Anilkumar

Good day Greg Boyles. The answer is, in your question, dear fellow. 'the idea of spacetime' The spacetime is an idea. Created by us human beings. Then you tried to burden it with a 'physique' – make it a 'fabric' of sorts. in order to explain some un-explainable observed facts. Those facts were un-explainable because, you had left out the originator of those observed facts. It is certainly irrational to attach a physique to an idea. But rationality reduced it back to an 'idea'. Space is not an 'idea'. It is an entity. Yet it cannot have a Physique or cannot be a Medium, because its definition prevents it from having/being one. I am saying spacetime and Space, [if they are not one & the same] both, cannot have a physique, or be a medium, not for the reason that; they are intangible and beyond my senses; it is because it is irrational. I don't understand this. That person, who thinks rationally, and also at the same time understands all that, only, can convince you. But if you want to toss this off into some other realm and continue with the oversight left unchecked, all I can do is, wish you luck, that's all. I am not obliged to make anybody, believe me. ------------------------------*********************** There is contradiction here in; Gravitational field is the property of spacetime around a massive object. --------------------------and the gravitational field is the massive object. And what is the role of spacetime curvature?

Certainly, even now I would dismiss if you compare Space with Atmosphere. The reason is: The atmosphere, the Magnetic field, the Electric field and the Gravitational field – are all 'Physical'. They can and do exhibit – Physical properties. They can act on physical matter. The only property that Space has is; it allows itself to be occupied. It can not act on physical matter. It can not and does not exhibit any other property. You can not displace anything in Space. There is nothing to displace there. The only thing that you could displace in the body of empty space is the conceptual 'fabric'; verbally. This is not a preconceived position. This is a rational position. The basis of my contention [God, how I hate contention] is not preconception. It is rationality. When did rationality 'close' itself to where the mathematics and research might lead it? It [being closed to reasoning] is always the prized possession of Irrationality and pride. Rationality is the name of 'Openness' - to go where reasoning leads. Which one? Taking Irrational decisions or, following where rationality leads you? Only time will tell, who did like Phrenologists. Mistakes will not sit idle, they will be magnified. You can't build bridges on the foundation of mistakes. They will collapse. ---------------------------------********************* Keep that aside, can I call you Greg? You are a good person. Edits: I had to remove the extra spaces in between the lines, which were not intended. They appear whenever I type the matter in the my text editor and bring it here. Thank you.

Yes, my friend Greg Boyles. But I don't say Gravitatinal field is a fabric. I said it is like a medium, similar to atmosphere arround the earth, or the magnetic field arround a Magnet. A field affects. Like the magnetic field affects magnetic materials, Electric field affects a charged particle, similarly Gravitational field affects everything. But Space is incapable of acting on anything. And Nothing can affect it inturn, except occupying it. Thank you.

