beautiful things of the world. Prof. Naik knew how to deal with unripe brains. It is a different story that Mr. Medalist complained. But the number of students that got through the examination in that subject was cent percent.


---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *

immortal, on 14 April 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

I agree that the education system which is to blamed here, coming from the same state as Anil, I don't think even if he would have finished college it would have been easy for him to understand how science works without showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.


In fact the teachers here are still teaching the Lamarckian view of evolution and not much knowledge is given about the scientific method and the way it works.

Your education has become a prejudice to you, I suppose.

I respect Colleges, Universities, Teachers, Experts, the Skilled & the Scientists more than anything else in this Universe. Because they impart knowledge. And knowledge is the most precious thing, more than all the riches of the Universe put together. I dropped out of college because I did not want to become an Expert in any faculty, and did not wish to make a living out of that expertise. I had enough basic knowledge I needed and I wanted to free myself from the demands of gaining Expertise and wished to pursue only those studies which would interest/lead me to gain an understanding of Life & Universe. I have no regrets and I am pleased & fulfilled about my decision.

I have the least respect for the way of thinking that everything that is written in the books, professed in the Universities and that is widely accepted is in itself the absolute truth.

And it is wrong to consider that others do not show extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

India is the second nation from top, whose students get eligibility/admission to study in US & UK Universities among the foreign students aspiring to study in those countries. I don't think they become eligible due to their Lamarckian view of evolution or less knowledge about the Scientific method. The annual survey by the US' International Institute of Education (IIE), has quoted that India as a destination for US students to study abroad has increased by 44.4%. And according to an Indian Govt. survey as many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians. 34% employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM, 17% at Intel and 13% at Xerox are Indians. Also India is the premier destination in the world for business outsourcing. I don't think people with Lamarckian view of evolution & less knowledge about the Scientific method can handle that. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and Global Services Location Index 2009 have confirmed India's superiority in the outsourcing sector. China struggling to catch up is far behind. Leading Hong Kong HSBC economist Sherman Chan has stated that India will remain the top outsourcing destination because of its tech savvy and English proficient workforce no less efficient than their western counterparts but with low wages.

Or is the Lamarckian view of evolution becoming popular, of late? In that case, you will have to study in India to get that view.

And also an advocate of 'showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field' and also a critic of Lamarckian Evolution shouldn't have missed this MIT publication - "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?" ;

Quote

Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009,

"The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."

Unquote


---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *


I think such discussions won't give any credibility to the spacetime curvature hypothesis.

This post has been edited by Anilkumar: 21 April 2012 - 03:16 AM

[immortal]

Anilkumar, on 21 April 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

There is no denying the fact that there are shifts in the orbits of the two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites in the 1997 experiment and then later, drifts in the four Gyroscopes of the Gravity Probe B experiment of 2004/5.

It would be fine if your honored education would give you the ability to make clear as to;

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are due to distortion of the spacetime by the Earth?

How do we ascertain that the shifts/drifts are not due to the effect of the presence of Gravitational field around the Earth like the presence of electric & magnetic fields around an electric charge & a magnet respectively?

The spacetime curvature and the Gravitational field theory are two models which try to explain those shifts/drifts.

I am not asserting that the Gravitational field theory is absolutely the right model, it may need some corrections. But I am of the opinion that the spacetime distortion model is totally a wrong model, because Space can not be distorted.

For Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, he equated the effects of gravitation to an accelerated frame of reference Gravity and Acceleration and acceleration was a consequence of geometry or the curved surface of space-time From acceleration to geometry, his equations shows us how the curvature of space tells matter to move. Matter is not directly influencing the motion of other matter with a gravitational force or a field.

Gravitational field theory is derived from the same Einstein's equations, so you want to accept only part of the solutions from those equations and dismiss those solutions which says how much space-time has curved just because it contradicts your pre-concieved metaphysical notions of space-time?

