Anilkumar

Hello ajb, hello everybody, I am sorry for my delayed posts. It is taking more time for thoughts to get converted into right words. There is a mistake here. In case of physically curved structures; which are best studied using Riemannian geometry, the curvature is in the body or the PHYSICAL SURFACE of the physical object. Or the physical Surface presents the curvature. And Riemannian geometry is the great tool to study these curvatures presented by the surfaces of physical bodies. Now, this tool [Riemannian geometry] has aptly been used to study the orbits or the curved paths of the particles & other manifestations of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies. But what happens is, the Riemannian geometry does not take into consideration, whether the curvature is in the physical surface of a physical body or anything else. It just studies the curvature by considering it as the distance between two spatially extended points on the curvature. And it also expresses or explains that curvature in terms of the distance between two spatially extended points on the curvature and Tensors. It does not tell us where the curvature comes from or who/what presented the curvature. Now what we must take into consideration is; Curvature or Shape is the property of ONLY 'physical Matter' and its manifestations. This is logical. Vacuous does not have shapes. This is also logical. What we are forgetting is; Mathematics does not take into consideration where, the Shape came from. It just deals with the Shape. That is the magic of Mathematics, the Riemannian geometry, and the principle of general covariance. Now where is this curvature coming from? [The curvature of the path of the particles & other manifestations of Matter in the vicinity of massive bodies] Certainly it can not come from the non-physical Space, the vacuous. Then where does it come from? It comes from the Field, the physical manifestation, or the effect, of Matter. The Gravitational field is physical. It is the effect of physical matter. All the effects of physical Matter are physical. The Geodesics that we are talking about are the effects of the interaction between Matter or its manifestations, not due to curvature in the Minkowski spacetime. The curved geodesics can pass through coordinate points of the Minkowski spacetime. The spacetime need not get curved for its contents to become curved. When we say there is curvature or shape, we are talking about a physical body. And Space has no physical shape, it is vacuous. Thank you. ------------------------*************************** Hello Mellinia, Because, Gravitational field is a physical entity. And Space & Time are non-physical entities. The characteristics of Gravitational field can not be interpreted in terms of the characteristics of Space. Space has only one characteristic, and that is to allow itself to be occupied. It can not do anything more than that. It is no mad logic, Mellinia. SR correctly tells us that Length contraction and Time dilation occur because observations are relative. It doesn't deal with Gravity. Gravitational field is identical to Electric field. When a charged particle is moving through an electric field, its motion & path are influenced by the field. Similarly when particles of Matter or its manifestations like light are moving in the field of Gravity, their path and motion are influenced. The characteristic of a field is action at a distance. I don't think I have added much to the prevailing knowledge of Gravity, except that it is not spacetime curvature. We know that though Newton was not comfortable with the action of Gravity at a distance, Newtonian equations hold good in the cases of small potential and low velocities, and is an excellent approximation. But GR is essential when extreme precision is needed while dealing with gravitation for massive and dense objects and high velocities. Thank you ---------------------------*************************** This is what I felt on my way to understand it.

Hello Dovada, 'Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled . . . .' If something is filled with something else; the former has to be vacant/empty, to get filled. The former is the container and the latter is the content. Emptiness/vacancy is the property of the container. That is precisely the reason; why it gets filled or gives place. ---------------------------************************ No ajb. Why is it necessary that the world line should become Euclidean if we say that spacetime does not curve? And similarly why the spacetime should be curved for the world-line to be curved? It is not necessary. As; for every move and every curve the world-line would make/take, there is a corresponding spacetime point available. The spacetime need not struggle to make a point available to the world-line. It can not do that. And also it is not necessary. There is infinite Space available for every particle of matter and for every interaction of the particles. Space does not hinder or coax anything and so can not participate in that interaction. It is incapable of doing that. The Riemann tensor should vary point to point for the curved world line, not for the spacetime points. The world line is curved, not the spacetime points. The curved world line passes through the Minkwoski space-time points. I.E. there is no stress or curve in, or changes in the arrangement of, spacetime points. They just represent the spatial and temporal coordinates of an event or the world line. The tensors represent the stress and the conditions in the Matter and/or its manifestations which were present or occurred/interacted/encountered at a particular point. When these points are joined together it becomes the world line. The tensors are not related to the spacetime time points at all, except that they represent the stress in the Matter and/or its manifestations which were present at that place at that instant. The spacetime points inform where & when the stress was. These points are not the ones that are under stress. Matter and/or its manifestations at that point are under stress. Matter and/or its manifestations which are under stress are not capable of transferring that stress to the space or the spacetime points. So why gloss over changes in coordinates? Matter and/or its manifestations absolutely can not bring any change in the spacetime coordinates at all. It is simply impossible.