Respected ladies & gentlemen, I would hereby request you all to consider this case as; 'an Ordinary man's attempt to convince the Extraordinary people', Please forgive me if I am wrong, considering me as 'a fool who tried to correct Albert Einstein, & failed miserably'. All my life I have admired Albert Einstein and continue to do so. He is the highest example of intellectual prowess. I am writing this discourse because; despite innumerous attempts to comprehend 'warping of Space', I haven't been able to convince it to myself, as I feel it is not rational. Kindly be sympathetic with me for making this humble attempt. My Account: Quote "The states of accelerated motion and being at rest in a Gravitational field are physically identical". Unquote This is the supposition which did the magic, and the GR thus originated. If this had not been supposed, GR would not have taken birth. But; this is also the very supposition which is responsible for the irrational conclusion of GR that 'Space warps'. When Albert Einstein equated Gravitational field to accelerated motion, GR was revealed to him. He set forth to describe the Universe according to GR. But while doing so, the mistake he committed was – he dropped Gravity/Gravitational field, once for all, as he had accounted for it, instead, by taking into consideration its identical substitute, 'Accelerated motion'. But honorable ladies & gentlemen, Gravity/Gravitational field is not so, an unremarkable entity to be dropped and forgotten once for all. Why? Since; 'Accelerated motion' is not an adequate substitute for Gravity/Gravitational field. It is just one trait of its. Though Gravity displays the characteristics of 'Accelerated motion' it has one other quality, which has not been accounted for by the GR. And that is; 'Gravitational field acts like a medium also'. [Medium does not mean here an intermediating medium. It means something like an atmosphere around earth.] Every manifestation of matter & energy is affected in its motion by this medium, the Gravitational field, like the motion of a magnetic material is affected when it enters a Magnetic field. Magnetic field affects the motions of only magnetic materials, but Gravity affects the motion of everything in this Universe. The medium-like property of Gravitational field is not taken into consideration by GR. But its effects were visible on motion and had to be accounted for. So, in the absence of Gravitational field and as the Substituted 'Accelerated motion' could not be credited with those affects, the onus was laden on Space. Why Space? Because it does not have any properties of its own & any unaccounted property or unexplainable activity can be attributed to or can be laden on it, which it doesn't mind. It doesn't refuse. It doesn't oppose. It doesn't affect anything else. It doesn't change anything else. It does not have any side effects. But it certainly gives undue properties to Space. This is but absolutely irrational. I am not a Physicist or a Scientist. The experts on Gravitational field have to confirm how the Gravity as a medium, affects motion? Whether Gravitational field as a medium can explain the effects that are attributed to the warped Space? But as for now, attributing these effects to the Gravitational field than to the 'Warping of Space' is not irrational, like it is when they are attributed to Space. Thank you.

I am compiling it, dear fellow. I am trying as much as I can to put my thoughts in precise, concise & simple words. So that my post doesn’t give any superfluous meanings, by which you could make me frequently edit it by adding or deleting words and let you have a proud smile. Don’t be harsh on me fellows. But take it from me; I will face all the rage thrown at me but see that you won’t crumple that Space again. You can crumple me instead, if you like. We all know truth is above all of us & everything in this universe, past present & future, put together. By the way; yesterday night I had a dream. Someone was chasing me with a baseball bat in hand. Thanks michel123456. I won't let you down.

Hello dear Greg Boyles, I have never said ‘Time does not warp’. Throughout the thread I have been saying ‘Gravity affects Motion & Duration’. I have said Mass can not affect Space other than occupying/filling it. Space can’t warp. As it does not have that capability.

Hello IM Egdall & hello everybody, You will not believe whatever I will say now. I am pretty convinced now. That Space warp does not happen. I am not saying GR is wrong. But a couple of the conclusions of GR are wrong. And Space warp is one among them. GR is the greatest theory that mankind has ever found. If Albert Einstein hadn't done it, I don't think anyone could have done it, because it requires the highest level of perceptive capability that any human being can ever demonstrate. Einstein had that implausible intelligence. Yet he was human. The quality of humans, to err, was also in him. Albert Einstein made a mistake and the Relativists have been carrying it forward. Space does not warp. And I will prove it here. I won't be giving a mathematical proof. It is just going to be suggestive, hint like. But logical & rational. It is for the adequately placed logical thinkers & scientists to promote it, if they find any substance in what I say. This thread will go down in history as the one which brought a correction to GR. And we will be part of it. I shouldn't be saying all this before proving it. But I am jubilant. Jubilant that, at last I am able to backup, what I felt was right. My voice, though right in what it was saying, was till now feeble. Now I am relieved, at last, that I can say what I want to say, without hesitation, in a confident manner. Enough of boasting; I know the more I blow my own horn, the more rotten tomatoes, I will have to face, if proven wrong. But there is no chance of that. Space can't be warped. I will be back in a few hours. I am preparing the post as fast as I can. Thank you.

I don't know how you would define 'Strong English'. But, you are the only Pal who has got the impression that I believed, that mathematics told lies. I think that speaks for both of us. But petty things aside, we have had a very good discussion & your contribution to it is invaluable. You have worked hard to convince me about what you believed is right and where you felt I was making mistakes. Your basic motive was to see that right is not suppressed but upheld and there are no wrong beliefs. That motive is worthy of salutation. However, lets concentrate on what you, me & everybody loves the most. Seeking knowledge.