Quote

I have the least respect for the way of thinking that everything that is written in the books, professed in the Universities and that is widely accepted is in itself the absolute truth.

In the absence of a better model to model reality the accepted consensus is what we know about nature of now, new models are accepted by testing those models and not solely based on logical reasons.

Quote

And it is wrong to consider that others do not show extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field.

That's not what I said. Read my post again.

Quote

India is the second nation from top, whose students get eligibility/admission to study in US & UK Universities among the foreign students aspiring to study in those countries. I don't think they become eligible due to their Lamarckian view of evolution or less knowledge about the Scientific method. The annual survey by the US' International Institute of Education (IIE), has quoted that India as a destination for US students to study abroad has increased by 44.4%. And according to an Indian Govt. survey as many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians. 34% employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM, 17% at Intel and 13% at Xerox are Indians. Also India is the premier destination in the world for business outsourcing. I don't think people with Lamarckian view of evolution & less knowledge about the Scientific method can handle that. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and Global Services Location Index 2009 have confirmed India's superiority in the outsourcing sector. China struggling to catch up is far behind. Leading Hong Kong HSBC economist Sherman Chan has stated that India will remain the top outsourcing destination because of its tech savvy and English proficient workforce no less efficient than their western counterparts but with low wages.

Its quite clear from this thread that irrespective of what your expertise is you need to know the Math in order to completely understand scientific concepts and to do some real science, sciences needs predictions to falsify certain claims and math provides it by quantifying it.

Quote

Or is the Lamarckian view of evolution becoming popular, of late? In that case, you will have to study in India to get that view.

And also an advocate of 'showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field' and also a critic of Lamarckian Evolution shouldn't have missed this MIT publication - "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?" ;

Quote

Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009,

"The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."

Unquote

Evolution by Natural Selection is blind, it has no purpose, the Lamarckian view that the conscious efforts of the organism is responsible for the novel changes in the body is wrong, there are prions, proteins which pass on certain traits for a short period of time when the environment changes and the same is for DNA methylation which go by non-Mendelian inheritance, these are all simply variations, natural selection is blind in deciding which traits will be passed on and which traits lead to an evolutionary dead end.

Quote

I think such discussions won't give any credibility to the spacetime curvature hypothesis.

It doesn't, but such discussions are important to understand how science works.

[qsa]

Anilkumar, on 21 April 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Space does not stretch. The observational discrepancies generated due to differences in the conditions of observers create the illusion that the Space distorts. The length contraction is an observational discrepancy not a physical change. And GR/Mathematics can precisely give an estimation of these discrepancies.




Does QM prove that spacetime is the entity that underlies beneath the curvature indicated by the mathematics of GR.

In SR the observers measurement depends on his relative velocity and it is considered REAL and not an illution. That is your take which really shows what kind of a problem you are having.

The business of modeling physics have been going on for hunderds of years, and accepted by ALL humans. They accepted it because of the benefits. You must of heard, Knowledge is power, and that is attained by standard scientific methods. Hence, your assertion that such methods keep us in the dark is utterly incorrect, to put it mildly.

You have bypassed my arquement that in all areas of physics from hundred of years all we do is model. We use wavefunction in QM , and we don't even know if it is real or not, yet it works remarkably. Address this issue, do not run away from it. BTW, this is how science works. We make REASONABLE assumptions and if that leads to a theory that predicts something that we can measure in lab, then we say the assumptions are TRUE no doubt, unless a new knowledge comes to light.

This post has been edited by qsa: 22 April 2012 - 12:20 AM

[Anilkumar]

immortal, on 21 April 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

For Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, he equated the effects of gravitation to an accelerated frame of reference Gravity and Acceleration and acceleration was a consequence of geometry or the curved surface of space-time From acceleration to geometry, his equations shows us how the curvature of space tells matter to move. Matter is not directly influencing the motion of other matter with a gravitational force or a field.

