Anilkumar

So straight believing in accepted theories and not objecting to what one feels is inappropriate and not attempting to venture into new areas won't adversely affect Science? The prudent, do not get annoyed. How kind! Some of the believers of whatever comes from top, and those who consider that majority opinion is right opinion and so all further discussions be barred and the majority opinion be accepted, have also received the equal regimen of immunizations against logic and evidence. Yes. Speculation is thus. Possibility of failure is in the very nature of speculation. It is something like trial & error. Edison failed a thousand times or so before he hit upon the right idea to make the bulb. If he was stopped and shunned away as a crackpot for the 999 failures, we would have been in darkness until the gifted person who finds the bulb in one single attempt [the so-called Real Scientist] is born. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Yeah, The greatest pleasure in life is got; when someone nods his/her head in affirmation, to what is said to him/her. And yeah, The greatest pain in life is got; when trying to educate a stubborn ignorant person who hates defeat even if it comes in the form of Truth. Because she cannot recognize Truth, as she does not have the information, as to how to recognize the Truth. An idea to get constant eternal pleasure:- The greatest idea to keep oneself away from this pain and keep oneself in eternal pleasure; is to sit inside & lock oneself in a window-less classroom full of brain dead dummies, who know nothing but nodding in affirmation, to whatever is professed before them. A few more options:- Ask all the governments of the world to decree and stop all speculation. Subject those who speculate to capital punishment. Declare all Speculators as Untouchables, as it was in India before the advent of the Europeans. Take advice from the likes of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Adolph Hitler Etc to find ways to make people quietly nod their heads to whatever is said to them, and not to oppose with their nonsense thoughts lurking inside their devilish brains & ask questions opposing established scientific theories. But I have my doubts; The urge to speculate, stems from the urge to search for Truth, from the urge to answer questions that rise in one's mind and sometimes times to create something new, to do something new, to adventure. So by stopping speculation, are we not curbing, Search, Creativity, Adventure? And if all the speculators are eliminated from the face of the earth and only soldier-like highly disciplined and obedient people who are obedient and stick to schedule, rules and regulations would remain behind. And the world would become a military regiment running smoothly in machine like precision. And all the advantages that the adventurous, creative fools [i call them fools because they are ecstatic and disobedient] generate will vanish from the face of the earth. And a question pops up in my devilish brain. [Thankfully Speculation is not forbidden yet] People like Christopher Columbus; who wanted to go westward to India while everyone was going eastwards, William Harvey; who dissected the bodies of his father & sister and stole graves, [i won't take the sacred name of Albert Einstein who denounced the then established Ether theory, for fear of violating the sanctity of the Sanctum Sanctorum of scientific world. It is a code of silence. You are not allowed to utter the name unless you have a PhD and you have a sanction from the scientific world] belong to which group? Speculators or the Regimented? I have another thought; The change in the world, from Stone Age to the Internet Age that has been brought about is because of Speculation and Experimentation, not because of Hitler like Regimentation. Suggestion:- It is the humane & prudent duty of the Expert, who himself is an accumulator of Information, to educate the reckless & adventurous Speculators who want to venture to bring unknown Information, so that they [the Speculators] bring relevant information. And then if they bring relevant information, keep it, or else discard it giving reasons, by doing which, they will run back again, till their hunger to venture to bring unknown information is satiated. Discarding without giving reasons is dictatorial. Intolerance & Impatience leads to losses. And then; Which is the most respectable thing in the world? Expertise, No doubt. But so is the attitude to challenge; because it is nothing but 'Risk appetite'. Which is the most detestable thing in the world? It is Pigheadedness. No doubt. But so are Intolerance, Impatience and despotism. A question for thought What are the uses of Expertise? [Hint: I feel the purpose of becoming knowledgeable is to impart knowledge, and not to lock oneself inside a Sanctum sanctorum of restrictive rules & regulations.] I feel Intolerance, Impatience, Derision and Despotism have already made the Speculations section too strict for the Speculators to speak their minds. Knowledge becomes useful only when it is accompanied by Patience, Tolerance, be it the Expert or the Speculator. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * If one is worried about what is good for this forum, then the best thing for this forum is to stick to reasoning instead of all this talk. These are all the manifestations of the frustration due to the inability to reason. I request you to recognize this person. She is Anne Sullivan, who was an Irish-American teacher who taught the Deaf, Dumb and young [unexposed] child, Helen Keller. Anne Sullivan didn't complain. Only lesser mortals would do that. That is why she was called The Miracle Worker. Teaching is a sacred profession. Teaching is a science. A teacher is a scientist who invents ways to convince the most intransigent unapproachable pupils. Good teachers make this world. There is a scene in the 2001 Movie "The Mexican" where a couple whose romantic relationship gets so complicated because of the erratic behavior of the Protagonist that the female character decides to break up, though the man wants to continue. And it so happens that she finds an unlikely caring friend in the Antagonist. And during one of their friendly talks about life, the Antagonist asks the lady; Antagonist: I am going to ask you a question. It is good one, so think about it. The woman looks at him curiously. The Antagonist continues: If two people love each other. . . . But they just can't seem to get it together . . . when do you get to that point of, enough is enough. The woman: [she gives an answer that she herself considers was wrong because when the Antagonist gives the answer, she feels his was the right answer. And then when she meets her lover/Protagonist next, she puts the same question to him, and the Protagonist effortlessly gives the same answer that the Antagonist had told her, that she had considered was the right answer. Then they get on well.] The Antagonist says: When two people love each other . . . totally . . . truthfully, all the way love each other . . . the answer to that question is simple. . . . When do you get to that point, where enough is enough? . . . . the answer is . . . never. I wonder, if to get the total sensation of the gravity of the above scene, one must be in love? Teaching is not an easy task. Mere accumulation of correct information does not make good teachers. One needs the humane qualities of tolerance, patience and affection. To the one who truly is desirous to teach, to educate others, the complicated erratic behavior of the pupil NEVER gets to that point of enough is enough. One must recognize the fact that the THING that brings us to the point of enough is enough is nothing but INTOLERANCE. That is the test of the limit of the ability, to remain humane. Once in a while when a person becomes so humane that her TOLERANCE becomes TOTAL, beings like Jesus, Buddha, Mahaveera . . . are created. Un-useful beings, who want to wield the power of their possessions to command respect, obedience and achieve pride, are created daily. What do we do when it becomes difficult to convince our child? Throw her out? Lock her up in a room? Tape her mouth? Science is gathering of Knowledge by Speculating and Experimenting. Science is not simply acquiring that gathered Knowledge. Acquisition of Knowledge to make it available wherever necessary is Utility of Science for sustenance of Science & Life. Truth has not appointed anybody as its saviors, because Truth is self-sustaining, self-evident and can't be destroyed. The only thing we can do is struggle to see it in the eye. We are all children of Truth. You can experiment with it however, you want, as long as you are willing to discuss before deciding. All those who behave, as the guardians of Truth, are the despotic, who want to make Truth their sole property and them its Masters. If one understands Truth better than the other, it becomes one's duty as the child of Truth, to help the other, to understand our mother better. The existence of this Forum is a proof that, there are more number of the children of Truth, who understand the necessity to spread Truth, than the despots who want to own Truth. It is rightly said, Truth is God. And God needs no guardians of protection. At the most, we can be messengers. But it is part of life that, history has had its share of authoritarian priests and their bunch of sycophants. It is another story that those priests and the yes-men lost their ground, as humanity evolved. New kinds of priests will be born, and they will lose their ground too, as we evolve.

