north

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me. Please address my request or stop posting. I want to remind you that you're posting in a physics forum, not a metaphysics or philosophy forum.

 

Why does it feel like I'm repeating myself?

because you have not come to terms with what I'm saying as a truth

and what I'm saying has nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy

but with reality

Not "also" since gravitational time dilation stems from the same effect.

 

 

You appear to agree that light bends.

 

yes

 

 

Then, end of story. One way to represent that is geometrically, i.e. non-Euclidean space.

 

not end of story

 

yes one way is to represent this geometrically

 

but geometrics does not go deep enough

 

geometrics merely describes the consequence of energy/matter angles but does not tell me why ?

 

 

 

 

 

Any suggestion that relativity is incorrect (if that's what you are suggesting) should be discussed in its own thread. Not here.

light bends BECAUSE of the ENERGY and /or matter in space

Originally Posted by north

light is not curved by gravity but by the closeness of light to the sun atmosphere and rotation]

This is wrong. If you care to prove your assertion with citations and/or evidence, please have at it.

how is what I put forth wrong ?

space has NO substance associated to it , in and of its self

and time is certainly a mathematical concept and is based on an objects movements , which are based on the objects nature and the interactions with other objects

what is left other than the reality of the consequenes of the sun's atmosphere , the closer to it , the more bent the light is

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me.

I'm not avoiding reference

but who do I reference too ?

who has thought the way I do about the subject ?

no one that I know of

Nonsense.

 

You may as well have said that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns. Let's see some evidence in support of your claims, north.

I already have in other threads I'm sure of which you are aware

first lets look at space

can you give me a block of space , without confinment ( such as walls )

go outside and bring me a block of space and present it to me as a seperate block of space to the space of which you are in

can you do that ?

the beauty of Reason is that it not only brings ALL current information into the fold on any subject but also allows for future info to be applied and thought upon

Reason evolves in and of its self

logic does not evolve in and of it self

because logic is based on the info given

So I was thinking.

 

Let's say that somehow you made it to the exact center of the earth( supposing that this was actually possible and that you weren't crushed by the pressure and that earth was a perfect sphere.)

 

Would you be "weightless" as there would be nothing pulling you down to earth.

 

you'd just fall until you couldn't fall no more

 

ahh no you wouldn't be weightless

 

 

 

Would the gravitational effect of the outer walls of earth stretch you apart?

 

 

no you'd just keep falling until something stopped you , rock , molten rock etc. not gravity

 

If I'm right than wouldn't you weigh less below a certain altitude ( where the gravity of earth is just before it begins to decrease as you move outward...)

 

hmmm...

Spacetime is curved near massive objects, and when a photons moves near that massive object, it bends becuase the spactime is curved. The photon will still me travelling in a straight line, but that line is passing through curved space, which makes it look like it bends.

this so called space-time is curved is very , very , very misleading

light is curved or bends because of the energy and/or matter in that region of space

neither space or time has ANY and I mean ANY substance associated with them

which means that neither space or time can AFFECT anything at all

I agree with Darkpassenger. I think that the whole idea of spacetime being curved and proven to curve during solar eclipses is hokum. It proves that light is bent by gravity and nothing more.

I disagree

light is not curved by gravity but by the closness of light to the sun atmosphere and rotation

think of being in a desert and the heat-wave off the desert surface and the consequent optics observered

now apply

Tom C,

what Severian says here is precisely the idea of space and time we have from classic vintage-1915 General Relativity. GR is still the best theory of spacetime geometry and gravity that we have. I don't see how what Sev says could be improved, as a concise statement.

 

 

 

Ideas like superstring and M may well be irrelevant, and so far don't provide a mathematical model of the continuum that can serve as a satisfactory replacement. Ideas like "fabric" and "spacetime foam" are as yet merely verbal---unfortunately they have not been translated into usable unambiguous mathematical models.

 

It's anybody's guess what new math model of spacetime will eventually replace the one implemented in GR. If you want some suggestion of what it might look like, I would recommend Ambjorn and Loll's article in Scientific American---I have a link in my sig.

 

What they describe is more recent than anything you can read about in a Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking book. And looks to me considerably closer to the goal of a new continuum, a quantum spacetime geometry. Actually Ambjorn and Loll's model derives from a Stephen Hawking idea going back to 1980s which hit a snag. Ambjorn and Loll removed a key roadblock around 1998 and gave it a new start, after which the approach made a lot of progress.

 

For now, until some new quantum continuum model emerges as a clear favorite and is tested with real data, we have to adhere to GR. In terms of tested proven theories we don't have any real alternative. It's the best theory of gravity, and the best model of what spacetime geometry is, that we have.

 

In GR, geometry is represented by a metric a mathematical tool for specifying distances which was defined around 1850 by a young fellow named Riemann. The message of GR is that all there is is the metric---geometric relationships among events. Apart from geometry there is neither space nor time. Indeed the gravitational field is realized as the metric itself---gravity equals geometry.