There are Mathematical models. There are Mathematical concepts. But no such thing called 'Mathematical illusion' exists. Mathematics is incapable of telling lie.

I am happy.

Yes StringJunky, it certainly shows the other face of our own endeavors. And Swansont is a great guy. ------------------------------********************** Does GR say that no such thing as 'Space' - the empty/vacant room which accommodates all matter, exists?

Thanks StringJunky, That's one great article. Tailor made for this thread. I went through it once. But I need to go through it a couple of times more and give it a thorough thought to digest the core philosophy of the article. That's a philosophy which can bring a significant change on the way we exert to perceive this world. We have invented many concepts to explain things around us. But there is a hazard that, those very concepts may push us into an illusory conceptual world. -------------------------------******************* Hello IM Egdall, just when the article suggested by StringJunky, had begun to give me an idea that spacetime is an abstract model, your post has given a blow to the idea by saying Space is flexible. I definitely need time to come to terms with this. Thank you for the conscientious appraisal.

Nobody can mistrust Mathematics. Mathematics will keep giving right answers for, infinite time or for as long as it is employed. It can never give wrong answers. I firmly believe that there must be a theoretical explanation for all Mathematical proofs. And so, whether the spacetime curvature proposition can be given a theoretical explanation; is yet to be seen. Having said that however, let us first come down to; which view, does mathematics endorse; This, and, OR this, i.e. does Mathematics say; Space ≠ spacetime, i.e. spacetime is an abstract mathematical model. OR Space = spacetime, i.e. spacetime is the new version of Space. And spacetime is a fundamental entity. Thank you.

Esteemed Greg Boyles, you have missed my point. You have taken it all wrong. No, I do not believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side. And I haven't said anything, which gives that perception. So you mean to say. Space = spacetime and, spacetime is a new version of Space. That brings us back to square one. I never said spacetime is a mathematical delusion. Instead I asked if, spacetime is a mathematical method [or way of looking at things] of explaining motion/event, and not a fundamental entity. But Greg Boyles, I am perfectly comfortable with the 4 dimensions proposed by GR. I am totally convinced that events can not be described without taking into consideration all the 4 dimensions. I should not be saying anything about this, as, it is not the subject of this thread. But I see that it is being raised & linked to this subject frequently, I am compelled to express my views. But I would appreciate if no further discussions are taken forward on this. We could start a new thread if need be. My view is as follows; I feel, Mathematics is a short-cut way to get answers. It gives you the answers, even before you are convinced. Everybody agree when Mathematicians agree, Mathematicians agree when Mathematics agrees. If Mathematics says: 'It is', then 'it is'. If Mathematics says 'It isn't', then 'It isn't'. It's like that because humans err. Mathematics doesn't. Because it moves through proper channels. When someone hits, 2, +, 2, & = on a calculator, it gives you 4. Nobody objects. But you will not know how 2+2 became 4. You just agree, because there can't be disputes on the verdicts of Mathematics, even if you are not humanly convinced. If you want to know how 2+2 became 4, then you will have to take the long cut. You have to go for analogies. Take two balls, and another two balls, mix them up, count them again. They are four now. That's how they become four. I am an odd man. Perhaps a fool, who wants to take long-cut. I want to be humanly convinced. If you ask me to 'just shut up because Mathematics is unquestionable', I will. But I beg to be humanly convinced. Thank you for, your kindness, for bearing with me.

I feel we are making a mistake here. We are focusing on two different aspects. I think we must first decide on whether, Mass warps; Space, or Spacetime? I have an objection if you say, Mass warps Space. But if you say, Mass warps Spacetime, and Space ≠ spacetime, and, and if, Spacetime is not a fundamental entity like space but is only an abstract mathematical model/object or a graphical/geometrical representation, which facilitates the description of motion/event, using 3+1 dimensions and taking into consideration the invariance of velocity of light. Then 'spacetime warp' is out of my league. Is it so? ---------------------------****************** Dear URAIN, You must forgive me if I have hurt your feelings. But, you must understand that, 'spacetime curvature' is a theory proposed by GR. And so, only GR can explain it adequately. Thank you.