StringJunky, Space has one simple logical definition:- Empty vacancy. Nothingness. Say, it is Ontological, Scientific, Philosophical or anything else. Albert Einstein has definitely and aptly represented it with a 'zero', [at least from one aspect], which has done wonders, experimentally. But the sad part is, we are zealously bent on bending, that 'nothing', that 'zero'. We are saying 'Zero' is Non-Euclidean, while it is neither Euclidean nor Non-Euclidean. The shapes of Matter or the effects of Matter can be either Euclidean or Non-Euclidean, but not Space. It is irrational to give Space a behavior of bending. Our current knowledge of Gravity is:- It is action at a distance. Similar to other fields i.e. Electric & Magnetic. How logical is it to; say that 'nothing' has a shape [whether Euclidian or non-Euclidian]? And, replace Gravity with that 'shape - of nothing'? The definition of Space can not be different, irrespective of which faculty gives it. ------------------------************************ That is precisely where we are going wrong. i.e. while, our abstractions represent reality; if we do anything with them that we want; would reality comply with that? ------------------------************************ Hello ajb, GR has attempted and succeeded in explaining Gravity with Geometry [i.e. in generally covariant form, as tensor equations.] as the tool for explanation. So whatever reading or explanation we get from that tool; we get it in the form of Geometrical changes. The effect of Matter on other Matter is being expressed in the form of geometrical changes. That does not mean that the Geometry is the thing that is being affected, or it is the medium that communicates the effect of Matter over Matter. The Matter affects the Geometry of what? The Matter brings Geometrical changes into what? The infinite Vacuous, the nothing, the Zero?! The success of GR does not imply that Gravity is the Geometry/spacetime curvature. This is the drawback of the Principle of General covariance. I.E. while explicitly explaining the interaction between physical attributes of Matter, it gives the impression that the source of the effects is the vacuous or the spacetime. It interprets everything in terms of vacuous or the spacetime. But the onus rests on us to recognize that the vacuous or the spacetime is incapable of doing or affecting anything. To explain it more elaborately; When tensor equations or tensors on spacetime manifold are used to describe interactions between physical attributes of Matter, the description we derive is in terms of spatio-temporal relationships. That does not mean that the spacetime itself is the participant. The spacetime is just present, that's all. The spacetime can neither affect anything nor can get affected by anything. Because it is Vacuous. And it works because; the spatio-temporal relationships of the physical attributes of Matter involved in the interaction are taken into consideration and, whatever happens in this Universe happens in spacetime and there is a spatio-temporal relationship between the participants involved. Everything happens in spacetime but that does not mean that spacetime is responsible for everything. These interactions can be explained with their spatio-temporal relationships but that does not mean that spacetime is a participant in all those interactions. The space is a fundamental entity. It is not a notion. But it is not responsible for any interaction that takes place inside it. The particles of matter can interact with each other, because they posses such properties that can affect each other. Gravity is one such property. Space can not have any property because it is the vacuous. It can be filled that's all. 'Tensors on spacetime manifold' is the best and the ultimate tool to describe the interaction between particles of matter. But at the same time we must be prudent enough to be aware that spacetime is not & can not be a participant in any of these interactions. Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved surface of the matter because the curved surface is non-Euclidian. Riemann tensor is non-zero for the curved motion of the Matter in the vicinity of Matter because the path of the motion is curved. But to generalize on this basis that the spacetime is curved in the vicinity of matter, is just absurd. It is illogical to say Space [the Vacuous] gets curved in the vicinity of mass. Why don't we just take the individual instances and say the path of the motion is non-Euclidean? Or the Surface is non-Euclidean? Why do we say that the whole spacetime becomes non-Euclidean, which is not at all possible? In the Minkowski spacetime model; I quote- the basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time. Because events are spacetime points, an example of an event is (x,y,z,t), the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events in the same way that a line is the union of all of its points, formally organized into a manifold, a space which can be described at small scales using coordinates systems. unquote When we say that spacetime is curved. We are actually saying that these points are getting affected whereas, in fact, there is nothing there to get affected. Thank you

The geometry of GR has the property of being curved. I.E. the spacetime has the property of being curved. spacetime is not independent of Space & Time, which means Space has the property of being curved. This is non-existent. How can empty Space be curved? Aren't we repeating these arguments? ------------------------****************************** Hello everybody, I have no objections to any of the above. I have no objection here either, except the grayed part, which I can understand to some extent and the italicized part I could not grasp. By all the above what we are saying is; the Gravitational field, is being graphically represented with the help of Vectors/Tensors, in the; spacetime graph/geometry which is also in turn a representation of Space & Time as points of [3+1] coordinates. My objection is to this:- When it is said that; "Near a massive object the spacetime gets curved" Reason; When we say that the spacetime gets curved, we are actually saying that; the spacetime coordinate points are getting displaced. This is not possible. It is not rational to say so. There is nothing to displace in Space or in spacetime. The spacetime coordinate points can not get displaced. The Space does not have such a property. Can we displace them? That would be absurdity. Thank you. ----------------------************************* As to why I don't keep my mouth shut; I consider nothing is holy enough in this Universe to be, excused and believed, even when it is irrational. And that is what being scientific is. I prefer to raise my voice when Rationality is discarded. According to me; that which is not rational – is just plain Wrong/False. And when we tell something is Wrong/False, the onus rests on us, to also tell what is Right/True, instead.