Hello ACG52, Nice to have you back again. Thank you. Sorry for the delay in replying. It takes me time to convert my thoughts into appropriate words. The accuracy of the predictions is not a proof to say that Mass curves Space-time. The accuracy is due to the reason that; The Riemann geometry measures the curvature i.e. the alteration in the path of motion of Matter in the Gravitational field and that curvature or alteration in path is due to the FORCE applied on Matter, and that Curvature is proportional to the FORCE. Hence, the accuracy of the Riemann geometry lies in the fact that, it measures the effects of that FORCE manifested in terms of the Curvature accurately. There is no need to assume that space-time is curved. It is not necessary. It is irrational, scientifically illegitimate, wrong, to say that Space & Time get curved by Matter. Because we have established beyond doubt that Space & Time cannot get curved. The Method 4 in Post#155 on page-8, which establishes that FORCE and Curvature are proportional; and the explanation given in the Attachment in Post#158 on page-8, which proves that Light only bends when a force is applied on it and merely the accelerating frame is incapable of bringing a bend in the path of the Light; and the Methods 1, 2, 3 in Post#155 on page-8, which prove that Space & Time cannot be curved; are Solid Proofs that Gravity is not space-time curvature but is a FORCE and space-time cannot be curved. I request you to kindly take a look at the proofs & evidences given in the Attachment and the Methods 1, 2, 3, & 4 if you are actually sincere in discussing this issue. The FORCE which is the cause of the Curvature in the paths of motion, has been eliminated unnecessarily and the onus of that Curvature has been laden on Space & Time, which are incapable of, doing any physical activity or taking part in any physical activity, so incapable of providing that curvature. GR measures the effects of that FORCE, which are manifested in the form of Curvature of the Paths. It cannot and does not explain or describe that FORCE. It can only measure that Force & its effects by describing its manifested Curvature in the paths of motion. It is not a tool to explain or describe that FORCE and nor is it a tool that explains Space or Time. Therefore, it is not right, if on the basis of GR Space or Time are declared Notions or that they get curved. By the available information regarding Space & Time, it is absolutely clear that they are not Notions and the space-time does not get curved. The space-time curvature hypothesis is contradicted both ways, even if Space & Time are considered as Notions or that they are considered what they really are. It is negated both ways. This is another solid proof that the hypothesis is wrong. They are not my assertions. [Who am I to assert?]. They are logical findings. They won't let me believe in the space-time curvature hypothesis. Neither should you. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Are you on the Science discussion forum? Don't you know that discussing & deciding, to know what is Science & what is not, is never a waste of time? By doing that, one is serving Knowledge & Humanity. Whose? Time shall tell. You are capable of only doing that. A person, who is incapable of reasoning, picks up the Gun and shuts up the other's mouth. You have shown your dictatorial capability, elsewhere in another thread too, where you were talking of restricting the Speculation forum. You must know, Humanity has purged all dictators, whenever they emerged. You forget. I have gone round the block, the equal number of times, telling why & how you are wrong. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * StringJunky Your attitude, shows your disregard for the Logical, Falsifiable, Evidential proofs available. I have regards for the fact that GR is successful in predicting. And I am trying to give reasons as to why, despite its accurate predictions, the assumed space-time curvature hypothesis is wrong. But you haven't given yet, one reason why the arguments placed by me are wrong. Yes, the GR is accurate in predicting, but that does not nullify one single bit of, the scientific information available regarding Space & Time, which is sufficient to prove that space-time does not have the ability to curve. I will prove it here that the accuracy of GR in predictions is not a proof that space-time curves, because there is solid evidence to prove that the space-time cannot get Curved. Despite the proofs, one's sticking to the illogical hypothesis of space-time curvature for the wrong reasons; that the accuracy of the results of predictions of GR is a proof for the space-time curvature hypothesis [even though the accuracy of GR is independent of the space-time curvature hypothesis], or that it is widely accepted, or that it is endorsed from the high podium, or that it is there since a long time, or due to hesitation to go against prevalent beliefs; show that one's approach is un-scientific, political, sycophantic, credulous and cowardly. Do you have any explanation to show that the Methods in Post#155 and the Attachment in Post#158 [which you have not read] are wrong? No, you do not have any.

I don't understand why you come to that conclusion? Whatever I have said has nothing to do with the Equivalence principle. Whatever I have said throughout the thread is not based on the Equivalence principle. Everything I have said stands to be true independent of the Equivalence principle. The reason for saying this is a [Deliberate?] clear lack of consideration of the behaviors of Matter, Space and Time. See the inconsistencies in the above theory; On the one hand, it says Space & Time are notions. On the other hand it says Mass tells Space-time how to curve. Does Mass tell the notions how to curve? Again, see the inconsistencies in the above theory; On the one hand, it says Space & Time are notions. On the other hand, it says Space & Time are what we measure with the foot-rule and the clock. Are we measuring notions? Does it mean the measurements of the foot-rule and the clock are notions? Again, see the inconsistencies in the above theory; To the question 'How can Space & Time get curved?' the answers given are; We don't know what Space & Time are. [A clear denial/concealing of the available information regarding Space & Time]. We don't know how Mass curves Space & Time. [An irrational assumption that Mass curves space-time is made on the basis of concealing/denying the knowledge of the available information regarding Space & Time, whereas Matter cannot do anything to Space and Time]. The denial/concealing of knowledge are done to accommodate the irrational theory. However, the available information, which is being concealed or is being denied, clearly tells us that; Mass/Matter can affect neither Space nor Time. Space & Time do not interact with anything in this Universe. Matter is the only thing that has the ability to interact and interacts with itself/other Matter. Matter cannot interact with Space other than just occupying it, because there is nothing in Space with which Matter can interact. It is vacuous. Space & Time do not have the ability to interact with anything, in this Universe. This above information quoted in red is clearly available and I have made it obvious and its denial/concealing is not going to be helpful to us. Moreover, it will not help us get a clear picture of the Universe. Concealing or deliberate denial or showing ignorance of the available information to create accommodation for an illogical hypothesis is not a scientific method. In addition, it is not going to help us get appropriate picture of things around us. Wrong. Everything is not Relative. I have given reasons for that in post#167.

I am not saying it Immortal, the facts, the figures, the logic, the experiment say it. It does not violate anything. It simply shows that a frame in acceleration is not equivalent to a frame in Gravity, or that, Gravity is not only Acceleration.

You did not read the attachment. Your getting disinterested is unfounded, because you haven't read the reasoning given in the attachment. I did not say bending of light is an illusion. I said bending of light in a Lift is an illusion. I have no disagreement with this except the 'also' in it, bracketed by me. And this again shows you hadn't read the attachment, when you posted the above. Please read the attachment [and Method-4 in Post#155 later again] and then see if you feel what you have said above is wrong. I had Matter particles with mass, in mind. Not magnet/charged particles. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Don't derive superficial meanings. Read the line again. I have asked you to tell me why my logical statements are wrong. They cannot be wrong by mentioning that you became successful in business by using scientific methods. What I am saying here is that, you are not giving relevant reasons to prove that my logical statements are wrong. This is as good as saying that, "Give me better relevant reasons to prove that my logical statements are wrong. Your claim that you were successful in business by using scientific methods is not a relevant proof to prove that my logical statements are wrong". If you want, I will add what you are exclusively highlighting, and that I had omitted thinking that it is understood. "I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business by using scientific methods" Basically you are attacking a straw-man created by yourself. The straw-man created by you here is, your claim that "a logical statement is not scientific". And then you are attacking that straw-man by saying, "Success in business came by using scientific methods, so one should use scientific methods." The basic thing is that you don't have a proof that my arguments are wrong. So you are giving irrelevant reasons. And now you are on to hype something else, more irrelevant. Throughout the thread you have given the most irrelevant reasons. Science is about being honest. It is about knowing the Truth. So when we are discussing about science matters we need to be honest. If one is not honest while discussing science matters one is not scientific. You will see that your prediction will be wrong, about DH post. Do you at least acknowledge what a Mathematical proof is? Here is a gist of it from here & here The picture in the attachment proves that The Light bending in a Lift is an illusion. The falsifiable methods given in Post#155 and the figure in the attachment on Post#158 are perfect examples of the above explanation. And also I have given predictions and experiments to derive empirical evidence from. And there is a simulation in Method 4. I think this is sufficient proof to establish something. But my revered friend qsa, mere proofs are not sufficient to make a person accept Truth. That person must also have a good heart, which has the willingness to give Truth its due place. All this is a continued build-up on your original hoax. You say "Mathematics is more than just logic." So you at least agree that Logic is a factor in Mathematics. And Mathematics is scientific. And my arguments are logical. And that itself shows that my arguments are scientific. You keep building on that hoax because, you don't find anything wrong in my arguments, but you want to maintain that 'you can't have been wrong spending all those years doing science'. So you think that the difference in the time spent, doing science between you & me is the cause of the difference in perception of the space-time curvature hypothesis between you & me. No my elderly friend. The difference is that, you are not thinking logically. That is the mistake. The GR described those things that were enigmatic, till the time it arrived. And that made us believe that GR gives the right picture of the world around us. But the thing is that GR only describes the effects of Gravity. Or to be precise; GR describes the effects of Relativity meticulously. But to consider, that itself is the Absolute picture of the world around us would be a great blunder. If you want to continue with that blunder, I have no problem. It was my duty to apprise you. I have fulfilled it. God won't have any reasons to hate me. GR is a theory that describes and accounts the effects of Relativity. It is not a theory of Gravity. Relativity is just an illusion created by the [magnitude of the] relative motion of the observer's reference frame with the observed frame. It is not the real picture of the world around us. [This is the logical conclusion that has been derived by the attachment on post# 158. If some are not interested to take a look, I have no problem. If some consider that, what they believe is Science and all that others say against it is not Science and so it is least necessary to take a look at what others say, I have no problem.] And my respected elderly friend the fact remains that, to say one's number of years spent doing science or the conclusion that one can't be wrong is a proof for holding something as the Truth, is not scientific method. You talk of scientific method. Let me tell you which is the best and the foremost scientific method. Reasoning. And also specific reasoning. Shying away from it or giving irrelevant reasons is not science. If we don't want to be proved wrong, we don't want to accept Truth and we are not being scientific. And it also shows we are cheating. And we are holding ourselves above Truth. Not a good humane quality. No I don't want to learn such tricks. I don't believe in supporting my claims with hoaxes. I love Science. I don't want to ruin it. And let me remind you, the real people of Science don't do such tricks. They are happy to welcome a Truth. And that is what is called as being scientific. Not hoaxing or using tricks. [Now don't tell me again, that I am twisting words. It is you who is twisting the words by claiming that what I am saying logically is not scientific, throughout.] Yes certainly by the same talk, you will not be able to find out what is wrong with my theory because . . . There is nothing wrong with it. It is logical, it is falsifiable, it is empirical and it can be simulated. So you have to, create hoaxes, do some tricks etc to deny it. And founded the straw-man, and said my logical statements are not scientific, because I have not spent many years doing science. Yes I haven't spent as many as you did, but you haven't shown what is wrong with my logical arguments. Just mentioning that I have not spent many years doing science can't make my arguments wrong. It only shows that you don't have an argument to show that my arguments are wrong, so instead you are clinging on to an irrelevant argument. And the time period one takes to understand something is different for each person. Some don't understand even if they spend their whole lives meddling with something. It shows by the way you are arguing that you are an example. It is rightly said. The more we cling to Falsehood, the more we degrade ourselves.