 

The thing to notice is that a metric (as invented by Riemann and improved by Einstein and the fellow Sev mentioned, named Minkowski) might not be the only way to represent geometry. What people like Loll are trying to do, and people like Laurent Freidel, is to come up with a definte math object which will be as useful as the metric-on-a-manifold developed during the period 1850-1915 by Riemann, Minkowski, Einstein and others. Satisfactory progress will depend on developing a new way to present the universe's dynamically changing geometry as a usable math object that people can calculate with and check against data.

 

The neat thing about Ambjorn and Loll's approach is that they can simulate little quantum universes in the computer. Have them come into existence, evolve, stop them and study them, evolve some more, go out of existence.

They have simulated millions of universes. They can accumulate statistics on them, correlations. Each universe has an amplitude (a kind of probability weighting) and they are able to average up their universes, to derive a kind of path integral or average geometry. Under the simplest assumptions this turns out to be a classic spacetime geometry solving the GR equation---that is, it turns out to be the right thing. This happened this year.

 

It was a first. Classic 4D universe emerging from a messy quantum chaos. Taking shape by itself as a weighted average of many random universes (individually wacky irregular uncertain unsmooth without even a fixed dimensionality at small scale.)

 

I hope you have a look at the Loll SciAm link. What they did this year does not prove that their approach is the final answer. All it shows is what the other people will have to duplicate with their other approaches. It raises the bar and indicates what to expect from a new model quantum continuum. (And of course it could be right too, but until testing nobody can tell right, the main thing now is to move ahead.)

Martin

through all this how does continum geometry either by GR or Quantum gets us any closer to the actual physical dynamics which involves cause,effect and affect and in NO particular order , of any dynamics out there( the Universe )

this space-time geometry concept has failed to provide the real explaination of the goings on ( physical dynamics of the interaction(s) of energy and matter ) other than to say it is " geometric " )

well ... not that the geometry is not important , it is , its just that the geometry is the result of the consequence of the physical dynamics of objects and their inherent natures

hence we theories based on space-time which in the physical-dynamics of the Universe means nothing really

Reason also says that chili pepper, salt, and chocolate shouldn't taste good together, yet they're outstanding. Empiricism crushes reason every time.

 

There are a lot of things in our universe which don't make intuitive sense, but you have to remember that our intuition evolved during a very short lifetime as a very small animal on a very small planet in a very small solar system in just one of billions of galaxies in a supercluster of galaxies which is itself one among billions.

 

Trust the experiment, not the logic. As smart as Aristotle was, we've come a very long way since then, and they call it "The Enlightenment" for very good reason. <pun intended>

we are now beyond Aristotle and Einstein

for a very good reason

This was already addressed above many times, but I suppose it needs repeating. The context of this discussion is "scientific theory," so your comments are far from accurate or true. If you would like to learn more about what I mean, you only have to look back 3 posts to my previous response.

 

Nobody here is talking about scribblings on the back of a napkin in a bar at 3AM after too many beers.

I see your point

but at the same time , this space-time perception , as in both have some sort of reality keeps popping up

so that both space and time influences things is pervasive

reason says otherwise

First of all, I think it's wonderful that people focus their efforts on creating theories regarding various subjects and spend time discussing about them with other people . Nevertheless, I have a qustion to pose: every day we produce several theories during our effort to understand the universe that surrounds

us. Depending on our studies and our interests we elaborate on specific topics, trying to reveal some of the mysteries that "provoke"our mind. But does anyone know (and can tell the rest of us) HOW are theories produced? Many philosophers have tried to answer this question, but the answers that they have given have left me unsatisfied. Production of theories has been attributed to immagination, logics, accumulation of evidence, etc., but no one has EVER provided the scientific community with an accurate, precise mechanism. How can we evaluate whether a theory is right or wrong,complete or incomplete, if we don't even know how it was produced? How can we expect science as a whole to create well- founded opinions (theories) if there is no established mechanism? In order to produce any kind of product (theories are one of the intellectual- mental product) a well established procedure is essential. Otherwise, when the procedure is not known, the theoretical activity is empiric and NOT scientific. I agree that on one hand we do know how to produce theories ,given the infinite number of theories that have been produced during the history of science. On the other hand, how can we explain the fact that no one has expressed at least a rudimentary method? Is it enough for scientists to produce theories without realizing how they manage to do it or should focus our efforts on trying to solve this problem? I simply remind you that many theories , some of which were considered equivalent to scientific knowledge, have been proved wrong or inadequate, despite the fact that they were accepted by the entire scientific community. Is there any chance that such loss of time would have been avoided if we knew how theories are produced and evaluated?

yes

theories are produced it seems by logic alone

sort of the spock syndome

perhaps the use of Reason would be a better approach

the difference between logic and reason is this ;

logic uses the info provided and comes to a conclusion

whereas reason accumlates , draws in info all the time , and questions and therefore , at times comes to a different conclusion

Originally Posted by BlackPower

...

What exactly would the universe be defined as? All of the matter and the space it occupies? If space dosent end and does go on forever (lets say without overlapping on itself) wouldn't most of space be regions where the matter and energy from the big bang has not yet reached? (like i said im just a weedhead from jersey, sorry if its hard to grasp what im saying) ....