There is no disagreement in; either that the spacetime is the geometry, or that the alteration in motion is described accurately by the spacetime geometry. What I disagree is – ‘that the spacetime gets curved’, ‘that mass creates the curvature in the spacetime geometry’ and ‘that the curved geometry of the spacetime induces the alteration in motion’. I did not say ‘deformation is of the field’. I said the deformation/alteration of motion is due to the disturbance/stress created in the Gravitational field. How can the Property of one Entity be replaced with the non-existent Property of another Entity?

Yes, certainly. GR describes the deformation in the motion with geometry. But attributing that deformation in motion to curvature in spacetime and not to the Gravitational field is just a misinterpretation.

Hello everybody, So what should we conclude? That, I am a hard nut to crack. Or, there may be a possibility that there could be a little substance in it which needs further thought. Just choose one of the above opinions, for now. [swansont I felt sad you didn’t desire to reply to my post.] I think we have had lot of strenuous discussions. Opinions are invaluable.

Hello URAIN, If you could make your confusion clear by presenting it in the form of a specific question, I would be helped to give a specific answer. Thank you. -------------------------*************************** Hello Swansont, Free speech is an asset of discussion forums. But that Asset is hijacked when 'Disbelief' [when something comes from unexpected quarters], 'Rigid adherence' [to popular beliefs] and 'Annoyance' [when established beliefs are questioned] arrive to set aside arguments by labeling them as crack-pottery instead of reasoning with them. I didn't get which way of mine speaks volumes about my credibility. Will you please be kind enough to bring it up so that I can correct myself? Why bring up an issue which has not been seen? A guess can go either way, right or wrong. But, is a poll of that kind necessary? Should we stop reasoning? Aren't political decisions taken by poll? And, Scientific decisions by Reasoning? Won't it be correct to cease this unrelated branch of the actual discussion here? -------------------------*************************** How the Explanations would possess the ability to predict? Aren't predictions done with the help of the mathematics involved? The Explanations & the Mathematics are two different aspects. The Explanations are the interpretations of what is happening. And the Mathematics is calculations of the quantities involved in the happening. Both Explanations say 'it' [alteration in motion] happens due to stress generated. The Mathematics calculates the stress. One Explanation [spacetime curvature] says the stress is generated in the Space. The other Explanation, says the stress is generated in the field conditions. The mathematics is not concerned about which one generates the stress. It just calculates the stress. But what I am proposing is, when we compare both Explanations with one another, we find; Attributing Stress to Space is not appropriate. [The Space is empty. There is nothing to get stressed there.] Attributing Stress to the field conditions is appropriate. [successful in Magnetic field & Electric field.] And moreover, The former says Space is a notion. The latter says Space is a fundamental entity which gives place to all Matter. Then; which is better? The mathematics of GR does it, and not the spacetime curvature interpretation of what's happening. It's like; When suppose if, "Mathematics says two Apples and another two Apples, added together, make four Apples". The above example can be interpreted in two ways, 1. The Apples have that ability – Which would be Irrational. 2. Quantities of similar nature are additive [additive, i.e. can be added into one ------sum] – Which would be Rational. The mathematics is correct. That does not mean both the interpretations are correct. Only the rational interpretation can be correct. Thank you

I wonder if there's some sort of index to help us identify "Sycophants of established ideas, the rigid adherers of established popular beliefs and the chorus". I think this index is necessary to create equilibrium in the imbalance that would be created by addressing only one side of the problem. [The problem is the task of sorting the new ideas that are brought up into the scientific field.] But I suggest a better way than both the above; Reasoning. This is just a suggestion, I am not an expert on this.