So you want a formula now, to say that Space exists. What is the formula that says Space does not exist, it's a notion? What a pity, despite your experience you can't differentiate between prose & logic. Everything I have said is based on logic, and logic is scientific method. But you think logic is not a good standard in science? I have presented falsifiable Methods in post #155. I have established beyond the slightest doubt that the light bending in the Lift is an illusion. There is a simulation in Method 4. You could have brought out the errors in one of them. You could have brought out the irregularities in the steps taken by logic. You could have brought out the mistakes in the conclusions that have been derived logically. You don't discuss these things but keep bringing up a hoax created by your own self. These things have been discussed before. You disregard that. Such discussions or tactics can only be done to keep the mill running, helping none. I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business. These are no reasons. It also shows there are no better reasons. And nothing can be derived by such discussions. "A logical statement is wrong if it does not contain any formulas" – Kindly tell us the formula that gave you this outcome. This is another big joke. And you claim to be part of the scientific world, with all your unconnected reasoning. God help Science & the scientific world and those who learn from you. You need to expressly know that; [if you are so fanatic about Mathematics,] "Mathematics is nothing but Logic in symbolic language" and, ---- I "Formula is constructed using the symbols and rules of Logic". And, ---- II "Whatever arguments I have given are absolutely logical" ---- III From I, II and III, we can arrive to the conclusion that; "Every argument I have presented is equivalent to and can be converted into Mathematical deduction". When someone is placing logical arguments they are actually placing basic mathematical arguments. Logic is the basic ingredient of Mathematics. Without Logic there is no Mathematics. I respect Mathematics because I respect Logic. Those who don't respect Logic don't know what Mathematics is. They are simply fascinated by its symbols and precision. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Immortal, I find there is no point in discussing with you. When an issue is properly answered, the issue ends. You don't even care to read the answer [leave aside discussing appropriateness/inappropriateness of the answer], exclusively written to address the issue raised by you but you keep repeating the question. It shows you are least interested in addressing the issue, but more interested in keeping it inconclusive. Your intentions seem disingenuous. You are not concerned with the Logic/Science/Knowledge involved in my arguments. You have concerned yourself more with establishing that you can't be wrong. You are trying to establish that the hoax you were clinging to is impossible to be wrong. You need to give Truth, its place my friend. In order to show that you are not wrong; you are running about searching for pretexts to pit against. The more one tries to establish the Wrong, the more one converts oneself into a guardian of Falsehood. We need to be judicious enough to know that Truth is indestructible. It cannot be subdued, smothered. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * If among two opposing arguments our argument happens to be false and if we are feeling the [unnecessary] pinch, considering that to be a 'defeat' then; Do you know which is the Greatest Victory? It is conceding defeat, when we come to know that we are opposing Truth. Do you know who is the one; that is victorious, when one concedes defeat to Truth? It is our Prudence that becomes victorious. Do you know who is the one; that loses when we concede defeat to Truth? It is the Falsehood in us that loses. Who the victorious is, depends upon, who you consider you are; the Prudence or the Falsehood. Truth does not endeavor to defeat, it only enlightens. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * This is in continuation with post#160 You were pretty swift [within five minutes I suppose] in calling my post nonsense, but you couldn't show me where I was wrong, as fast as that. I feel your reply was the one that was nonsense for the following reasons; You called it nonsense without having an argument. You gave the comment without even caring to read the post in totality along with the [necessary] attachment. And due to all the above reasons your post was, abusive. [being abusive is the first characteristic of a Non-scientist] Let me tell you who the Non-scientist is; A Non-scientist is a person who does not recognize shortcomings even when someone sincerely makes them obvious. The scientist recognizes it with pleasure since she loves truth. The Scientist lives for Science/Knowledge, so cares for [the shortcomings of] science. The Non-scientist lives on Science/Knowledge, so cares for the stand [that he has taken]. Like the politician who talks on public service. But actually lives on it. When you tell someone is nonsense; you also have to tell why? If you don't know the 'why?', then you are nonsense. The scientist knows why he thinks someone is nonsense, and tells it. The Non-scientist doesn't know. He calls someone nonsense to secure his stand and to please himself and others like him, [and save his stand point] because he is a Nonsense, Inconsiderate and a Nuisance too. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Giving curt answers like 'Nonsense', 'Ridiculous babble' without giving any reasons, is nothing but Wrath; the wrath which is born out of impatience, intolerance and the pride of possessing the extra/more information. People tend to make wrong statements because there is lack of right information with them. But that does not give the person with more information to spill his wrath on the less informed. How would you like it; if someone walking behind you is in hurry and also possesses a bit of extra muscles and pushes you aside with his elbow while you are walking on a street, because you were not walking as fast as him & so obstructing his way? The humane qualities [like being patient and tolerant] in human beings make them great beings and not their extra possessions. In a discussion forum someone says something wrong because she doesn't know it is wrong. Only when she says it; will the world come to know it is wrong and only then it can correct it. If you create such an atmosphere [by spilling your wrath over those who say wrong things] where in people hesitate to say what they want to say in fear of incurring your wrath lest she say something wrong; then you and your waste wrath are responsible for keeping the world ignorant. After all a discussion forum is meant for spreading knowledge through discussions and not for abusing of the less-informed by the knowledgeable or for venting the wrath (born out of the pride of possessing extra something) by the knowledgeable on the unknowing. A forum is not a place like the Coliseum where the skilled [possessing extra combat techniques] kill the unskilled and others watch in amusement. The difference between the informed and the ignorant is nothing but extra/more information. That extra something doesn't give you the right to take a dig at those with less possessions. And mind it sometimes the extra information you posses & think is right could be wrong also. If you think what I am saying is nonsense, substantiate it with reasons and discuss. We both will know who nonsense is. If I am proved nonsense I will thank you for removing my ignorance. If you are incapable of giving reasons, you don't have the right to say it is nonsense. You can't run away after spilling your waste wrath on me. I don't need it; I will return it to you. If you want to give information give it. If you want information take it from those who give it. Don't instill fear in innocent hearts. This forum is for exchanging Information not Waste. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * I have been accused of trying to single handedly rewrite GR. This is off-beam thinking. If I wanted to do that, why would I be here? I would have straight away written a small book and self published it. I have come here thinking that "Look I feel people haven't noticed this. Let me keep this before them. Though my idea is correct, I cannot be accurate in all aspects. Here wiser people would give it a better shape. And together we could give birth to a better picture of our knowledge about Gravity, Space, Time, GR and other things". At the very beginning of this thread or I think "Curved space" thread I used the phrase "This thread will correct . . .". I did not use the phrase "I will correct". I started this thread, which does not mean this thread is exclusively mine. It belongs to everybody who participated in it. And I also said ". . . and we all will be part of this". Sooner or later someone ought to have done this. We are doing it now. What is wrong with it? Why are you maligning this effort? ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * But when I am perturbed by sinister motives I always pacify myself with gems of these words. "People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway. The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway." ― Kent M. Keith ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * I know I have been into some silly talk not concerning the subject of the thread at times. But I never did it unless I was provoked & dragged into it with the ill intentions of derailing/hijacking my doing. I have seen; there are some great people on the forum like D H, AJB, Swansont, Spyman, Mellinia, Michel123456, Ewmon, IM Egdall & some others [i haven't observed many] who control emotions and strictly confine their posts to Pure Arguments concerning the subject [concentrating on giving solutions to issues raised, logically criticizing the argument, providing related evidence etc]. Someone has rightly said 'Honesty is the mark of wisdom'. Besides everything else this forum helps us to evolve into better persons by allowing us the opportunity to watch great wise people closely. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * To the moderators, I have issues pertaining to theories expressed in some posts of other threads. I cannot discuss them there because my arguments would be considered offbeat/speculative. I would like to discuss them here because the issues concern and are relevant to the subject of this/my thread. If I am not allowed to do this, I request the moderators to guide me as to how & where I may discuss them. ". . . You think there is some universal reference against which one can measure velocity. There isn't. Everything is relative. . ." Respected sir, I think there is Universal reference against which one can measure velocity. And so everything is not relative. And the Universal reference against which one can measure velocity is the – "Absolute Space". [i have given below the excerpts of the detailed explanation of 'Why/How Space is absolute?' stated in the attachment on Post#158 of this thread.] In the Minskowski space-time; the place of each co-ordinate [x, y, and z] of the 3-dimensional Space is fixed in this Universe. They do not move with respect to each other. Each chunk of Space has a unique place of itself in the Universal Space. When some Matter particle moves, it moves with respect/relative to these fixed points or we can say it changes these co-ordinate points or gets displaced from point to point. But each space-time point remains where it is. Each co-ordinate point of Space is in the same place since the beginning of this Universe and will remain in that same place for the future infinite times, because it is vacuous. There is nothing to get displaced in it. And so also the state of rest of a stationary object too is absolute because it is holding an absolute part of the absolute Space, i.e. a stationary object identifies itself with the absolutely stationary co-ordinate points of the absolute Space, which it is resting at. A particle in the state of rest behaves like a fixed co-ordinate point of the Space. "The state of anything that is stationary relative to the stationary space-time co-ordinate points is absolute. The state of anything that is in motion relative to the space-time co-ordinate points or a stationary object is also absolute." All objects that are stationary/at rest are at absolute rest with each other. They are not moving relative to each other either in Space or in Time. And the velocity of an object that is moving with respect to an object at rest is also absolute. [i respectfully request you to kindly encourage by taking a look at the Attachment on Post#158 and the falsifiable methods by which I feel we can establish that Space is vacuous stated in Post#155 on Page-8 of this thread. It would help substantiate my above statement.] Thank you.

