Gravity Works Like This

[Grumpy]

RC

PS: Like I earlier pointed out to Trippy, the Epicycles 'described' via abstract unreal maths construct the observed motions across space, but it didn't actually identify the underlying energy/space entities, processes or actually provide any real 'explanation' of anything when all was said and done within its 'construct/assumptions/interpretations rhetoric, did it?

Did the fact that ancient Greeks thought the sun was a Chariot of the Gods(bet you wondered where that name originated)have any effect on the accuracy of their calendar? Spacetime has been confirmed by direct observation and extremely precise measurement. Whether or not it is the final word, it accurately describes and predicts the real behavior of the real Universe without relying on ad hoc abominations like epicycles. So we will keep using it until a better, even more complete understanding evolves, just like we kept using Newton(and still do except in extreme conditions)until Relativity evolved.

Farsight

with the time dimension which is a measure of regular cyclical motion in space.

That is time's definition, an artificial construct to measure a real thing, time. All mathematical descriptions are maps of a very real territory, or we would'nt bother drawing them.

You guys have no shame. The idiocy of what you post has been exposed and you don't even know enough about the subject to know that, you learn nothing and deny all presented data. Trolls.

Grumpy

 

[OnlyMe]

First, nothing that follows should be taken as support for, or agreement with, with the opinions presented by Undefined or most of what Farsight seems to believe.

Second, we all enter into these discussions biased by our own conceptual interpretations. Hopefully we remain open enough to understand the limitations of conceptual projections. From this I do not exclude myself. The following is based on an evolution of my own conceptual understanding... Which may or may not represent reality!

At least I finally got you to understand that spacetime curvature is a real property of the Universe. That we don't know everything does not mean that we know nothing. Spacetime is a real thing, Relativity theory is our description of how we see that real thing(spacetime)behave. It is not an overlay and despite the fact that it is a construct, it is an accurate construct that describes reality. It is a very accurate map indeed.

Until about five to seven years ago I would have had no issue with anything in the above statement. My formal background in physics dates back to the late sixties and I was most interested at that time and for most of the time in between with understanding gravity, from a classical and relativistic perspective. Somewhere between five and seven years ago I began to try and understand some of the work, publicly available dealing with quantum gravity. Though I can claim no expertise in that area even after five to seven years, I have begun to see some of the difficulty I and it seems almost everyone else were having in attempts to reach a unified theory, approaching the task from within the context of relativity.

With this as background, there are some conceptual problems with the quoted statement above. Spacetime is an abstraction. It is a 4D geometric model that describes and predicts the dynamics of the interaction of gravitationally significant masses. It is not a description of any curvature of space or time.

The abstract spacetime model of GR, has been a very successful model, helping us to understand and explain most of what we observe at scales ranging from everyday classical experience to many associated with cosmological dynamics. The later in some cases requiring some modification to our conceptual understanding of mass and energy to remain consistent with GR... And no success in providing any real insight into the dynamics of gravitation at either extreme, existing at quantum scales or within the event horizon of what we call black holes. In both cases GR begins to run into difficulties, in the form of infinities. This is perhaps the greatest problem with attempts to conceptually project the abstract spacetime of GR, onto reality as an accurate description of space and, time.

One of the arguments that has been tossed back and forth, in this discussion has been whether in the context of GR the speed of light is constant or variable. The answer is of no importance for GR itself. It is only important, when measured against how one incorporates their understanding of GR.., conceptually, as a real description of space and time. It is certain that within the context of SR, to the best of our ability, at present to test it, the speed of light is constant. But SR, is only functionally accurate within the context of GR, when the abstract spacetime curvature of that model can be neglected as insignificant. For GR it does not matter whether the speed of light remains constant or is variable, in a gravitational field. The difference between the two positions only determines definitions of variables and constants. If the speed of light is constant, space and time are variable. If the speed of light is variable space and time may become constants. Interpretation of the Shapiro delay is an example. Describing the delay as representing a change in the speed of light or as a function of the a change in the length of the path of light are equally valid. And both will remain equally valid until such time as we can conduct some experiment that excludes one or the other, by means other than the application of a conceptual theoretical interpretation. In either case, whether the speed of light is constant or variable outside the context of SR, GR remains a valid and successful predictive and descriptive model, of how objects interact within the context of gravitation.