By this, and subsequently following with this, and from here http://www.sciencefo...7-crackpottery/ You are not helping me any better. By that, you are merely, warning me not to question an established belief, but also punishing me or intimidating me [i will explain how it is intimidation, later] for doing it and also asking me to keep silent i.e. not to come up with or speak out what I feel about a theory on my way to trying to comprehend it, or else I would be branded as a Crackpot. Thanks for the advise, but; Instead, it would have helped if you had elaborated on my error in interpreting "Space" or if you did interpret "Space" for me, because I am ready to be branded as a Crackpot or any thing else, until I am rationally convinced. But first things first:- Your claiming; that there is experimental evidence [The king] for spacetime curvature is false. How? Your claiming; that the bending of light & other phenomenon is experimental evidence for spacetime curvature is false because it is not the evidence for spacetime curvature but instead it is the evidence that there is bend/alteration in the motion of objects etc in the vicinity of mass. The spacetime curvature is just a model to explain that alteration in motion. It is just an explanation, like the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have presented. I can also claim that the observed alteration in motion of light & other objects is an evidence for the "Gravitational field model" explanation I have given. Now the INTIMIDATION by those who accuse me of Crack-pottery. Accusing new proposals as Crack-pottery is no way to deny them. It is not the way of Science. Rational reasoning is the right way. Whether you are dealing with Crack-pottery or a genuine proposal; only rational reasoning can resolve the matter. I have not introduced any new theory to accuse me of Crack-pottery. What am trying to say is; the elucidation of the altered motion of objects as due to spacetime curvature and consequently that Space is a notion. are irrational whereas, saying, it is due to; Gravitational field and eventually considering Space as the fundamental entity which gives occupancy to all matter. is rational. If this attempt to reason rationally is accused as Crack-pottery then that accusation is nothing but Injustice. Is what I am doing really Crack-pottery? I proposed the new explanation because the prevailing explanation failed to convince me rationally. My explanation does not introduce any new matter. It is purely based on the prevailing scientific theories. Give one reason why the Gravitational field model is not better than the spacetime curvature model, apart from saying it is widely accepted. Wide acceptance does not give anything any credibility. It only shows its popularity. The Geocentric model of the world was very popular, which did not mean it was right. What if I respond to those who accuse me of Crack-pottery by saying; It is the Sycophants of established ideas, the rigid adherers of popular beliefs and the chorus who are accusing me of Crack-pottery. Will I be right? No. If I do that, Then this will be no more a discussion based on reasoning. It would be reduced to a street fight. Are we street fighters, who have gathered here? Why stoop so low? Have we run short of good reasoning to resort to the strategies of street-fighters? When a person wants to be convinced regarding a theory, and in the process, expresses doubts and proposes something else and asks, Why this? And why not this? and faces accusation of Crack-pottery, then he is not talking to scientific people. Scientific people are the ones [i have seen them], who don't utter a single word that is not a part of a good reasoning. Come up with a rationally convincing answer if you have one and get me out. I will surrender. You can't get me out with street-fighting techniques. Resorting to street-fighting techniques shows that they have run out of good reasoning. These accusation & intimidation are not going to defeat me. They will definitely defeat Science. My question to the accusers is; Can you point out any single part of the alternate proposal I have given, that sounds irrational/illogical?