Thank you, for keeping me posted with good standards. But don't you think, it would have been more appropriate and genuinely helpful, to have identified the errors in the "Drawing, that I suppose, confirms the bending of Light as illusory", or to have indicated where you notice errors in my logic regarding "Why Ernst Mach's objections on Newton's Bucket experiment are improper", or to have specified why "my ideas on Motion" are wrong or regarding any other mistakes you found in any other things that you read in the attachment, than to have quoted from a best seller? I suppose that would have been the, good standard. Giving an elusive answer or opinion/Totally abstaining from giving an answer or opinion, by the question raiser [to an, answer, to the question raised]; is not one of the good forum standards, I suppose. Talking of good standards, instead of placing supporting argument, also shows; the absence of supporting argument and not a good standard too. Thank you

Beloved Ladies and Gentlemen, It is only through Figures [drawn in the attachment], can I prove that the bending of Light is an illusion. And unfortunately I don't know how to draw figures directly on the Forum page. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * ACG52, I am not the person who writes nonsense deliberately. I have written this because I am convinced that I am right, and hoping to be corrected if I am wrong. Otherwise why would I present it on a Forum; like this, where nonsense can't be written? I would have amused myself by . . . . I presented it here hoping to get the valuable opinion of the sensible people on the Forum, so that I can know whether I am right or wrong. But I also know that it is part of life that there are people who say something is nonsense without even placing an argument, because they don't have one and at the same time don't want to give up their stand. What are Discussion Forums meant for? For arguing or, just for saying something is nonsense without arguing. But at the same time I also know that God has created the sane people too, who are lovely enough to give a patient hearing even to the imprudent and give their kind advice. Can't you show me where I am wrong?

No Immortal, I do not have any problems with anything. But the space-time curvature hypothesis is the one that has problems with itself, and we are feeling it difficult to recognize it. This is a good question. And the answer to this question is in two parts. The first part deals with – As to why Light bends in the Lift? And the second part deals with - Whether Light really bends inside the Lift? Though the two questions seem contradictory with each other, but you will recognize that they are not, as you go through. As to why Light bends in the Lift The case of the lift is a case of imitation, of the conditions, in a reference frame; of the conditions similar to those in the reference frame that exists inside a Field of Gravitation. When conditions in two frames are similar, the perception and behavior of things inside those reference frames also tend to be similar. Acceleration is one of the characteristics of Gravitational field. When a reference frame is subjected to a condition of being in acceleration, light and other things inside it, behave [or are perceived to behave] as they, behave [or are perceived] inside a field of Gravity. I.E. the lift is a simulation, of the reference frame which exists inside a Gravitational field. The case of the Lift was considered to understand and reveal the characteristics of Gravity. But that Lift, or a frame in acceleration, cannot become a substitute to Gravitation. Gravitation is a natural property of Matter, it's not space-time curvature. Besides Acceleration it has other characteristics like, Affinity towards other Matter. Freefall is the thought experiment that led us to GR. But Freefall also lead us to the mistake of discarding Space & Time as mere measurements of the Foot-ruler & the Clock. Freefall showed us that the characteristic of Gravity is similar to a frame in acceleration. We rushed to substitute Gravity with Acceleration. But there was an oversight. Gravity has a cause, a natural cause. It comes from something. And we had to name that something, we had to assign it to something. Now since we had ruled out Gravity, and but we had to give a reason for the fall of the objects, the orbits of the planets etc or as a whole for all the effects of Gravity, we looked at other possibilities. The Riemann geometry was pointing towards 'Curvature'. [The Riemann geometry can only point towards 'Curvature' but nothing else. Because it interprets everything in terms of how curved is something.] But curvature of what? There was nothing to assign that Curvature to. So the Curvature of the coordinate system, the space-time, itself was considered. But how could the ingredients of the space-time, the non-physical Space & Time, bend? We convinced ourselves that we don't know how they can bend and what they are. But now, we know from Methods 1 & 2 in the last post, that they cannot bend and what Space is. Now I request you to try to answer these questions. Why do Matter particles accelerate towards each other? I.E in the case of the Lift you artificially/manually accelerate it by applying a force on it OR you take a frame that is already in a state of acceleration due to some unknown cause. But here, why would Matter particles accelerate towards each other? For what reason? Where does that force of attraction come from? Or where would you bring the force with which you accelerate the lift, from? Now don't say that space-time curvature does it. We know for sure that Space, Time and so space-time, do not possess the ability to get curved. The space-time curvature hypothesis has done a lot of damage to our thinking process about Space & Time for a century and forced us to discard them as mere notions. A century of Human thought has been wrestled away. The GR is basically a tool to measure the effects of the Gravity. Please do not come to any conclusions regarding Space & Time with the help of that tool. The tool does not say anything about the behavior of Space & Time. It does not say anything regarding Gravitational field, either. I have discussed regarding where the strength of the accuracy of the available experimental evidence and observations that you point to, come from; under the sub-heading 'Method-4', in the last post. No, I stick with Logic & Reasoning. You seem to prefer the illogical & impractical space-time curvature hypothesis, I don't understand why. Immortal, I am trying, nonstop, since twenty years. This is all part of that 'Trying'. These are the matters that are obstructing me from comprehending the space-time curvature hypothesis. It is a pity we have considered it 'Advancement', for a century. It is in fact a Decline. And I am sorry for myself and others, because now I know that all my [and the entire mankind's] efforts for twenty [hundred] years, put to understand an absurd nonsensical theory, are in vain. It is a mystery, and History has revealed it many times that beliefs, even when truth is before hand, are hard to renounce. Is Truth so distasteful? Is Popularity so appealing, even to the extent of imbibing our ability to think? Even to the extent of making us suppress Truth? ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * This following material or the following content of this paper carries high value, because it will totally abolish a scientific concept about Gravitational field, which is prevailing for more than a century and was advocated by geniuses like Albert Einstein and others. I have not made this paper public anywhere in the world and not authorized anybody to make it public. It needs to be peer reviewed and then made public in a good mainstream scientific journal or published in the form of a book. Good mainstream scientific journals & book publishers are inclined to publish only unpublished articles. The Author of these ideas or the following material is hoping to publish it in a good mainstream scientific journal or publish it in the form of a book. And so he would like to protect his rights from being infringed. And consequently he has applied for copyright registration. Though the author declared these matters and discussed on the scienceforums.net, it does not amount to publishing in the form of an article in a mainstream scientific journal or in the book form. The following matter/content or this attachment to the thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" is a scientific paper. It is an intellectual property. Its owner is the person with the, Member's Display Name -'Anilkumar', on the website scienceforums.net. It is the person who has started this thread-"Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" which is a split from the thread "Curved Space" which was also started by him. No person, institute or website is authorized to copy, duplicate, distribute or reproduce in any manner, in any language and in any kind of media. Violation of which will lead to legal action. To scienceforums.net :- This following material or the following content of this paper, needs to be peer reviewed and then made public in a scientific journal, or in the form of a book. Good mainstream scientific journals & book publishers are inclined to publish only unpublished articles. I hereby request secienceforums.net to safeguard the copyright interests of the author taking into account the seriousness of the matter content of the paper. I have provided this material to scienceforums.net for discussions. And it can be used for, only discussions on this thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" till the time it is made public elsewhere by me, the author. - Anilkumar. Respected Ladies, Gentlemen & Immortal, I think the lift experiment is probably the biggest intellectual blunder of mankind. Does light really bend in the elevator?:- Let us now see if its bends or not. Like I had said earlier that the Length contraction and the Time dilation effects are illusions, now let us question if the bending of light inside an accelerating Lift is real? No, absolutely not. Light does not bend here. It is an illusion, too. There is no real bend in the Light beam inside the Lift. This is a wrong concept. Please click on the link below to open the attached file. Post Attachment.pdf