:-)What will happen if space exists there also???

the Universe is defined as a place of space , energy and matter reside

which of course is true

to answer the question of whether within the Universe there are regions of which BB ( big-bang ) has not reached , there is none

why so ?

because it is the energy and therefore matter that has created any region of space

any space that is present is based on energy-matter and any energy-matter is based on space

both space and energy-matter go hand and hand

Originally Posted by north

think rotation by that huge object and the mass or matter that is within that space

 

and the consequences

Then space bends is it ???

NO

the matter IN that space bends persay because it is in a fluid form

Why?

because the connection between two rotating bodies and the energy both are giving off

for instance we forget at times that the sun for instance is a three dimensional object

meaning that the energy it is throwing off is in ALL directions

therefore that when any energy from a star interacts with energy from another star there are consequences

hence bending of light from a star who's light comes close to the atmosphere of the sun , consequence > optics

The path of mass or matter will bend, why space it self?

as I said

it is energy-matter that bends NOT space in-and-of -itself

Then space converts to time there.

no such convertion takes place at all

How to prove it Experimentally???

impossible

further

I propose that for any atom say Hydrogen , to act as hydrogen does , and does so properly needs space that extends beyond the electron , perhaps ^2 or even 3^

Yup. Like I said, still waiting on those references, north.

like I said

none

just hoped you could Reason it out

And this is supposed to be helpful to a person asking a question, how exactly?

because since space has NO substance related to it the only Reasonable conclusion is that there must be matter , coupled with rotation , in that space which bends the light

Still waiting on those references, north.

none , there is only one other person who has argued the same way and that was about a yr ago on another site

my argument is based on Reason alone

take it from there

north

:-)You are correct sir,

Light Rays near huge masses bend. It does not imply space itself is bent ????

think rotation by that huge object and the mass or matter that is within that space

and the consequences

Today, 08:45 PM #16

Originally Posted by north

" appear " is the key word here

 

because to the object it is not shrinking

 

 

realitivity is based on perception

 

for instance ;

 

a star behind the sun

 

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

 

which Einstein did not consider

 

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

Examples please. I understand where you are comming from but please please give me a refrence because with out one it is in no way answering my question that has had me stumped for sometime, so please lets keep this ON topic and include a refrence if your going to tell me something that goes against what every one has learned to believe.

so lets go further in my example

if I raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is parallel to the north pole of the sun there is little bending of light

why ? because both poles are at the same level , so the light from the star behind the sun goes straight . the is no bending down towards the Earth

now if I bring the the southern pole of the Earth to the north pole of the sun , then the same thing happens , with the light of the star as did when I brought up the north pole of the Earth , no bending , just straight through

however the northern pole of the Earth is now well above the suns atmosphere and as a consequence there is no bending of the light from the star behind the sun

Hi,

 

I am not a scientist so my understanding of space-time is based on books, magazine articles, and internet searches that are light on math.

If space-time is a fabric or foam that can be warped, what makes up the fabric or foam?

THIS is the ultimate question and of which there is NO answer by anybody

I have asked this question for years

space is a consequense of matter

time is a mathematical concept , based on the fundamental movement(s) of energy and matter

time is NOT in any way a substance

I seen on the show on history channel today called The Universe

That explained that dark energy with a repulsive force is quickly becoming the strongest possibility for 'The End'

 

but back on topic,if you understand what i mean in my last post about an expanding ruler, if the objects are light years apart would it then become visible to the observer that something was not quite right as opposed to if the two where side by side?

I speculate that the object that was attempted to be mesured would appear to be shrinking correct?

" appear " is the key word here

because to the object it is not shrinking

Because the Farther the object is away from the observer/ruler the more time drag would become evident and you would see the object earlyer in time ergo when it was at a smaller state.

 

Now im just musing on the topic on hand at the moment but it always has been a curiousity of mine how one would go about measuring movement in something that we are matching the speed of. Like Being unable to see the background while two trains are moving in the same direction and same speed

 

Einstein himself used something along these lines to explain relativity but I am unaware if he ever gave any examples of how one would go about measuring relative motion against an unknown background.

realitivity is based on perception

for instance ;

a star behind the sun

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

which Einstein did not consider

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

North, you're not Bishadi are you by any chance?

NO

if you need any more proof let me know , please

"Any analogy has limits, you can't push it too far. Some people try to improve the balloon model by representing the galaxies as PENNIES glued onto the balloon. Then it is clear that expansion does not make them change size."

 

The balloon was just an analogy I my self was using to state my question

 

Where as other forces may be fighting against expansion they are still doing just that and putting energy into doing so.

My main point of this thead is how would one measure a change in the size of an object if the ruler is expanding at the same rate as the object attemping to be measured

good question

"just the space between objects expands"

is there space between objects?

why would you ask this question ?

what is your basis for this question ?

or why does this question of yours make sense to you ?

What is the philosophy of science?

knowledge

as far as I know , science is the Greek word for knowledge

:-)Why don’t we think in terms of Normal Physics? Is it not too much imagination?

 

I feel we can explain every thing with Normal every day EXPERIMENTAL Physics…

 

Why should we get into math singularity and go nowhere from there???

because thats where physics is at

mathematical physics seems to think " space can bend " it can't

it just " seems " that way