Honorable Swansont, Respected ladies & gentlemen. Here is the evidence in the form of “explanation based on logic.” I am trying to give this explanation to the best of my knowledge and ability which I know are not adequate to take up such a major task. I present this Explanation to the Scientific world for their perusal. I am aware that it certainly needs a touch by the hands of expert Logicians & Mathematicians. I shall begin my explanation by reiterating, that the conclusion by the Relativists that Mass tells space how to curve, and that curved space tells Matter how to move; Is a terribly bad conclusion. [With all due respect.] It is bad conclusion because; Mass does not affect Space at all [i repeat, except occupying it]. Space cannot be affected at all [i repeat, except being occupied]. Space cannot affect Matter at all [i repeat, except allowing itself to be occupied by it]. [There is a reasonable cause for my repeated use of the word ‘Relativists’. I do not intend to demean anybody. If there is anybody I respect the most in my life; it is the knowledge-seeker. In fact the Relativists are the Scientists; who apart from being knowledge-seekers they are also the Knowledge-givers, thanks to whom we know so much about this universe. But here I use the word ‘Relativists’ because I strongly believe, that there is a difference between what the GR [or the mathematics of GR] says and what Relativists say. There are logical reasons to support what I am saying. By this I don’t mean GR is wrong. No, GR is not wrong. Its interpretation is wrong. So to distinguish between what GR actually says and what Relativists have concluded from it; I sometimes need to use the words – ‘The Relativists say . . .’. Please kindly be sympathetic with me for raising this issue. I beg before you. I do not intend to demean anybody. There is a need to establish the fact. The GR does not demand ‘Space warp’. It does not deny the existence of Space. It does not say that Gravity is an abstraction. It does not say space is a notion.] So before going into the bowels of the mathematics of GR, it’s necessary to discuss Space & Gravitational field which will be of help to us in comprehending this matter. Now let us take up the issue, as to why; Mass does not affect Space at all [i repeat, except occupying it], Space cannot be affected at all [i repeat, except being occupied], and Space cannot affect Matter at all [i repeat, except allowing itself to be occupied by it]? It is so because [i have said these things in my earlier posts, but I find it necessary to repeat them here to make this Explanation comprehensive] The definition of Space doesn’t permit it. So what is Space? [i will try to portray it to the best of my knowledge.] Space is a Fundamental entity, which is the vast infinite empty vacancy in which all the Matter of the Universe is placed. It is the basic state of Space that it give occupancy or allow itself to be occupied and so be Empty. Anything that is inside Space is not Space or a part of it. To place anything inside it – there should be emptiness. And emptiness cannot be acted upon, except filling it. Emptiness cannot have any properties, as there is nothing inside it to have any properties. Only properties are the ones that can be acted upon. Absence of properties cannot be acted upon. Space is the absence of any properties, presence of vacancy i.e. emptiness. It is the basic requirement of this Universe. It is necessary for placing all the Matter of the Universe. Its existence is Fundamental. If we say Space is a notion or an Idea, then where is this Universe placed? Is it placed in an idea? Are we living in an idea? This is illogical. Now why do the Relativists say so? I say with all due respect and utmost humility that they have suffered a misconception. We need to discuss Gravitational field before discussing the misconception. What is Gravitational field? Is it just Acceleration? Impossible. It cannot be merely acceleration. Acceleration is just a characteristic of Gravitational field. I will try to explain Gravitational field. Firstly what is a field? [Everyone knows this; but as this explanation is contextual of this matter, I find it necessary to present the context.] A field is a name given to the phenomenon called ‘Action at a distance’. The matter acts on Matter, like Magnet acts on magnetic materials, Electric charge acts on electric charge, at a distance. It is the influence or a condition created/generated by that material in the area around it. Gravitational field is the influence or a condition created/generated by Matter around itself. Just like the condition created/generated by magnets around themselves for magnetic materials, like the condition created/generated by electric charge around itself for charged particles. Gravitational field is condition created/generated by Matter around itself for other Matter [be it light, energy, object or any other manifestation of Matter]. How does this affect matter? When any particle of matter or its manifestation enters the area of influence of a massive body it creates a disturbance in the ‘condition’ around it. And as a result there is a reaction. And that reaction in turn affects the particle that created the disturbance, similar to the effect on a charged particle when it enters the electric field of another particle & similar to the effect on a magnetic material when it enters the magnetic field of a magnet. I am saying the Gravitational field is an entity, though not in the fundamental sense, but because it is the product of the Matter [in proportion to its mass]. Like a proton & it’s positive charge. Properties of matter do not have separate existence from their Matter. When we equate Gravitational field to only Acceleration, we are leaving out the Matter’s ability to react at a distance on other matter. This is one of the reasons for the spacetime curvature proposal to come into being. It forced the Relativists to invent SPACE WARP to account for the action at a distance, because they had left out the Gravitational field and took into consideration only one characteristic of it, the Acceleration. What made them fall upon Space and say it warps? It is their misinterpretation of the mathematics of GR. We will discuss about it later. But now let us see why we can’t accept spacetime curvature and why we should consider the Gravitational field? By saying ‘Matter/mass affects Space, and the Space affects motion of Matter’; We are assuming that Matter/mass needs a mediator to convey itself to other Matter. Matter can act on Matter directly without any mediation, through Gravity. Whereas, Space is not capable of becoming that mediator, and Matter does not need a mediator when the Gravitational field as a ‘condition’ or ‘action at a distance’ is considered. The Gravitational field is an established fact like the other fields [Electric and Magnetic]. And Space being emptiness, does not have any structure to warp. Now what do the stress-energy tensors and the Einstein field equations depict? They do not describe the spacetime curvature. There is nothing in it to get deformed there. But the Einstein field equations actually describe the PHYSICAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD like the other field theory equations of the Electric & Magnetic Fields, do. Then why did the relativists claim spacetime curvature? It is the misinterpretation of the mathematics. How/why does GR work then? There are three aspects of GR. The theory, the equations/solutions, & the conclusion. The theory - It is the creation of the most extraordinary mind mankind has ever produced. The equations/solutions – It is the impeccable mathematics. These two make it work. The interpretation/conclusions – It is the human work, based on the fact that the above two are working. But this has nothing to do with the two. Now let us come to misinterpretation part. What is the misinterpretation? Here is the excerpt from the collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume-6: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. We understand from the above that Einstein suggests; “The Gravitational field of Empty space should be zero”. There is nothing wrong with this proposition. Mathematically it is absolutely correct. And with this inherent proposition itself the field equations/solutions and the theory are immensely successful. But at the same time, This very proposition has led to the misconception. This proposition has created an unrealistic relationship. This proposition projects or builds a mathematical relationship between Gravitational field & Space. By assuming, in the absence of matter, the Gravitational Field to be zero, it renders that Gravitational field comes from Space. It builds a relationship between Gravitational field and Space. This is not the result of the Mathematics. This is the result of the assumption. The mathematics does not pronounce that the Gravitational field is linked to Space. The assumption builds that link. The Relativists overlooked this fact, moreover instead of considering this as the consequence of the assumption and countering this illicit relation by counter-assuming that the Field equations actually do not describe the spacetime curvature, as there is nothing in it to get deformed there, but instead the Field equations actually describe the PHYSICAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD like the other field theory equations of the Electric & Magnetic Fields do, they compensated by giving curvature to space. And so consequently, as the Space being an empty place could not be curved, i.e. the definition does not permit it, they ruled out its existence and declared it a notion, and kept it as spatial distances and said Space exists only as the spatial distances because the spatial distances were necessary for depicting the curvature in the form of geometry. This is my humble opinion. I have no other intentions other than expressing what I felt about spacetime curvature. Now it is here for your valuable scrutiny. Thank you and, Regards.