I have done it & presented below. But I suppose there is no place for Annoyance in scientific discussions. I feel, Science is for gathering & imparting knowledge. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Respected ladies, Gentlemen & Immortal, Following are the falsifiable Methods, by which, we can ascertain that Space exists and it cannot be curved; and consequently Time too. Method 1:- Let us consider two axioms first; 1. All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. To prove or falsify this Axiom, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted. Now I suppose; I don't have to get into the nitty-gritty of saying "Take a lump of physical matter of volume x cubic centimeters and . . ." 2. All physical objects move freely in Space. [Newton's first law, can be taken as a reference. – "Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it."] To prove or falsify this Axiom also, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted. Axiom 1 implies that; Space exists. Axiom 2 implies that; The Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. This again implies that, Space must be devoid of any structure or forces. This again implies that, Space is formless & vacuous. [see also, Method-2] By the implications of Axioms 1 & 2 we conclude that:- Space is a structure-less, formless, vacuous; so it can not get curved. Prediction:- Every physical matter particle in this Universe can be moved or displaced to any part of the Universe by applying a force equal to counter the following factors; The inertial mass of that object. The Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces that are holding that particle in its current position/state. Any other factor which is holding that particle in its current position/state or is hindering its displacement, the origin of which [or the cause of which] is physical Matter and nothing else. No other factor, that does not originate from [or the cause of which is not] the Physical matter of this Universe, needs to be countered. Because; "The Space which is the fundamental entity responsible for the existence of this Universe, which gives space to all the physical Matter of this Universe, to remain stationary in one place or to move about freely, is nothing but an empty vacuous that does not have a structure, inertial mass or any other physical attribute, so doesn't exert any force on anything of this Universe." Method 2:- Let us consider the axiom; The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter of the Universe is caused by the four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force. OR The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter is a consequence of their constituent four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force. I.E. these four fundamental forces give Physical structure to all the physical matter of the Universe. This axiom implies that; Any entity that possesses a physical structure emanates the four Fundamental forces. Prediction:- Wherever the four fundamental forces are detected, there will be detected, the presence of a 'Physical matter' from which they are being emanated. Empty Space does not emanate any fundamental forces. Because; "Space does not have a physical structure and it cannot emanate any fundamental forces. So Space cannot get curved. And the case of the Time is similar too." Method 3:- Let us consider the following axioms; Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of description of the extent of Curvature. Axiom 5 implies that; Riemann geometry studies the Curvature of the surfaces of bodies, but it cannot ascertain as to which the corpus is, that is responsible for that Curvature. Prediction:- With the help of Riemann geometry we can study the Curvature of surfaces/manifolds but we cannot determine or decide anything about the corpus that has caused that Curvature. So; "When Riemannian geometry attributes Curvature to things, on the basis of that, we cannot come to any conclusions regarding the corpus that underlies the curvature." And finally; If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] of the paths of motion of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies, then how would Riemann geometry be accurate in measuring an effect of Gravity, at all? OR If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] why are the results of GR/Riemannian geometry concurrent with observed facts, while Riemann geometry has nothing to do with Gravity? OR If Gravity was the cause of the Curvature/alteration [As I propose] why should the results of the Riemannian geometry, useful in studying the Curvature of manifolds, when applied to studying the effects of Gravity like GPRS, Light bending etc, be in match with the observed facts, while Riemann geometry has no relation to Gravity at all? That takes us to method 4. Method 4:- Let us consider the following axioms; Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of Curvature. All the events in the Universe occur in 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions. Minkowski space is a 4-dimensional coordinate system; the coordinates of which are 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions. Riemann geometry was employed to study the events in the universe because of the axioms I, III & IV. The Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles or its manifestations, moving/passing through the Gravitational field of a body, is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Gravitational force of that body. [Like for example- The curvature of the path of light passing in the vicinity of Sun is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Sun's Gravity.] These above axioms imply that; Riemannian geometry studies the Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 1 Gravity leads to Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 2 From 1 & 2; Riemannian geometry studies Gravity. This is the Overlap/match/concurrence. Prediction:- When any Particles of matter which are in motion are passed in the area of influence of an applied Force [even artificial force acting at a distance works] their paths of motion are altered/curved and subsequently if the resultant curved path of the particles is studied with the help of Riemannian geometry, then the Riemannian geometry presents the magnitude and effects of the Force applied in terms of the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the paths of motion. I.E. Riemannian geometry is incapable of measuring the magnitude of the Force applied, but instead it measures the effect of that force in terms of the curvature created by that applied Force; accurately. But just because Riemannian geometry cannot determine what caused the curvature/alteration in the path, we cannot deny the existence of the Force applied and say that the spacetime coordinates of the path of motion are curved. And so; "The quantity of the Force applied is directly proportional to the quantity of the Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles passing through the area of influence of the Force applied." I.E. Curvature is proportional to Force. So when we get the measure of the Curvature correctly, we are in fact getting the measure of the effects of Gravity accurately. That is precisely the reason why GR/Riemann geometry works. So here; "The magnitude of the Gravitational force of a body is directly proportional to the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the path of the motion of matter & its manifestations passing through the Gravitational field of that body." And; This concurrence or the matching of the mathematical results of GR/Riemannian geometry & the observed facts, do not sanction us the authority to deny the existence of Gravitational force and substitute it with curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is just an interpretation of Gravitational force by Riemann geometry. The concurrence occurs purely due to the proportionality. The above implications can be restated as follows:- Riemannian geometry measures the extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 1 Magnitude of Gravitational force is proportional to extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 2 From 1 & 2; "Riemannian geometry measures the effect & magnitude of the Gravitational force in terms of quantity of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion." "I.E. Riemannian geometry interprets the effects of Gravity in terms of extent of Curvature." And this is the reason why, we are able to measure/predict accurately the Curvature of the paths of motion of matter in the Gravitational field of macro bodies with the help of GR/Riemannian geometry. GR is nothing but Riemannian geometry as applied to the events occurring in the 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system. So from all the above methods we can deduce that "Space cannot get curved" and consequently Time too should not warp. Thanks & Regards.

Immortal, Swansont & Owl; Sorry for the delay in replying. I got stuck into something else. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Immortal You have mistaken. You have derived a superfluous meaning, a meaning that you would love to derive. It shows you love to be lead by popularity & not critical thinking. You staunchly wish to stick to & defend popular thoughts/beliefs by all means. That is the reason you developed a superfluous meaning. When I said these words "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 two questions [bolded now] must be read in the context of the questions before & after them. What I was saying was, that even though we know that Space exists and we also know its nature, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying the existence of Space, we are conveniently [to accommodate an illogical Hypothesis] denying that we know the nature of Space. The convenience adopted by us or to be precise the prevailing thought, that Space gets curved is that, it wants to hold on to its illogical Hypothesis and at the same time is incapable of holding on to the observable behavior of Space, so it has conveniently washed off its hands by denying the existence of Space itself. And so I asked "should we be doing this, for convenience's sake? I.e. denying and dropping or washing our hands off with well known facts to accommodate for an illogically assumed hypothesis" The two things can not co-exist i.e. the illogical hypothesis that the Space gets curved and the fact that the Space is vacuous. Riemann geometry says Space is curved, because it is not capable of saying it in terms of anything else. So that does not mean that something has to be curved. Something is curved only if it is in its nature to be curved. So we [i.e. those of us who believe in the popular thought that Space gets curved] have conveniently dropped the facts and chosen to stick to our prevailing thought, the illogical hypothesis that Space is curved. And at the same time dropped "critical thinking" too and stuck to 'following of popular beliefs'. I suggest rereading of the post with this intended meaning, and not to squeeze out any superfluous meaning which you feel pleasant. I did not present those questions as possible conclusions. Instead I said it is too luxurious to come to those conclusions. Adopting the tactics of convenience is Unscientific. As is; staunch defending of illogical popular beliefs by deriving superfluous meanings of posts is. These are the dirty tactics of those Attorneys who are trying to defend a crooked client and not the methods of scientific thinkers. It is disingenuousness. I feel; dropping critical-thinking & choosing popular-following can be catastrophically fatal like the Attorney's saving of a crook can be to her and to the society as a whole. For a scientific thinker; Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning [as opposed to Coercion] are 'the God', I suppose. They [Critical thinking, Logic, and Reasoning] can surely and certainly lead us to enlightenment, like God would, if he existed. Note: The repeated words in bracket, and under-linings were deemed necessary to prevent superfluous meanings being derived and later unnecessary long curative discourses from my side, like the one above. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Why Swansont? We know the existence of Space and its behavior/nature. Structure is a Physical attribute. Since we know from our observations that Space is Vacuous-ness, it can not have a structure i.e. curvature. Only Physical bodies can have Physical attributes. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Thanks. Nicely put. I read it now, but I have to re-read to understand it. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * I don't want to discuss the things discussed below here on this thread. But since the issues have been mentioned here, I feel it is my responsibility to give my opinion this one time. Further discussion, if any on this, can be taken up on another new thread as it is not the subject of this thread. ----------------------* * * * ***** * * * * The role of the Speculation section, I suppose, is to discuss separately those thoughts and opinions which are critical of the established concepts and those which are fresh. But I believe Criticism can also arise from our own Ignorance as much as it arises from Inquisitiveness, Innovativeness, Enthusiasm, even Ostentatious-ness and Brashness etc. Though the business of handling criticism is nerve wrecking sometimes, but I feel, any person, forum or entity would be doing justice to its own purpose only when he/she/it/they adopt the method of reasoning patiently and logically, taking all the criticism calmly and not adopting any iniquitous tactics like labeling all criticism as Crack-pottery, deriving superfluous meanings from posts and also when one gets exhausted with better ideas to convince, then tell the other person, whom you are trying to convince, that "you are too naive' or say 'you are a dead horse, no amount of flogging will help you'. Crack-pottery can not be stopped by calling a person a 'Crackpot'. Only reasoning can stop him. The question of my giving up doesn't arise. I firmly believe Truth can not be destroyed by any means. It shall prevail no matter what. It can not be destroyed by tactics. It does not need the backing of endorsements. Truth does not gain anything from the endorsee but instead the endorsee stands to gain from the Truth by endorsing it. Truth is self evident. Once it is bared, no thing in this Universe has the power to conceal it again. No amount of evading, opposing or disharmony would be fruitful in destroying it. That which is Mainstream is not always the Truth. I want to know the Truth. I have perceived something as True because it is based on logical reasoning, and there is evidence to support it, and I have presented it. A convincing counter argument has to be presented to prove that I am wrong. I am not discouraged by anything here. In fact I love this Forum. I suggest the spirit of Sportiveness, Friendliness, Reasoning and Coolness will keep anybody's going smooth. In fact I have encouraged my son to become a member too, as I feel it is useful in learning and getting a better understanding of scientific concepts. And he has started making good use of it. I have no clue as to why you were censored. But my views on Censorship are depicted in the following quotes; You have not converted a man because you have silenced him. - John Morley The sooner we all learn to disapprove than go for censorship; the better off society will be. Censorship cannot get at the real evil; it is an evil in itself. - Granville Hicks To reject the word is to reject the human search. - Max Lerner Censorship encourages people to believe nonsense. - John Christopher He is always the severest censor of the others who has the least worth of his own. - Elias Lyman Maggon The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas, not censorship. - Alfred Whitney Griswold I feel Reasoning, not Censorship is the weapon of Science. And but also: it is evil & unjust on our part, to assume in advance, that I would be subjected to Censorship. I joined this forum to get knowledge of and to clear my doubts on, scientific concepts and not to criticize scientific concepts. I got a better understanding of things like Free fall, Gravitational potential, EMF, Satellites in orbits etc thanks to affectionate interaction from the members & the people behind the forum. There is no denying that. But I could not digest the spacetime curvature hypothesis. So I have expressed my differences. Those of us who are critiquing established concepts of Science on the Forum may be finding it difficult to introduce our thoughts, which is natural. But for those of us who are trying to comprehend the established concepts of Science, the Forum is of great help. And in both these cases the concepts of Science are being put to test i.e. by both the Students and Critiques of Science. Whatever the outcome, ultimately it is Science/Knowledge that wins and not Critiques & people. And in that way, I feel the Forum is doing a great service to Science & the people.

