Measuring the curvature of spacetime

You are confusing cosmological curvature given by the sign, i.e., type, of curvature as opposed to the measurement of curvature given by paddoboy, which is the deviation from flat space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think that anyone said this. What they said, I believe, are two things. The first is that the cosmological constant/dark energy doesn't play a role in the dynamics of gravitationally bound systems. It does operate within these structures, but its effect is negligible. The second is that it is not part of contemporary cosmology to deny the relationship of mass-energy to curvature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is what I would characterize as a good answer. And brucep responded with part of it already, followed by a tirade about cranks.

DE = energy, evidently, and so if contemporary cosmology denies the idea that something with as large a slice of the mass-energy pie chart content of the universe as DE has is not related to spacetime curvature, that's a problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's quite obvious what I'm saying: The DE could be a previously unknown quantity, we don't know: That's why it's called DE. I see it as the CC though.
And again, it is simply a "force" that is peculiar to spacetime.
I don't believe the rest of your rather ignorant diatribe is worth commenting on.

 

AND ONCE AGAIN, you EQUIVOCATE "FORCE" WITH "ENERGY". There is no such thing (as far as I am aware) as "dark force", unless you are equating that with Guth's "superforce", someone else who may have learned physics from the same source.

It appears that you studied physics by watching STAR WARS. This is what I mean by "learning from mistakes". "Force" is not "energy". Everybody got that?

Is this really paddoboy, or does he farm out some of his responses to a 14 year old like brucep seems to do?

 

No, I equivocate DE with spacetime, and unlike you and your general tripe, I do not make up fairy tails.
As I'm fond of telling other alternative or anti science nuts, if you believe you have anything of substance, supporting your nonsense, then submit a paper and undergo proper peer review.

 

Now you equivocate ENERGY with SPACE / TIME / SPACETIME?

So you are saying that the VeV and cosmological constant are both associated with DE, but this in no manner involves any sort of curvature?

OK that's new, but why? It's like, for you, there are multiple universes, and the laws that apply to one scale just abruptly break down at another. Space / time curves for things we can observe that are bound by gravity, but behave in an entirely different manner if you zoom out by another large factor. This just sounds an awful lot like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

"The paper in question has, however, not been withdrawn by the journal."

"
Internet discussions[edit]
In addition to a few articles in print media, the Bogdanov Affair has been discussed extensively in various newsgroups, webpages and blogs; the Bogdanov brothers have often participated in the discussions, sometimes using pseudonyms or represented by friends acting as proxies.[27][31] They have used these methods to defend their work and sometimes to insult their critics, among them the Nobel Prize recipient Georges Charpak.[31]

In October 2002, the Bogdanovs released an email containing apparently supportive statements by Laurent Freidel, then a visiting professor at the Perimeter Institute.[5] Soon after, Freidel denied writing any such remarks, telling the press that he had forwarded a message containing that text to a friend. The Bogdanovs then attributed the quoted passages to Freidel, who said, "I'm very upset about that because I have received e-mail from people in the community asking me why I've defended the Bogdanov brothers. When your name is used without your consent, it's a violation."[5]

At the start of the controversy in the moderated group sci.physics.research, Igor Bogdanov denied that their published papers were a hoax,[32] but when asked precise questions from physicists Steve Carlip and John Baez regarding mathematical details in the papers, failed to convince any other participants that these papers had any real scientific value. New York Times reporter George Johnson described reading through the debate as "like watching someone trying to nail Jell-O to a wall", for the Bogdanovs had "developed their own private language, one that impinges on the vocabulary of science only at the edges."[6]"

 

Standard accepted cosmology stands as unchallenged with regards to GR and curved spacetime.
Spacetime curvature has been entirely evident in many tests beginning with the Eddington experiment and culminating in GP-B. Gravitational lensing is a fact: Gravitational lensing is caused by light travelling in geodesics in curved spacetime: Curved spacetime in the presence of mass, is a postulate of GR. Gravitational lensing is evidence of spacetime curvature.
GR and spacetime curvature stands as unchallenged at this time, despite the swarm of alternative brigade we have on this forum at this time.
Of course, as per usual, they have no where else to spray their nonsensical take on present day cosmology.