Respected, Swansont. It is not as simple as that. You are forgetting the serious misleading part. The conclusion that; "geometry is not flat near a mass, light does not travel in a straight line, because the geometry is not flat." has serious implications, i.e. it implies and it is also said so, that Mass tells space how to curve, and that curved space tells Matter how to move. This is a terribly bad conclusion. [With all due respect.] Mass does not affect Space at all [i repeat, except occupying it]. Space cannot be affected at all [i repeat, except being occupied]. Space cannot affect Matter at all [i repeat, except allowing itself to be occupied by it]. You are closing your eyes to what I want to say, by terming it as just, 'an opinion', The thing is that, through my opinion, I can prove that these things can't happen, that it is irrational to say these things are happening, and also appraise you of, what made Relativists assume the irrational judgment. Through my opinion, I would also give a rational estimation of what is happening. which, you are at liberty to, reject if you find it wrong. ------------------------**************************** Wish you all the best.

My humble opinion is, this abstraction leads to irrational conclusions like Space warp and Space is a notion. It is concluded that Mass warps Space & that Space is a notion, which is not a rational conclusion. The case here is; an irrational conclusion based on a sound premise. ------------------------************************* You are absolutely correct. I am extremely grateful to you for understanding me rightly.

Hello Greg Boyles, What would you regard as, the person who, decides before he listens? What would you regard as, the person who, coins terms like 'mathematical illusion'? What would you regard as, the person who, agitates in surplus? Stay cool, mate. The sky hasn't fallen. I am not asking anybody to implement anything here. We are discussing here. I am saying, [at the risk of sounding foolish.] "this, I feel is wrong. I would like you to say this. What is your opinion?" That's all. I am saying Relativists are wrong, because; I don't want stances like YOU to explain to me with such arguments as "Einstein/Relativists can't be wrong". And, it sounds absolutely wrong to me to say, Space is a notion. Will you not allow me to present my explanation? You know what Greg Boyles? You are arguing, not because you understand GR, but because, you believe in it, because there are so many who say it is correct. I want to be rationally convinced. I think you are the first person to benefit from this thread. Right from the beginning, you asserted spacetime is a physical thing, now you learnt it is an analogy. Whether my issue settles or not by this thread, I have had one benefit. I have a role model in Swansont & Michel123456, The patience & tolerance shown by them is just amazing. They sure will bring a change in matters. They have brought a change in me. Impatience & intolerance don't change anything. They need change. Of course I am not adamant on changing anything here. I am just asking, to be rational. This is a platform to exchange views, with sane attitude. We have gathered here to learn from each other. We haven't gathered here to abuse each other. Look so many great people have gathered here, with so much of information to exchange. I have recieved information from StringJunky, IMEgdall and others. I have recieved affection and consideration from everybody. I am greatfull to everybody. Enjoy it man. Why exchange heat? Stay cool. Stop this. Thank you.