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. The issue here is not Mathematics. The issue is whether Space has the ability to get curved or not. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * 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. I never said such methods keep us in the dark. 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.

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. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * 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. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * 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. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * 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. 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. 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. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * 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.

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.

Let's keep things that we are not certain about, like whether Gravity is a field or a particle, aside for a while and focus our discussion on things we are very certain about. How do we ascertain that the 'geometry' [about which the GR is]; is the geometry of spacetime? 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? No. Why because, there is convincing evidence that Space exists and Space is Vacuous. I have stated reasons for that. So it can not have a geometry. And so the geometry that the mathematics of GR indicates is not the geometry of spacetime, instead it is the geometry of the path of the motion of Matter in the vicinity of Matter. To be continued after the next para . . . {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.} Continued . . . The differential geometry of GR estimates the amount of that influence. It does not say where that influence comes from. It is we who are saying, it comes from spacetime. But I would prefer to say it comes from the 'influence'. Whether it comes from the spacetime or the 'influence', its estimation by GR with the help of Differential geometry stands accurate. Shouldn't the behavior, based on the scientific model, which Science attributes to nature, be a reality? The predictions that you are pointing out, in regards with the GR are the predictions regarding the curvature in the path of the motion. I have no objection over that. There is curvature; [the curved path of motion], and there is the tool [rather a great tool, because it does not require any information regarding the source of the curvature to calculate the amount of curvature]; to measure that curvature. The tool is mathematical. The curvature is estimated accurately. But only the estimation of the curvature is available. No information regarding the source of the curvature is available. And the spacetime curvature theory is nothing but Philosophy. We can't even call it philosophy, because it is illogical too. It is absurdity. Chunks of blocks, Rubber sheet, Digital signal, Crystal would all require an Empty, structure-less, Space to exist, because they have spatial extent. How did you know it gets curved? You say you don't even know it exists. I have already stated things by which we can know it exists and what it is. It is not my logical argument, but it is the way that Space behaves. We can certainly ascertain the existence of an entity and its properties on the basis of its behavior when we interact with it. At every instant we live in, and interact with, Space. And that is how it behaves with us. ----------------------------------------& Though I stick to my words, this debate could be the subject of another thread. ------------------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * And so is spacetime curvature hypothesis. It is not even evident, it is just a hypothesis. 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. ------------------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * Hello URAIN, I apologize for the delay of my postings. It takes me time to convert my thoughts in to right words. Perhaps I am taking precautions not to say anything that I would have to apologize later. Though a reply to your entire post would take a lot of time for me, I have decided to respond to you at least with what I felt immediately after reading your post. And then later, I could bring up the rest, after pondering in detail over your post. Consider this . . . An 'x' cubic meter of empty Space can give space to only 'x' cubic meter of Matter or less but not more than that. I will come up with the remaining response ASAP.

immortal, It is sad that you repeated/replicated your words three times. It shows your contempt. It is not my prerogative to repeat. I acted according as & how the situation demanded. I find that there is a typical attitude of contempt and disgust in some of the replies to the threads in the Speculation section. [Not found in the replies of some people and most experts. Some people are really so affectionate and knowledgeable even when they are facing the utmost ignorant person, that their patience and tolerance are commendable.] I agree that there is ignorance among people who question established scientific facts, just in order to attract attention or satisfy their ego. But a person who considers herself Seeker of knowledge instead of expressing contempt, I feel should reason them out. That is the best thing a knowledgeable person can do to help an ignorant person. Contempt would not achieve anything other than generating more contempt. Reasoning can make an ignorant person more knowledgeable, I feel. The person who instead of reasoning out, replies with contempt when established beliefs are questioned is not a knowledge seeker/provider but just a protector of established beliefs. The person who questions established facts to attract attention or satiate his ego and the person who expresses contempt on all those who question established facts, both lack virtue. I am not making any predictions because I have not proposed any new model. I am just questioning the spacetime curvature hypothesis. I am proposing a reconsideration of Gravitational field in place of spacetime curvature as the underlying entity that curves the path of motion of Matter in the vicinity of other Matter. Everything else of GR remains the same. I expect Science to answer questions that rise naturally due to the proposal of that scientific theory. Aren't the Scientific concepts, conceptualized to envision reality? In my struggle to understand life, existence, and the Universe I have gathered some knowledge from what I have read and heard. Accordingly my understanding of Space is as follows; Space is a formless, structureless, indestructible, indivisible, pure, one, inert, boundless (?), entity that lets itself to be occupied and which gives space to all the Matter of this Universe. All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. This shows that Space exists. All physical objects move freely in this Space. This shows that the Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. So it must be devoid of any structure or forces. So it is formless & vacuous. From all the above we can conclude that the Space is an empty vacancy which is formless and structure-less. So it does not have any properties other than letting itself to be occupied. So it can neither affect nor get affected by anything. What more evidence do we need to know the Space? Where does the Matter get the place it occupies, from? Where the place for Matter, to move about & interact, comes from? Why do we say we don't know what Space is? What prevents us from recognizing it? For all the Matter of this Universe to exist, and for all the interaction between the particles of Matter to take place, a space/place is necessary. Space provides it. ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * No. This is not an Ontological issue at all. When we hypothesize or describe or take conclusions regarding something, shouldn't we take into consideration its evident properties? Why are we denying the existence of Space as an entity? How could we create a model of this Universe, without giving credence to what the natural properties of Space must be? To place all the Matter of this Universe, and for all the interaction between the particles of Matter to take place, isn't it evident that it takes space? And what are the properties of this space? Isn't it evident from its behavior? Shouldn't the function that we assign to an entity be compatible with the evident properties of that entity and vice versa? Can we give a hypothetic behavior [for example space curvature] to something [for example Space] that we say we don't know what it is or whether it exists or not? Is this Science? OR Can we say we don't know what something is or whether it exists or not and yet give it a hypothetic behavior? Is this Science? ---------------------------* * * * ***** * * * * URAIN, Your argument must focus on the flaws I pointed out. We should not drift into a discussion of your writings; you have started a thread exclusively for that. But anyway . . . I have maintained all through that they are two different entities. Yes Space exists. It is Empty nothingness. It lets itself to be occupied.