Gravitational field theory is derived from the same Einstein's equations, so you want to accept only part of the solutions from those equations and dismiss those solutions which says how much space-time has curved just because it contradicts your pre-concieved metaphysical notions of space-time?

Hello everybody, hello Immortal.

The cause of the birth of the illogical "spacetime curvature" hypothesis

To say it in one simple sentence, the root cause of the birth of the illogical "spacetime" curvature hypothesis is;

"The attempt to explain Gravity, geometrically with the help of Riemannian geometry". I am not saying it is wrong to attempt to explain Gravity, geometrically with the help of Riemannian geometry, but instead I am saying it has lead to the wrong conclusion that Space gets curved.

Because;

When "Riemannian geometry" is employed to enumerate something, the results, after processing which, the Riemannian geometry presents to us is; in terms of "how much something is curved" or "how much some thing is not curved". But, as I also said earlier in the thread, it does not take into consideration whether, the entity that it is attributing the curvature to, is capable of getting curved or not.

But why was Riemannian geometry employed?

Because of the analogy & convenience,

• All events occur in 4 spatiotemporal dimensions. And the description of the generalization from the geometry of a plane to that of a general curved surface could be generalized to higher dimensions with Riemannian geometry.
• The transition from an inertial reference frame to a rotating reference frame is analogous to the transition from a Cartesian coordinate system to a Curved coordinate system.
• To equate Gravitational field with a freely falling reference frame, the tidal forces must be eliminated; similarly to equate a Curved surface to a plane surface the Curvature must be eliminated.

So that's it.

---------------------Gravity = Curvature


But can Space get curved?

Can we prove that Space can get curved?

How would we explain the curvature of vacuous-ness of the Space?

How would we explain 'matter does not encounter any resistance while moving in free space'?

Isn't curvature an attribute of the physical bodies which have a structure, and internal forces of their own which keep them in that structure?

Or should we conveniently deny the existence of Space?

Or should we conveniently say that we don't know the nature of Space?

Or should we conveniently say that nature of something is not the subject of Science?

Can we attribute such properties to entities which contradict their nature?

No that would be too luxurious.

The spacetime curvature hypothesis is contradictory to the evident practical behavior of Space.

The basis for the hypothesis that Space gets curved is just an Analogy.

We need to change our interpretation.

The Curvature that the Riemannian geometry points to is the curvature in the paths of motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter.

immortal, on 21 April 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Its quite clear from this thread that irrespective of what your expertise is you need to know the Math in order to completely understand scientific concepts and to do some real science, sciences needs predictions to falsify certain claims and math provides it by quantifying it.

The issue here is not Mathematics. The issue is whether Space has the ability to get curved or not.

---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * *

qsa, on 22 April 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

In SR the observers measurement depends on his relative velocity and it is considered REAL and not an illution. That is your take which really shows what kind of a problem you are having.

In fact you should be saying this to yourself, because;

I did not say the "observer's measurement" is an illusion. I said the observational discrepancy i.e. the Length contraction or the distortion of Space is an illusion.

qsa, on 22 April 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

The business of modeling physics have been going on for hunderds of years, and accepted by ALL humans. They accepted it because of the benefits. You must of heard, Knowledge is power, and that is attained by standard scientific methods. Hence, your assertion that such methods keep us in the dark is utterly incorrect, to put it mildly.

I never said such methods keep us in the dark.

qsa, on 22 April 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

You have bypassed my arquement that in all areas of physics from hundred of years all we do is model. We use wavefunction in QM , and we don't even know if it is real or not, yet it works remarkably. Address this issue, do not run away from it. BTW, this is how science works. We make REASONABLE assumptions and if that leads to a theory that predicts something that we can measure in lab, then we say the assumptions are TRUE no doubt, unless a new knowledge comes to light.

We know that Space is real. We know its behavior. And we are conveniently running away from Space and its behavior, to accommodate an illogical assumption.

This post has been edited by Anilkumar: 15 May 2012 - 02:11 AM