This statement from the above quote, ...spacetime curvature is a real property of the Universe., is a conceptual conclusion, not a statement of fact that has been proven. Spacetime is a real abstract geometric model that describes most of what we observe of reality, within an everyday classical and most cosmological contexts.

 

[Farsight]

...You guys have no shame. The idiocy of what you post has been exposed and you don't even know enough about the subject to know that, you learn nothing and deny all presented data. Trolls.

Enough. I think what Maxila said was pretty much spot on:

I bailed because you are not merely ignorant of the scientific facts, you’re obtuse, unable to acknowledge your misconceptions when direct references are provided to the contrary. I provided links and quoted the points that were in direct contradiction to what you were quoted saying, you had the hubris to post in reply “You've yet to correct anything I have posted”, you also didn’t even acknowledge you misquote of me when I pointed that out too. The evidence is right here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3175284&viewfull=1#post3175284

You're obviously lacking or plain wrong in knowledge of the topic, and you think nothing of ignoring scientific principles whenever is suits you. Arguing with you is akin to banging my head against the wall to cure a headache; not only is it pointless, it’s excruciating. I make a real effort to not make these type of posts, I usually just stop responding to people like you, but in this case if it benefits any other readers to see what you are all about and they learn not to take you seriously, I will have accomplished something positive.

Grumpy, there's no talking to you. You're on filter.

All: I started this thread. Please do not feed this troll.

 

[Farsight]

Until about five to seven years ago I would have had no issue with anything in the above statement. My formal background in physics dates back to the late sixties and I was most interested at that time and for most of the time in between with understanding gravity, from a classical and relativistic perspective. Somewhere between five and seven years ago I began to try and understand some of the work, publicly available dealing with quantum gravity. Though I can claim no expertise in that area even after five to seven years, I have begun to see some of the difficulty I and it seems almost everyone else were having in attempts to reach a unified theory, approaching the task from within the context of relativity.

I can tell you something about quantum gravity. The key to it is that the photon has an "active gravitational mass". That means the photon is also a graviton.

With this as background, there are some conceptual problems with the quoted statement above. Spacetime is an abstraction. It is a 4D geometric model that describes and predicts the dynamics of the interaction of gravitationally significant masses. It is not a description of any curvature of space or time.

It's an abstraction, and it relates to curvature in your metric which concerns your measurements of space and time.

The abstract spacetime model of GR, has been a very successful model, helping us to understand and explain most of what we observe at scales ranging from everyday classical experience to many associated with cosmological dynamics. The later in some cases requiring some modification to our conceptual understanding of mass and energy to remain consistent with GR... And no success in providing any real insight into the dynamics of gravitation at either extreme, existing at quantum scales or within the event horizon of what we call black holes. In both cases GR begins to run into difficulties, in the form of infinities. This is perhaps the greatest problem with attempts to conceptually project the abstract spacetime of GR, onto reality as an accurate description of space and, time.

I don't think it runs into difficulties with black holes. I think problems have been caused by people who don't understand gravity, and who have a different idea about general relativity to Einstein.

One of the arguments that has been tossed back and forth, in this discussion has been whether in the context of GR the speed of light is constant or variable. The answer is of no importance for GR itself. It is only important, when measured against how one incorporates their understanding of GR.., conceptually, as a real description of space and time. It is certain that within the context of SR, to the best of our ability, at present to test it, the speed of light is constant. But SR, is only functionally accurate within the context of GR, when the abstract spacetime curvature of that model can be neglected as insignificant. For GR it does not matter whether the speed of light remains constant or is variable, in a gravitational field. The difference between the two positions only determines definitions of variables and constants.

I beg to differ. I think it's crucial. Once you see that the speed of light is variable just like Einstein said, the scales fall from your eyes and gravity is simple. If you don't, it's forever mysterious.