From a lay person's point of view, the most amazing thing I find about Einstein's GR and spacetime curvature is the fact that in essence it was formulated and derived from pure logical thought, not as a result of experiment: Yet since that momentous day, it has passed all tests thrown at it in the classical sense and there is absolutely no experimental or observational reason to either modify or abandon it.
Simply put, it works!
ps: Yes, it does not apply at the quantum level but that is expected as GR is a purely classical theory. [not withstanding the usual god botherers and cranks]

https://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission6.html#successful_mission
Extraordinary Accomplishments

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-134_Gravity_Probe_B.html

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/


http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/

http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/general_relativity

 

DE is not spacetime.

DE could just be the cosmological constant, in which case it is a difference in the relationship between mass-energy and geometry than the initial formulation of GR. This difference holds at all levels, but it only becomes influential at large distances.

 

Agreed: I certainly see it as the CC.

 

The discussions appearing in this thread are summarized in this:

https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html

"Gravity feels strongest where spacetime is most curved, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move"."

"While intuitively appealing, however, the rubber-sheet picture has its limitations. Mostly, these have to do with the fact that it allows us to visualize the spatial aspect of Einstein's theory, but not the temporal one. To see this, we need only remember that Newtonian gravity must be approximately valid, whatever Einstein says, and Newton tells us that bodies move in straight lines unless acted upon by a force. Why, then, do the orbits of planets around the sun on the rubber sheet appear so far from straight, if there is no attracting force reaching out through spacetime to tug on them? The answer is that planetary trajectories are very nearly straight — in spacetime, not space. The worldline of the earth, for example, resembles a stretched-out spiral whose width in space is only one astronomical unit, but whose length in the time direction is measured in lightyears! Another way to appreciate the importance of the "time" in "spacetime" is to apply the equivalence principle and ask whether the fact that we experience a gravitational field on the earth's surface is "equivalent" to stating that the earth's surface is continually accelerating outward. Obviously not, for we do not observe the earth to grow larger! The trouble is that, in speaking of the earth's surface, we have again lapsed into thinking of acceleration in spatial terms. On earth, where speeds are small compared to the speed of light and the gravitational field is weak, it turns out that nearly all of our weight arises due to the warping of time, rather than space. What this means in practice is that gravity on earth is "equivalent" to acceleration mostly in the sense that clocks on the surface run more slowly than clocks in outer space <at rest with respect to Earth, but far from it>."

"Einstein's theory of gravity represents a major swing back toward the relational view of space and time, in that it answers the objection of the ancient Stoics. Space and time do act on matter, by guiding the way it moves. And matter does act back on spacetime, by producing the curvature that we feel as gravity. Beyond that, matter can act on spacetime in a manner that is very much in the spirit of Mach's principle. Calculations by Hans Thirring (1888-1979), Josef Lense (1890-1985) and others have shown that a large rotating mass will "drag" an observer's inertial reference frame around with it. This is the phenomenon of frame-dragging, whose existence Gravity Probe B is designed to detect. The same calculations suggest that, if the entire contents of the universe were to rotate, our local inertial frame would undergo "perfect dragging" — that is, we would not notice it, because we would be rotating too!"

Spacetime "guiding the way matter moves" and "matter does act back" on spacetime sounds exactly like imparting inertia to me. What recently discovered particle that Einstein never knew about does that? Sure, just go back to eating your flobberworm salads and ignore it.

"Warping <dilation> of time rather than space accounts for nearly all of our weight" sounded to me like they were endorsing my view that a volume of space is one dimension of light travel time and two rotational phase angles requiring but a SINGLE dimension of TIME to generate all of space.

And finally, acceleration due to DE could represent rotational acceleration for all we know, even though the prospect might not make Alan Guth very happy unless he could think of a way to introduce spin to inflation. I'm not saying that it is necessarily so; only that it is a possibility that it might be, based on degrees of freedom of acceleration allowed to be represented by observed Doppler shifts. Also, it would be consistent with hierarchal aggregation due to gravity we already have some familiarity with. But no matter how it may be moving, "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move" If it moves, that's always the reason it does.