Hello immortal, It is unfortunate; you forget that I have questioned it as many times. When the question gets repeated, the answer gets repeated too. I am not given the answer to the next question I present, but after a while I am presented with the former question again. And I am accused of repeating things, with an advice attached, saying 'this is taking us no where'. What am I to do? Close this thread? Doesn't the Minkowski spacetime model represent the Space & Time? Is it independent of Space & Time? If we do not know what Space is? How did we create its model? I don't know why are we saying that we don't know what Space is, while it is just obvious & evident? We knew what Space is before GR comes. And suddenly after GR we say we don't know what Space is, because the then definition of Space was not compatible with the new notion that Space bends. The earlier definition was rejected in order to create accommodation for the Space curvature hypothesis. Was the earlier definition of Space really erroneous? What wrong was found in the earlier definition of Space? Why was it rejected? It was not rejected because it was wrong. It was rejected in favor of an illogical hypothesis that Space curves, because the mathematics of GR worked. The mathematics has nothing to do with the hypothesis that the Space warps. When the mathematics was proved correct when it accounted for the motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, the curvature which the mathematics indicated had to be assigned to some entity. And there was nothing else to assign it to, so it was thought that the Space could be the entity. And now we are proposing that spacetime has nothing to do with Space by arguing "It is not space which curves, it is Space-time which curves". What happens to the spacetime must happen to Space. Spacetime is not independent of Space. This too has been discussed many times. But did I say GR does not stand up to testing? Did I propose any new model? What I am saying is, GR works not because of our spacetime curvature hypothesis, but because of its mathematics. The mathematics does not imply that the corpus underlying the curvature is the spacetime. It is we who are implying that the spacetime is the corpus underlying the curvature, because we did not have any other object to assign the curvature on to, as we had eliminated Gravity. GR or the mathematics of GR says there is curvature and predicts it correctly. It is we who are saying that the curvature is in the Space, without taking into consideration whether the Space can provide that curvature or not. If Gravity can be substituted with Acceleration, where does the Acceleration come from? It must come from some Force. Where does the Force come from? Does it come from the curvature of the Space OR from the property of the Matter to have influence over other Matter? Which is logical? How could Vacuous get curved? The answer I get to this question is; "we don't know the nature of Space. It is a question of Ontology. Don't talk about the nature of Space, it is irrelevant to Physics. You don't have the right credentials to talk all that". Whether it is related to Ontology or any other logy, the hypothesis that Vacuous gets curved is illogical. If you do not consider Space is vacuous and say that Space has a structure, then where does the structure come from? What is the structure made up of? Which forces of Space are holding the Space in its structure? What are the Physical forces and Structures of the Space, on which Matter acts with its own structure and forces, to give Space a curved structure? Please for Gods sake; I am not interested in your explanation on 'How Science works'. I know it. I just want clarifications to these questions. I suggest you keep the glorious knowledge of how Science works to yourself; just kindly give me the answers to these problems, if you have any? It is the INFLUENCE of Matter over Matter, which is doing things here. The INFLUENCE is the property of Matter. The INFLUENCE is the force. Not the spacetime curve. Space can't curve. It is the vacuous. Science doesn't advice us to believe that space bends, we don't know what space is, we neither know how it bends, it doesn't claim to explain the nature of space and time, . . . . . . but still; we want to believe that Space bends!!! . . . . . . But why?!!!!! Thank you for the free advice of what would be good for me. But why do you suppose that I haven't read the Wikipedia article? Should I give you, my free advice, telling you that- "If one is impressed by something and one wants to share that impression with others, one must just say so. One shouldn't go on giving free advice to others telling that; it would be good for them. There is no possibility that what appeals to one must appeal to others too. There could be differences. And discussions are meant for sorting out those differences". The curvature indicated by the Riemann tensor and metric is the curvature of the path of motion of the particle/light, and not the curvature of the spacetime. The curvature of the path of motion is caused due to the INFLUENCE of Matter over Matter. The INFLUENCE is the Gravity. Matter/mass cannot influence Space, except occupying it. How do we establish that the physical object underlying the curvature is the Space? How do you justify the "Curvature - of the Vacuous"? They are interdependent because of their individual characteristics. Like, Space is a vacuous which lets itself to be occupied. Matter needs Space to exist, Matter occupies it. Which of the following statements are Unscientific, illogical, and not evident? And why? The Space is vacuous. The Space is structure-less. [in fact a vacuous cannot have a structure. That is why it is defined as vacuous.] The Space lets itself to be occupied. What hinders us to accept this obvious & evident description of Space? And if this and the Gravitational field are accepted, what harm would it do to GR? The assumed curvature of Space does not fit with the definition of Space. How do we justify this? I wouldn't say what I would be saying next. But sometimes as not-acting can be interpreted as inability; I am compelled to say this. I could have given your post a negative mark instantaneously for your irrelevant answers like trying to tell what would be good for me and also for trying to tell how Science works. I don't believe in punishing. I believe in reasoning out. ------------------------*************************** qsa I strongly believe reading does real good to a person. And the book you mentioned is a great classic. But I didn't understand why you couldn't clarify the questions raised but left un-clarified, with the help of the world of good done to you by your suggested reading. Plato's cave is an allegory which shows among many other things Quote- "how true reality is not always what it seems to be on the surface"-Unquote. Here is a shortened version of an original MIT link & a short award winning animation here on Plato's cave. qsa, do you mean that Plato should have stated in the form of equations what he wanted to convey through that allegory? Ridiculing is a clever way of trying to overpower in a discussion without placing an actual argument. But a cheap way. ------------------------*************************** "a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted." – This is a big joke being played on Science by those who are under the illusion that they are Scientific and think they know how Science works. ------------------------*************************** I replied to your post on this thread because in one of your earlier posts on this thread, you had said that your writings would convince me that the stand I have taken is wrong. Now if your intention is to convince me, you could respond on this thread if your answer does not amount to hijacking of this thread. Regarding responding somewhere else, it is up to you to decide. Thank you.

Honorable Ladies & Gentlemen, I hereby tender an apology letter. qsa's post prompted me to go through the thread again. I re-read the entire thread starting from the original thread 'Curved space'. After finishing, I felt like writing this letter. I apologize for whatever I have said which gives an impression that I am proposing a new theory. And I was surprised by my own behavior. I said at certain places, things like 'this thread is correcting GR/Einstien'. [And many such things which I don't want to bring up again here.]. This is not the way in which scientific discussions take place. Probably it was my Ego or Childishness. I apologize to everybody & to the great man Einstein. Hereby I state emphatically that I am not proposing any new theory. I know a lot of annoyance was generated. I apologize for all that. What I was doing was; I was trying to comprehend spacetime curvature. I was unable to come to terms with the definition of Space and the curvature of spacetime since the last 20 years. I set forth to clarify it once for all. And that originated into this thread. I feel; what I should have done instead is - just place those arguments, which were getting in my way to comprehend spacetime curvature on the forum and, the ensuing discussions would have taken their course, and should have simply left the judgment to come up on its own. But what I did on the contrary was – I gave a judgment, that such and such a thing is wrong, even before placing a viable argument. This was sheer childishness on my part. And above all, the foremost thing is, I forgot my credentials. Credentials are evidence; evidence for authority over a particular subject. A person with lesser credentials, if she has to convey her point, she has to do it only through logical argument. A person with lesser credentials cannot pass a judgment. Only a person with higher credentials is allowed to pass a judgment, because, she is/has authority. A person with lesser credentials should place as good an argument as possible and leave the judgment to the authority. This reminds me of an Indian saying- 'A vessel full of coins doesn't make noise, the lesser the number of coins more the noise'. I am ashamed of myself. Hope you would forgive me. Thank you. -----------------------*************************** Honorable qsa, Thank you for your sympathy. I understand. Thank you for reminding me about my credentials. I respect your credentials. But I am aware that "the hard test for a good model is prediction". And I am glad I have sensed it with far lesser number of years of acquaintance with the scientific world. The basic fact remains that I have not proposed any predictable model here. My simple question is, just how does Space bend? As because I believe it cannot bend; I feel you have got it wrong. I have given logical reasons as to why I feel Space cannot bend. But you haven't given the reasons as to; why the corpus underlying the curvature is considered to be the Space? And Space being the vacuous, the Empty Nothingness, how can it bend? Since I am not proposing any new theory, I suppose I do not require that kind of affinity. I do not want to be considered a Scientist, [i am well aware that I do not have the necessary credentials]; I do not want a place inside the Science world. In fact I started this thread to comprehend spacetime curvature and not to present a scientific paper or a new theory. Do you mean to say; a student of Science should just go on believing blindly what is being taught to her, as because she isn't acquainted with the norms & affinities of the scientific world? I think Logic & Reasoning are the real tools employed to derive knowledge and not norms & affinities. I would be grateful. By the time you posted this, I had been through seven Stanford University video lectures out of the twelve lectures taught by Professor Leonard Susskind, I will finish going through the rest. But I think even after that and any more enquiries like that, I would not be enlightened on why the corpus underlying the curvature is considered to be the Space? And Space being the vacuous, the Empty Nothingness, how can it bend? There aren't any answers. It's an assumption, albeit illogical and unnecessary, I think. I have no objection over whether there is curvature or not, as realized by GR. We are here arguing on the definition of Space, properties of Space, on its ability to get curved. We are giving Space an undue property. How would intuition, affinity and norms of scientific world, my feel about the connection between models and experiments, give, Space the vacuous, a non-existent incompatible property, the ability to curve? And what is wrong with saying that alteration in the paths of motion of particles in the vicinity of Matter/mass is due to the Gravitational field which is the property of Matter, and not due to the spacetime curvature? Thank you -------------------------*************************** Dear URAIN, I read your paper. It fails to convince me. There are flaws in the rationale presented by you. The following are the flaws I would like to bring to your notice; When something is added to nothing, there would be no increase. Space is not displaced. When solid 'A' is placed in region 'Z', the Space in the region 'Z' does not get displaced, instead it remains where it was prior to occupation. But now it exists as occupied Space. And the region of Space where the solid 'A' was occupying prior to region 'Z', now becomes vacated Space. There is a virtual displacement, like the virtual movement of 'Holes' opposite to the direction of the movement of Electrons. [4-D Minkowski spacetime is a great model of Space for example. We can easily know that, every part of Space has different coordinates. Every part of Space is different from every other part of Space since every part of Space has its own unique position in the Universe. And those positions cannot be altered/changed/displaced simply because Space does not have that property.] Empty volume of space may get displaced but it is not the same Space. A volume of space & actual Space are two different things. A volume of space is just a general mathematical quantity. But a chunk of Space is a section of the overall Space which has a unique position in the Universe that can not be altered/changed/displaced. It is not possible to put solid 'B' in the same region because the Space is occupied. To occupy; you need un-occupied Space. To occupy an occupied Space; you need to displace the Occupant. When the Occupant is displaced, the Space becomes un-occupied again, and can then be occupied. Thank you