If the speed of light is constant, space and time are variable. If the speed of light is variable space and time may become constants.

But they don't. Gravitational time dilation is not some illusion. All you do is appreciate that it isn't time flowing in an optical clock, it's light moving. When the clock goes slower it isn't because time goes slower, but because light goes slower.

Interpretation of the Shapiro delay is an example. Describing the delay as representing a change in the speed of light or as a function of the a change in the length of the path of light are equally valid.

They aren't equally valid. If it was an increase in path length black holes would be of infinite size. I said this to James R a while back. He accepted it.

And both will remain equally valid until such time as we can conduct some experiment that excludes one or the other, by means other than the application of a conceptual theoretical interpretation. In either case, whether the speed of light is constant or variable outside the context of SR, GR remains a valid and successful predictive and descriptive model, of how objects interact within the context of gravitation.

GR is valid and successful, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.

 

[OnlyMe]

All: I started this thread. Please do not feed this troll.

Farsight, you started the thread, but you seem to have assumed that everyone should just agree with you! You present opinion and theory as if it were fact. And yes to some extent we are all guilty of the same, but most realize we are doing it, while it seems you do not.

If you categorize someone else as trolling, because they argue their conceptual perspective as aggressively as you do your own, you place yourself in the same category, of trolling.

Do you not realize that what you argue is generally not representative of any consensus opinion among contemporary theorists? Though I have limited access to pier reviewed papers, of those that are publicly available, it is generally the case that the authors, at least include some mention of the limitations in their data or from what conceptual approach their conclusions are drawn. With you it often seems there is no concession, to the possibility of any alternate interpretation.

 

[OnlyMe]

I can tell you something about quantum gravity. The key to it is that the photon has an "active gravitational mass". That means the photon is also a graviton.

It's an abstraction, and it relates to curvature in your metric which concerns your measurements of space and time.

I don't think it runs into difficulties with black holes. I think problems have been caused by people who don't understand gravity, and who have a different idea about general relativity to Einstein.

I beg to differ. I think it's crucial. Once you see that the speed of light is variable just like Einstein said, the scales fall from your eyes and gravity is simple. If you don't, it's forever mysterious.

But they don't. Gravitational time dilation is not some illusion. All you do is appreciate that it isn't time flowing in an optical clock, it's light moving. When the clock goes slower it isn't because time goes slower, but because light goes slower.

They aren't equally valid. If it was an increase in path length black holes would be of infinite size. I said this to James R a while back. He accepted it.

GR is valid and successful, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.

See what I mean. You prove my point!

 

[PhysBang]

I can tell you something about quantum gravity. The key to it is that the photon has an "active gravitational mass". That means the photon is also a graviton.

Can you explain what this means in terms of the accepted mathematics of quantum mechanics? Can you demonstrate that a photon has the proper spin properties of a graviton?

If you can't demonstrate this, then why shouldn't we dismiss your claim out of hand as merely fantasy?

I don't think it runs into difficulties with black holes. I think problems have been caused by people who don't understand gravity, and who have a different idea about general relativity to Einstein.

If someone has never learned the mathematics of GR, can they be said to have the same idea of GR as Einstein had?

I think it's crucial. Once you see that the speed of light is variable just like Einstein said,

Again, can you point to where Einstein included this idea in his exact mathematical formulation of GR? Or are you just lying about this?

 

[wellwisher]

Again, can you point to where Einstein included this idea in his exact mathematical formulation of GR? Or are you just lying about this?

While Einstein first mentioned a variable speed of light in 1907,[1] he reconsidered the idea more thoroughly in 1911.[2] In analogy to the situation in media, where a shorter wavelength \lambda , by means of c = \nu \lambda , leads to a lower speed of light, Einstein assumed that clocks in a gravitational field run slower, whereby the corresponding frequencies \nu are influenced by the gravitational potential (eq.2, p. 903):

This was in Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

It was easy to find and only took a search parameter; variable light speed and Einstein. The copy and paste did not include the greek symbols. I did not copy the equations of the derivation, only the intro, since I was only helping a little.