Revered Swansont, I have different opinions. I started the two threads, this and the 'Satellites in orbit', to get an understanding of Space warp. The thread 'satellites in orbit' was an upshot of my effort to understand Free fall. This issue [That Space is a notion.], which we are discussing now, is there since the times of Einstein. Many eyebrows in the circles of Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics and even most Religions of the world, were raised when Einstein gave the Relativistic definition of Space, as; I quote, "I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)" I came across the issue [How can empty Space warp?] 20 years back, when I first read the Theory of relativity. Because the definition of Space that I had in mind then, as related by Ontology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and also the Science before Einstein, came into conflict with the definition given by GR. [The definition of Space held true by science before Einstein is, presented by some books still now, even after physics has considered it as notion long back. Wikipedia gives all opinions.] I discarded all other definitions except that given by GR, as it was supported by successful empirical test. But; there is a very big BUT here. I was never convinced. The issue [space is a notion] was irking me from day one, the day I read the definition of Space as given by Einstein. [i don't remember the date.] Questions came up in my mind. Where are the spatially extended objects placed? How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry? I don't remember if I have read the threads of Owl or not. I may have read one or two. But I can't tell now, what the subject of those threads was? Sure, an article on this matter would interest me. I have read other articles with this issue as their subject, which have raised questions. And all this, is precisely the reason why this thread has originated. I began with this thread to see if I could get any convincing answer? How would I get one, while there is no answer? There is no answer, because the issue originated due to a mistake. Mistakes can't be convincingly explained. You will have to live with them or correct them. I am not a Scientist, or a Physicist, or a philosopher, or an Ontologist. I am a knowledge/information seeker. Though I disagree with your opinion that I am substituting ontology for science and this is not the issue here, but still, I would like to give my opinion about an important issue, since we are passing by and as you have raised it. If each rationally thinking branch of Knowledge has a different definition for the same thing, you are not imparting knowledge to the knowledge seeker. You are filling the person's brain with issues. It also show that the definition is inadequate. If Science says 'I only look at the practical side of the issues', and any other rationally thinking faculty says 'I only look at the nature of the things'. Where should the knowledge seeker look at, if both versions are in conflict and both refuse to accommodate each other's rational thought? Do both care for the knowledge seeker? Do both respect knowledge? Are both doing justice to Knowledge? If there is an issue, created by both, why don't both try to address it? If both say my branch does not deal with such things, should the knowledge seeker deal with them? How can the nature of an Entity and the behavior of that Entity be in conflict with each other? This reminds me of the view taken by many in the high up circles, regarding the 9/11 disaster that it could have been averted, but there was rivalry and lack of coordination between the intelligence & security agencies. The irony here is all the agencies work for the same goal. What I mean to say here is; since all the branches of knowledge are struggling to find rational answers, a coordination & consensus will certainly help acquire better knowledge and lack of it will hinder or even can be disastrous. How can different faculties seeking knowledge be different from one another, when all work for one goal. Now having said this; Is this really a question of some other branch? Space was the place where Matter was placed. If the Space is a notion as made out by GR, and if; Physical objects are placed not in space, but are spatially extended, then; Where are these spatially extended objects placed? Kindly tell me where I should go to get this answer. Is spacetime of GR independent of the entities, the Space & Time? There is a contradiction in the following statements; -----------------------------------And I don't think Abstractions have behaviors. Even if we give them one, is GR a theory which describes the behavior of an abstraction? We find it necessary to describe the behavior of Entities. That is exactly what I am saying. The Relativists have converted Space into a notion in order to make-up for a wrong interpretation/conclusion derived from the mathematics involved in devising the GR. And believe & want us to believe Space is a notion and Gravitational field simply acceleration, because GR is experimentally successful. It is successful, but with irrational conclusions. It works because, the conclusion that Space is a notion doesn't pose any hindrance to the practical functioning of Matter. It works because the mathematics is correct. It works because, its working does not depend on whether Space is a notion or not, it does not depend on whether Gravitational field is an abstraction or not. It doesn't make a difference to GR whether Space is a notion or not. But it makes a big difference to the understanding of this Universe; it changes the basic rationally established facts about this Universe. And it leaves unanswered the next question raised, i.e. where are the spatially extended objects placed? How can the structure-less, boundless empty space have a geometry? Did Albert Einstein devise the GR to make the GPS work or to get a better understanding of the Universe? His gift to mankind is immeasurable. We need to carry forward the struggle with rationality as our supervisor. And moreover, this irrational conclusion, that Space is a notion is unnecessary. The GR doesn't demand it. The wrong interpretation of mathematics demands it, to accommodate itself. If we correct ourselves; then, Space need not be a notion. It will be what it was before. It need not warp. GR still functions the same as before. Isn't this Science? Aren't Political decisions taken by majority votes, whereas Scientific decisions through, logical/rational contemplation? I don't think science is lead by might. Let's all follow rationality, together. Thank you. Sure Greg Boyles,we must be too naïve, to believe; “The explanation of motion or kinematic behavior of things with the help of geometry of a structure-less empty Space”.

Swansont and Stringjunky, "The accuracy displayed by SR & GR, in accounting, the bending of light near a massive object, the change in rate of Time, the errors in GPS" and the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury, is absolutely not a proof to; Say, Mass warps Space & Time. Deny, the existence of the entity called 'Gravitational field' or say that Gravitational field is an abstraction. Conclude, that Space & Time are notions. Assert, Gravity is nothing but acceleration. These are irrational conclusions or delusions, derived by the Relativists owing to the practical effectiveness of SR & GR. There are reasons for deriving these delusions. And they are human errors. ----------------------------------************************ Honorable Ladies & gentlemen, I just finished going through "The foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein. It shows the hard work, dedication and the immense compassion of Albert Einstein to explain the Universe. But due to oversight, the following conclusions derived out of GR are wrong. They are; To, Say, Mass warps Space. Deny, the existence of the entity called 'Gravitational field' or say that Gravitational field is an abstraction. Conclude, that Space is a notion. Assert, Gravity is nothing but acceleration. Instead I affirm; Space is not a notion, it is an entity. Space can not be acted upon in any way other than occupying it. Gravitational field is not an abstraction, it is an entity. Gravitational field is not merely Acceleration. But Acceleration is merely one of the characteristics of Gravitational field. In my earlier post I had tried to explain the reasons for the irrational conclusion, logically. Now after deeper investigation and analysis I have found the mathematical origin of the irrational conclusions. The mistake is not with the mathematics involved. But the mistake is with the interpretation of the mathematics involved. I will be giving you the details of the mathematical origin that has led to the irrational conclusions by the Relativists, which will remove all the doubts from your minds. The false impressions and irrational beliefs regarding Space & Matter held by us will be cleared. There will be no uncertainties left over. And all the discomfort & agitation created will be alleviated. DrRocket you will have enough reasons to pardon me for my 'ridiculous babble'. The mistake is inherent in the devising of the Theory. It is such a mysterious thing that without the mistake, the Theory would not have come into existence. I am not saying the Theory is wrong. The theory has been tested successfully. But some of the, conclusions that have been derived or some of the interpretations of the Theory are absolutely irrational. I am compiling a post which would explain the whole thing. Greg Boyles, you wanted to know my age. I feel anonymity can be interpreted as being uncertain, hesitant, dubious, and one who hides from responsibility. I have decided to update my profile, not that there is much to share. I am a small man, but I am happy for myself, that I have done something good, at last. I am feeling that I have contributed something to the world. I will come up with the post, as early as possible. I am eager to share with you. My best wishes to everybody.