There can not be two definitions of Space, whether given by the Science Dictionary or Modern Physics. [The English literary dictionary may have a slightly different or more descriptive meaning according to different contexts, but we are not concerned here.] Is the nature of space as defined by modern physics, any different? What is the definition of Space according to Modern Physics? The Neutrinos mentioned by you are contents of Space. They or any other particles or objects inside the Space are not bodily parts or ‘personal’ parts of the Space. They are contents of Space. The Space does not have any body, or any parts. So we can not consider their properties as properties of Space. The property of Space is ‘It allows itself to be occupied’. Matter can affect it only by occupying it. It can not affect it in any other way by, like bending or warping it.

I have added a couple of words more to the post which created the superfluous impression. Please kindly go through the post#80 again.

Hello Greg Boyles, The fact whether Space is occupied or vacant, does not, in any way, alter the definition of Space. Please clarify, 'What ASSUMPTION is necessarily not valid'. Are you proposing that; whereas, 'empty Space' can not be warped, however 'occupied Space' can be warped? ---------------------------********************* Unsubstantiated.

The one and only definition of Space is; "Empty-vacant region/place/area/expanse/span (for lack of adequately expressive word), which permits itself to be occupied" Nothing more, nothing less. The fact mentioned by any knowledge seeking sector, that there is no AVAILABLE empty space, does not alter the definition of SPACE. IF MATTER OCCUPIES SPACE; THERE HAS TO BE EMPTY SPACE IN THE OCCUPIED PLACE. Kindly consider the fact that I have begun this thread to "comprehend the Spacetime curvature theory as proposed by GR". I do not intend to be diverted into any other point of views like Consciousness, Reincarnation etc other than GR. Thank you. Edits: Italics

Very elegant explanation there, IM Egdall, "or in more formal terms the warping of the space interval", this is a better way of putting it. However, the objection raised does not concern, whether or not the space & time are warped or not. The objection is regarding the describing of the warp. That is, The GR says, the change of distance is due to a change in the shape of the structure of space. How can it be, when the space does not have any structure? Space is nothing but 'Vacancy'. Let me try to put it this way; In the absence of a massive body, if an object moves from say point 'A' to point 'B' in a straight line, covering a distance of 'd1'. Now in the presence of a massive body, the same object takes a different path at the same velocity & now the distance covered becomes 'd2', which is say, greater than 'd1'. This change of distance is said to have been caused due to the warping of the space, according to GR. Which, I object. The reason is- "The space can not be warped. Because it has no structure", and instead, I would like to say, that; the object takes a different path not because the space around the massive object is warped but instead because, it is forced to do so by the gravitational field of the massive body. May be the tangential component of the Gravitational force is forcing the object to change its path. Like a magnetic needle gets deflected in a magnetic field. Likewise, Gravity has the potential to deflect motion & duration of objects & events respectively. what are the drawbacks or flaws in saying that?

'Nothing' here, means, 'made up of nothing', i.e. 'Emptiness', 'Vacancy', 'Structure-less', I did not mean 'Non-existant'. Though I appreciate your concern; (I had a glance through the links you suggested) but, at this point, I am more interested in, Spacetime curvature, than Reincarnation. Thank you. Edits: Italics

Yes, Michel123456. My thoughts are similar, in regards to the grid & the Gravity. That's what this thread is about. -------------------------------********************** Does Physics hold this opinion?

Thank you Greg Boyles, for relating. Though most of the analogy is amiable, the hard part is, assuming space time as a sheet of elastic material. Now my perception of space is; it is, Structure-less, Empty & means Nothingness. Then how to presume Nothingness as a material thing?

I know that, there is something else in my left hand and nothing in my right hand, then; how would I convince myself that I have the crime weapon in my hand?

Conclusion regarding what?