Well, I have no objections to that. Geometry describes the curvature. But it does neither describe nor study the corpus underlying the curvature or say anything about it. The corpus underlying the curvature is the Gravity not Space. Space cannot simply afford it. ------------------*************************** ". . . geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it." That is what I am mentioning. The geometry can't give the Matter the ability to curve Space. The geometry says there is curvature but does not say anything about the corpus underlying the curvature or does not study the corpus underlying the curvature. We have interpreted that the curvature comes from the Space for lack of other entities to assign the curvature to. The actual entity that is responsible for the curvature, i.e. the Gravity, has been substituted by us as merely Acceleration. But Acceleration does not have the ability to bring Curvature, whereas Gravity has it. So in the absence of Gravity and the inability of Acceleration to bring Curvature, we have assigned it to Space. Gravity is a Field. It cannot be substituted with mere Acceleration. Gravity is a physical force. Acceleration is just an ingredient or just one characteristic of that Physical force. It cannot adequately be a substitute for a Physical force. Gravity is not only a force; it also has affinity towards Matter/Mass. Acceleration lacks this. Matter/Mass acts on Matter/Mass at a distance. And the Gravitational field is like the mediator. Gravitational field is the manifestation of the property of Matter/Mass. Space is entirely an independent entity, on which physical force has 'NIL', effect. Gravity has no substitutes. Space does not have a physical structure. When we say; something has a structure, like curvature, doesn't a structure need physicality? Aren't physical forces & structures necessary to sustain that curved structure? What are the physical forces & structures involved in giving Space a curved structure? And again; When a physical entity or the Matter acts on another physical entity or the Matter, it acts, with the help of its own structure and the forces involved in giving it the structure, ON the structure and the forces involved in giving structure to other Matter particles. What are the Physical forces and Structures of the Space, on which Matter acts with its own structure and forces, to give Space a curved structure? ------------------*************************** I would do it happily, to the best of my ability, if I am convinced.

How does that lead to Mass curving Space? How does Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry give Matter the abilty to bend Space? And give the Space the property of bending?

In that case there can be infinite possible geodesics.

Hello URAIN, Truth remains a truth whether anybody accepts it or not. It is not affected by the number of persons accepting it. I suppose, none of us on the forum are rivals. We are all yearning for the common goal; to know the truth. When I am proved wrong; I should be grateful, because some knowledgeable generous person corrected me, prevented me from being a less-informed person, made me more erudite. Why would anybody be against truth, unless the person wants to remain ignorant. Though I have no objection to giving suggestions, I think your writings are in better eligible hands (ajb) now. Any thought will reach wide acceptance only on its own strength and not on the strength of something else. If your writings can improve established facts, they must undergo wide scrutiny. For that I suggest a discussion on a forum like this one. One single small person like me cannot be a better judge. Thanks for your generosity. It depends on; my getting convinced & what you expect from me. ----------------------------------*************************** Why do you wish to reconcile it with Euclidean geometry? And by that how would you establish that Space gets curved?

In Euclidian geometry; the shortest path between any two points is the straight line. In non-Euclidian geometry; the shortest path between any two points is the Geodesic. In either case, there cannot be more than one shortest distance.

I will wait. ---------------------------************************ ajb, do you feel that this argument of mine has the merit to be placed on the arXiv? ---------------------------************************ Why? "Space curvature" is illogical. I have given logical explanation all through. Length contraction & Time dilation are natural occurrences, Space curvature is not one. It is a human conclusion, adhered to, albeit a wrong one. Space has no Geometry. Geometry is the attribute of physical structure, not the vacuous. ---------------------------************************ ". . . Doesn't space occupy matter?" To occupy, one needs a physique. Space doesn't have a physique. To give occupancy, one needs to be empty/vacant. Space is the empty vacancy. Everything ultimately; including the doughnut, electromagnetic energy, needs/occupies empty, vacant, non-physical Space. I didn't say "space and time. . . have/having a non-physical entity." I said Space & Time are non-physical entities, All phenomena occur in Space & Time. ". . . This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space." When occupied; the existence of Space does not become invalid. The Occupant exists in Space. When occupied; the Occupant & the giver of the occupancy-the Space, subsist together. Matter cannot exist without Space. ". . . space-time actually has electromagnetic properties." spacetime represents the Space & Time expanses illustrated in terms of 3 spatial+1 temporal dimensions. It cannot have any other property except describing the when & where of an event.

Considering the three fundamental entities that we are interested in:- The Space. The Time. The Matter. The Space is a non-physical entity in the sense that it has no structure & shape. Similarly Time too is a non-physical entity. Matter has physique. Now let us see if these three will act on each other. Is physical force required for this action? Firstly, can Physical Matter act on non-physical Space? And is physical force required for this action? Yes, physical Matter can act on non-physical Space in only one way and that is 'occupy it'. Is physical force required for this action? Certainly not. Why? Because Space does not present any physical resistance to this action [of occupying] on it. What happens when Matter acts on Matter? The action is resisted and should be overcome by physical force. Where does the resistance come from? It comes from the structure, or from the forces that have given it a structure, or more clearly from the forces that are holding it in a structure, or yet more clearly, from the forces that are holding it in a structural form. And behold, these forces can act at a distance. Similarly Time too does not have the ability to resist, because it does not have a structure. So no physical force is required there too. However relativistic Length contraction & Time dilation are not physical/structural changes, they are caused because spatial & temporal measurements/observations are not absolute, and instead they are relative. The Gravitational time dilation is seen due to the equivalence between the conditions that are created by Gravitational potential and Acceleration. Structure and force are the characteristics of physical Matter, and not non-physical Space & Time. That is the reason I propose Space cannot bend because, structure & forces are not constituent parts of it. -----------------------************************* The point, we are forgetting is; the vacuum solutions or in general the Riemannian geometry on which the GR relies, takes into account, only the curvature, and neither is it concerned or deals with, which entity brings the curvature, and also when it implies that there is a curvature; nor does it suggest which entity is responsible for the curvature. It is such a great technique which purely focuses on the curvature by separating it from the physical corpus underlying the curvature and studies the curvature by quantizing it into a simple object; "the spatial extension between two points on the curvature". A salute would fall short of paying respects, to the genius mind that did this. Now the onus rests on us, that after studying and calculating and, if and when the mathematics implies that there is curvature; we have to assign that curvature to an entity. We have assigned it to Space, because of two factors. They are; The basic object of the mathematics involved is the spatial extension between two points on the curvature. The elimination of the physical entity i.e. Gravity. As because the basic object of the mathematics involved in GR is the spatial extension between two points on the curvature; and in the absence of the physical entity i.e. Gravity, we thought that the curvature comes from the Space. This is not rational. Space can not provide any curvature. And why should we do this? Why should we eliminate Gravitational field? It is the physical force that is involved in all the processes of the Universe. Space cannot do, that Gravity can do. The entity that does all that we observe, i.e. the bending of light etc, has to be physical as it involves the physical. Space is not physical. Thank you. -----------------------************************* This is a comment not an argument. May be you consider my posts not worth arguing too. -----------------------************************* Doesn't Matter occupy space? If so, is Space not present? I am just placing what is logical, before you, for your opinion.