 

None!

The Higgs particle does not do this. It is only something that interacts with some particles in such a way to contain them. That containing creates inertia in the same way any other force does.

 

Quit making idiot wind comments about stuff you don't understand. You haven't learned anything. All you do is reveal the delusions that are the source of the disrespect you get from folks who have learned something about these subjects. You're making a fool of yourself. Nobody believe's you've ever studied any of these subjects. At least anybody who has studied these subjects. Pay attention to the overwhelming negative response you get. You still need to believe in the nonsense. Must be a serious self esteem issue. An example of this is your juvenile response to negative comments about you and your illiterate physics. The response where you hit the like button in response to the negative comments. Petulant punk.

 

Show us you can learn. I say it's something you have no intention of doing. That's my conclusion. The reality is you can't provide any proof for the bullshit you've been touting. That can probably be fixed if you show that you're serious about learning. The times come for you to anti up danshawen. I'd love to be wrong about you. For that to happen you're going to have to face up to your propensity towards intellectual dishonesty. Right now it's pretty difficult not to wonder about the extent of your character issues. I'm getting tired of beating you over the head. Wake up.

 

I responded with all of it. This might be instructive for you. Physbang had formal training while I learned what I know on my own with the help of great text and with the occasional bit of useful advice. It's not impossible. You wanted to dis the fact that I taught myself calculus. You're a crank so you get my tirade. Learn something and we all might cut you a break. I will. Until then expect the tirade when you behave like a crank. IE prefer being right over intellectual honesty. Every time Physbang asks you for a coherent response he's asking you for an intellectually honest reply. It's always a good policy but absolutely necessary when engaged in scientific research and discussion. The more we behave like that the more we can have personal respect for everybody's contribution. I'd like to ask more questions but we make it a sign of weakness around here so I don't do it. BTW it's really stupid to argue with experts about stuff you don't understand. Right now your street cred is pretty low. As I like to say it's an infinitesimal.

 

Oh well
*plonk*
You should think about the effects of crankism on mental health. A bit of potentially useful advice.

 

What is flat space in GR ?

This is the biggest problem, GR talks of spacetime not of spatial space. Bending / warping as referred in GR is not of spatial space, it is of spacetime, which is nothing but mathematical aspect.

 

Actually, the biggest problems with anti-SR/GR proponents is that they fail the simple test of explaining where Einstein made a mistake. They always just say the theory is wrong but they never explain where Einstein made a mistake. If Einstein's theory is wrong there should be a mistake in his reasoning which is very explicitly laid out. So where is the mistake? There should be a step in his reasoning that is wrong. Put up or shut up.

 

EM force in atomic structure can't happen at all if Higgs does not impart inertia to electrons and quarks. Not "the same as any other force does". And Higgs gets its own mass/inertia from atomic structure. In fact, Earshaw's theorem assures us that one of the principle differences between static charge and gravitation is that alone static charge cannot 'contain' other static charges at all. As I said, NOT like other forces. Higgs decays most of the time to produce gluons, but it can also decay into electrons, and is the foundational particle of the Standard model developed at the critical juncture of electroweak unification. If you aren't getting this, perhaps you should change you name to MathBang or something. But at least you seem to have caught on, it doesn't matter how energy gets confined. Confining it is 1/2 of the definition of inertia.

"Mass endows curvature to space and curvature of space tells matter how to move" is, combined with the principle of equivalence, exactly the same statement as: "Higgs imparts inertia to matter and matter imparts inertia to Higgs." Unless you majored in math, evidently.

 

I stopped reading your rants in this thread after the first one, but if it amuses you, by all means, continue wasting your time. And I suppose you also think you have learned all the calculus you will ever need? Well, that makes two of us.

I have a gaping character flaw in that, unless I am reading something written by someone like you, I tend to believe what is written if it makes sense based on my education and my experience. If this irritates you, it pleases me. Do we understand each other?

My opinions are as informed as yours. Some really brilliant.people are autodidacts by choice. Others have it imposed on them by harsh economic reality. I tend to get along better with those who are in the second category, but I'm sure there will be exceptions to any rule.