 

[Grumpy]

OnlyMe

Spacetime is an abstraction. It is a 4D geometric model that describes and predicts the dynamics of the interaction of gravitationally significant masses. It is not a description of any curvature of space or time.

And that is simply wrong. Relativity is a description of the Universe as we see it behave. The only constructs exist in our minds. The thing being described is the reality, and the construct and the reality are two different things. Just like evolution is an observed fact, the Universe is an observed fact. And just like Darwin's theory of evolution is a construct describing the fact of evolution and it's proposed mechanism, Relativity is a construct that describes and explains the observed facts of the Universe. Curved spacetime is an observed fact, any valid construction will have to include that fact. Lightspeed is always c from any source no matter it's movement or acceleration, any valid construct will have to deal with that fact. Space length changes in the direction of movement, time dilates, mass cannot go lightspeed because it gains mass with speed, taking more energy to go each increment faster in an endless positive feedback loop that tends toward infinite mass and energy, but infinite energy is not available so not even a single proton can travel at lightspeed(though Cosmic Rays try ever so hard), and that is a fact that also must be included. I could go on, but why bother? Fortunately we have a construct that explains all of these things. Relativity. And Relativity says you are wrong, nothing personal.

Science is not a popularity contest. Amateur opinions are not as valid as informed opinion, and no one is entitled to their own facts or to ignore facts already in evidence(constant speed of light being a big one). Any construct that does not include lightspeed being always c is DOA, we know it to be false(we've known it for over 200 years). Ditto for time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, lightspeed limit, etc. These are not theoretical anymore like some were in 1906, existing only in the abstract, they are observed facts, as is spacetime curvature. We are about to directly observe Gravity Waves which cannot exist without spacetime to wave. That is the LAST prediction that Relativity made that has not proven to be true, yet, though we have indirectly detected them in the CMB from the very first second after Expansion.

The abstract spacetime model of GR, has been a very successful model, helping us to understand and explain most of what we observe at scales ranging from everyday classical experience to many associated with cosmological dynamics. The later in some cases requiring some modification to our conceptual understanding of mass and energy to remain consistent with GR... And no success in providing any real insight into the dynamics of gravitation at either extreme, existing at quantum scales or within the event horizon of what we call black holes. In both cases GR begins to run into difficulties, in the form of infinities. This is perhaps the greatest problem with attempts to conceptually project the abstract spacetime of GR, onto reality as an accurate description of space and, time.

All theories are imperfect and get revised as more evidence or better understanding comes along. Relativity is no exception. But it is a process tending toward perfection, which, like infinities, may not actually exist. That is a strength of the scientific method, it weeds out erroneous dogma over time, constantly distilling the theory down to it's essence. All that constant questioning, testing and comparing to the reality. One of the first major revisions was dropping the ad hoc Cosmological Constant from the math.

Also, there are problems between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that we don't yet understand, but the bulk of the theory is an excellent model of how the Universe behaves. I think they may be on the right track at the LHC to solve those misunderstandings, we'll see.

One of the arguments that has been tossed back and forth, in this discussion has been whether in the context of GR the speed of light is constant or variable. The answer is of no importance for GR itself.

It is constant, that is one of only two postulates on which SR was built, and GR extended that to acceleration/gravity. It is VITALLY important. That's like saying the motor has no importance in a car.

Postulate-Accept the fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

If that postulate is ever shown to be wrong Relativity has been the biggest farce and prank ever. The possibility does not keep me up nights.

Both SR and GR together make up Relativity, the first dealt only with inertial systems, the second added gravity/acceleration and light travels at c, always. That is the answer, there can be no argument about that if talking about Relativity is what you are trying to do. You will find it on the first page of text in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein(third paragraph) and it applies equally to GR. If you just peruse the diagrams I posted you can see for yourself. I've explained it to you guys the exact same way I taught it straight out of the physics textbooks for 30 years. I hate math(dyslexic), but math is only the framework, I talk about the whole building, the meaning behind the math. And there is only the facts and then there is everything else. I'll be sticking with the facts.