Do I need to be clarified? It would be better if specific stipulations are set. ---------------------------************************** Gravitational field is the entity behind it.

How does this explain the IRRATIONAL proposition by GR that, Space is a notion? ---------------------------*************************** Space cannot be acted upon in any way other than filling/occupying it. There is nothing in space to act upon.

I meant the same thing. The equivalence principle. Gravitational field can be given any name. But, it is absolutely not, Space & Time integrated together. It cannot be. There is no bend. We are able to see a star directly behind the Sun because the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field. --------------------------************************* Gravitational field cannot be an abstraction. It is an entity. Are other fields, the Magnetic field, & the Electric field mere abstractions? No. I am not interchanging "Euclidean space" (or Minkowski space) with "(empty) space". They cannot be interchanged, as; Euclidean space is a mathematical model and, "(empty) space", is an entity; which GR does not come to terms with.

Why/How Space is a notion? Why/How, Matter, is, not a notion? Nothing can warp spacetime. Gravity affects Motion/Matter. [Not sure about Time.] It is not right to stick to an idea, which you cannot bear. Only time can tell which one is ridiculous babble.

I haven't talked anything against this. I never said, science isn't a collaborative effort. I am merely objecting some aspects of an already proposed theory. I think such talk will not help resolve this matter. "rationality is not the last word" "our highest arbiter is experimental agreement" "it matters nothing how rational, logical, and common-sensical a theory is" I pity the person who 'says this and also at the same time claims to be scientific'. What is "empirical evidence" OR Why do we go for experimental evidence? When we propose something, we go and check for empirical evidence, because we want to verify whether it happens/occurs in the proposed way or not. Only that happens/occurs which is rational. Irrational things do not happen/occur. When we propose something, we check its rationality, by checking whether it happen/occurs in the proposed way or not. I.E. checking for experimental agreement is checking for rationality of the proposal. "Experimental agreement" is a name given by Science to 'Rationality'. They don't mean different. GR says Space is a notion. I claim or propose that Space is an entity. Do you want experimental evidence for the existence of 'Space'? I can give it. If there is evidence of Space, it is also a proof that 'spacetime curvature' proposed by GR is a notion. ----------------------------------*********************** I am reading. Let's first ascertain; Isn't 'spacetime curvature' regarding spatial and temporal things? ----------------------------------*********************** How can a bend in the mathematical construct, become a bend in the Physical? Which abstraction is replaced by which abstraction? Which entity is not there? Which concept? As because, GR has been able to describe what happens; the Relativists want, the Description - a mathematical construct, to take the place of, the entity, which is making it happen? I am aware that they cannot be separated. But I did it to show that spacetime cannot separate itself away from its originators, the Space & the Time; and say 'I am something altogether different, I don't belong to either Space or Time or I don't know who is Space and who is time'. Thank you everybody. Have a nice day. Imaatfaal I am sorry if I have hurt you. I know you love truth more than any thing else.

The proposition that "space" and "time" are notions, is an upshot of the supposition, that Gravitational field is identical to accelerated motion. This is wrong. Because, accelerated motion is only a characteristics of Gravitational field. Gravitational field is an entity and is mass/matter related. Acceleration is not an entity, and is not mass/matter related. Acceleration is merely the manifestation of the, effect of the Gravitational field. Just for this, don’t read any books. Just close your eyes and think rationally. Books are not the last word on anything. But rationality is the last word, on everything. Books have told us enough of this.

Most words have various meanings. We would be doing justice to the purpose of the usage of any word only when we consider, purely the intended meaning. I didn't say it is a medium. I said it is like a medium. I used the word 'Medium' for lack of a better word. And to filter out the unintended meanings from being taken, I particularly stated that 'Medium does not mean here an intermediating medium. It means something like an atmosphere around earth'. Which I suppose, rules out the word 'medium' meaning- the one required for propagation, like ether. But again don't say Atmosphere is a medium for propagation of sound. I don't mean that. What I am indicating here is the 'presence' around the body. I also gave analogies of the Magnetic & Electric fields, to facilitate the meaning of the ability of Gravitational field to act at a distance. I hope that my intended meaning is clear, and from this point on the word 'field' would be sufficient, instead of using the word 'medium' to avoid superfluous meanings. Is GR replacing a Physical entity with an abstraction? And the Geometry of the abstraction says that another entity is bent. Accordingly, that entity has to bend, irrespective of whether that entity has the ability to bend or not. Is this a question of semantics? How can I not conflate spacetime with Space, while spacetime has the ingredients of space. The spacetime has four dimensions, out of which, three dimensions represent Empty space. And you say spacetime is not equal to Space. Who is making a straw man argument? --------------------------************************* Mathematics is a tool with which a given data is processed. It will never make a mistake in the processing of a given data. Irrational abstractions & concepts can also be converted into data and given.