That was why understanding the difference between coordinate speed and c is important. Again, my diagrams show why that is. Coordinate speed does vary, c does not. A bent path is longer than the straight path between the same two coordinates. Every photon in a vacuum in the Universe that we have ever measured moves at c, period. That has been confirmed for over 200 years. But if their path is bent then their coordinate speed is slower, their actual speed never varies. Calculation of the difference will tell you how much longer the bent path is, it's curvature, it's curvature is a direct measurement of acceleration/gravity field strength(which are described in the same terms). Two such measurements at different points in the direction that you are accelerating, simultaneously, give you gradient, which in turn gives you the mass if in a gravity field, but if they are the same you are in an accelerating inertial frame which has no gradient(IE in a spaceship, both clocks are in the same accelerating frame, on Earth they are in two different frames with the higher one ticking faster due to less acceleration.).

But SR, is only functionally accurate within the context of GR, when the abstract spacetime curvature of that model can be neglected as insignificant.

In an inertial frame you are not under gravity's influence or you are coasting, you are in free fall, you follow the zero energy line through spacetime just like light does, and without gravity a straight line in spacetime is as straight as in Euclid. So all you have to deal with are speed, energy/mass gain, length contraction, and Doppler effects. This is a special case in Relativity, thus it is called Special Relativity(Einstein did not yet understand accelerated frames and gravity, he knew SR was not the complete picture, but it was an accurate description of moving bodies). Acceleration and gravity were tied into that still valid special case in GR, the math was harder, but lightspeed remaining at c in all frames is still just as valid and as essential in GR. Dude, constant c is the basis of all the math in Relativity, without constant c there is no Relativity, because everything is related to that value(that's what relativity means), energy is to mass as the square of c, the speed limit of mass in the Universe? c. When does time slow to a stop? At c. At what speed would the dimension of space in the direction of travel reach 0(in the viewpoint of a stationary observer, you wouldn't notice)? c (if you could reach it). Do you not think there might be something important about this value that keeps appearing in the math that describes the way the Universe actually behaves? You might want to look into it before speaking further. Some people can learn new things, I hope you are one of those.

Grumpy

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, you started the thread, but you seem to have assumed that everyone should just agree with you!

Not so. I give references and evidence to support my case. Other posters are free to offer a counterargument and counterevidence. Grumpy doesn't do that, and I'm not the only one to express dissatisfaction with him.

You present opinion and theory as if it were fact. And yes to some extent we are all guilty of the same, but most realize we are doing it, while it seems you do not.

Feel free to challenge anything I've said, including this. A discussion forum allows us to talk about such things in a civil fashion.

If you categorize someone else as trolling, because they argue their conceptual perspective as aggressively as you do your own, you place yourself in the same category, of trolling.

There's a marked difference between myself and Grumpy.

Do you not realize that what you argue is generally not representative of any consensus opinion among contemporary theorists?

Of course I do. That's what makes this so interesting. Most contemporary theorists assert that the speed of light is constant but Einstein didn't, and the patent evidence says Einstein was right. There is no actual time flowing through a light clock.

Though I have limited access to pier reviewed papers, of those that are publicly available, it is generally the case that the authors, at least include some mention of the limitations in their data or from what conceptual approach their conclusions are drawn. With you it often seems there is no concession, to the possibility of any alternate interpretation.

What can I say? There just isn't any concession on the speed of light. And it delivers understanding, whilst the alternative does not.

 

[Farsight]

This was in Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

It was easy to find and only took a search parameter; variable light speed and Einstein. The copy and paste did not include the greek symbols. I did not copy the equations of the derivation, only the intro, since I was only helping a little.

If you look further you can find Einstein talking about the variable speed of light throughout the development of general relativity. See the OP on this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140905-The-Speed-of-Light-is-Not-Constant

 

[PhysBang]

This was in Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

It was easy to find and only took a search parameter; variable light speed and Einstein. The copy and paste did not include the greek symbols. I did not copy the equations of the derivation, only the intro, since I was only helping a little.

This is the problem with trying to answer through google: you have identified something that Einstein tried, and then rejected, before producing GR.

 

[PhysBang]

If you look further you can find Einstein talking about the variable speed of light throughout the development of general relativity. See the OP on this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140905-The-Speed-of-Light-is-Not-Constant

That is a lie. You have never, ever, shown where Einstein used variable speed of light in the specific details of GR. This is despite people asking you to do this for a decade.

 

[OnlyMe]

And that is simply wrong. Relativity is a description of the Universe as we see it behave.

There is little difference in the quote above, where you use behave and I referred to the dynamics of interaction... How things behave is a kinetic or dynamic interpretation. It is not necessarily a description of the underlying mechanism(s) from which the behavior or dynamic interaction originates.

Conceptually thinking of spacetime, a geometric model, in the way it seems you present it, leads down a rabbit hole, where gravity is caused by a curvature of spacetime! rather than the curvature of spacetime (geometry) being the result of gravitation.

Postulate-Accept the fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

If that postulate is ever shown to be wrong Relativity has been the biggest farce and prank ever.

The problem with the first sentence above is, that you left out, "suggested or assumed to be fact or truth... Anything just being accepted, is not the same as having been proven.

I disagree with the second entirely. While a variable speed of light would play havoc with how GR is conceptually projected as a description of reality, it would have no real effect on GR beyond that. GR has proven its predictive value. Something which would not be changed... And it has no impact on SR either way, because within the context of SR we have proven the speed of light locally constant. It would require some adjustment to how we define inertial frames but that is really an insignificant issue. A variable speed of light within the context of GR, would require a frame of reference where SR was already no longer valid.

By the way, on the issue of a constant or variable speed of light (within the context of GR), I do not know the answer. All I can say is that it remains an un-proven postulate, that works.

In this whole discussion too many important fundamental issues remain assumed! No one has really addressed definitions in a manner that any consensus could be reached. What is mass and inertia? Are they inherent characteristics? Is gravitation an inherent characteristic of mass or is it (gravitation), together with mass and inertia, all emergent?

Old school relativity was based on mass and inertia as inherent characteristics of charged particles. From the perspective of quantum mechanics, both can be thought of as emergent. If that QM view turns out to be correct, it would result in at least some rethinking of how GR is conceptually understood anyway.

Just because a theoretical model works even as well as GR has, does not mean it is a complete and true description of reality. That said, I don't believe GR will ever be discarded, though it may wind up modified some (at least conceptually) and incorporated within larger model... Which itself may not be the whole tamale!

 

[Grumpy]

OnlyMe

The problem with the first sentence above is, that you left out, "suggested or assumed to be fact or truth... Anything just being accepted, is not the same as having been proven.

The constant speed of light was well established fact long before Einstein used it as his postulate, so my definition is the one that pertains in this case. It was not just a postulate in Relativity, it was a well evidenced fact.

While a variable speed of light would play havoc with how GR is conceptually projected as a description of reality, it would have no real effect on GR beyond that.

Wrong, the theory depends on c being constant, all other properties are relative to that value. You cannot sustain Relativity absent constant c. It is one of only two postulates and the other is the interconnection of properties to keep c constant. Gr depends on c just like SR does.

By the way, on the issue of a constant or variable speed of light (within the context of GR), I do not know the answer. All I can say is that it remains an un-proven postulate, that works.

That, too is false, it has been shown to be true. Lightspeed is always c. That is a fact.

In this whole discussion too many important fundamental issues remain assumed! No one has really addressed definitions in a manner that any consensus could be reached. What is mass and inertia? Are they inherent characteristics? Is gravitation an inherent characteristic of mass or is it (gravitation), together with mass and inertia, all emergent?

Mass curves spacetime, curved spacetime is gravity. Mass is condensed energy, energy and mass are equivalent by the ratio of c squared. Inertia is the energy of mass in motion AND it's resistance to acceleration. Yes all these things are properties of spacetime and the energy it contains. We do not know all the details but these things we do know.

Old school relativity was based on mass and inertia as inherent characteristics of charged particles.

No, it was based on constant c, it didn't deal with particles at all, charged or not. Photons are not particles. I sense you know nothing about Relativity, either. What's happened to our school systems?

Just because a theoretical model works even as well as GR has, does not mean it is a complete and true description of reality.

It is the only one we have that explains the way we see the Universe behave, ALL OF IT, we will keep treating it as a real picture of reality until it is shown to be false, just like we did with Newton. It has shown that it is accurate to a ridiculous degree, it cannot be denied as an extremely accurate model of reality. It probably isn't complete but the alternative is to say "Duh, I don't know." No other theory even comes close, especially those that deny facts up front(c).

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

I'm an engineer - we are kinda like scientists except with better senses of humor. You said:

....which isn't good enough. Words are not self-defining, they require humans to explicitly define them. Lacking any formal definition, I've supplied my own to highlight the sillyness of your inventing of meaningless terms.

The real question here isn't whether I'm trolling (I'm just picking-up what you are laying down....or, rather, scraping your crap off the walls after you fling it) it is whether you know you are trolling or not.

I coined that "energy-space" term more than a decade ago because that was what my self-determining ToE from scratch concepts were telling me that was what is fundamentally universal context physical effective entity (as in UNIFIED 'field' of 'energy-space').

The matter and self-definition is obvious, especially to any mainstream physicist studying/developing GUT theory; which is what LHC physics is all about trying to get back to the hypothetical BB 'starting field' of unified energy-space which purportedly 'separated' into the space and energy components from the 'singular state' of energy-space which the BB is hypothesized to 'bang' from.

That "energy-space" context/term I coined way back when has been seeing increasing usage in mainstream circles ever since.

Why, even just TODAY, a strictly mainstream scientist posting over at Phys.Org used that very "energy-space" term/concept in one of his own mainstream explanations to someone, as follows:

That really depends on what happens there. Current assumption is that space holds at incredibly high energy densities - and that isn't nevcessariyl so. There may be a new unification happening there (call it a "space-energy unification"). Or you may get to a point where space inside a black hole stretches as fast or faster than light. If the latter happens a photon could fall in essentially forever without reaching the center.

But as you say: speculating what happens inside a black hole (particularly close to the center) is sort of problematic...as we can't go take a look.

Note my red highlighting in there.

So your attempts to split hairs and semantics and ridiculing obviously valid concepts/terms given the known physics/theories usages etc, is just you looking for excuses to disparage the source/person rather than acknowledge the validity of the message/science presented.

Give it up, Russ. Your evasion/personal tactics won't wash anymore. Even the mainstreamers are leaving you behind, and using the physical "energy-space" term/concept I coined so long ago because it was an obvious valid starting-entity in the ToE universal fundamental context/physics. Cheers mainstream catching up with the 'crank' at last, hey? Good luck, Russ.

 

[Undefined]

And?

Do you similarly doubt Newtonian mechanics?

You realize that you are taking an evidential position in science that has been soundly rejected for over three hundred years?

While it would be nice to find the mechanism by which gravity works, this doesn't change the fact that what this mechanism would have to account for is the behaviors that we observe today for gravity, i.e., the behaviors associated with GR.


The how is actually laid out explicitly in GR and in many proposed successors to GR. That you have studiously ignored the content of GR does not make this content disappear.

I have stated clearly on countless occasions that math abstraction PARTIAL construct is USEFUL for 'describing/quantifying' observed dynamics and 'predicting' outcomes, but (like "Epicycles") pure abstraction cannot ever deliver the complete reality physics ToE. How many times does the distinction have to be pointed out to you before you drop that strawman which would imply that if one doesn't 'believe' in abstraction one doesn't 'believe' in 'reality', mate?

Two separate things. Partial abstraction 'constructs' are useful but not complete and actual reality constructs, and never will be, will they? OK?

 

[Undefined]

OK noted. But do you recall me talking about Compton scattering, and how you could do another Compton scatter on the residual photon? And another and another, until you've taken all the energy out of the wave and there's no wave left? In the limit, the photon has been entirely converted into the motion of electrons. It has been entirely converted into motion. And yet, you could use pair production to convert a photon into an electron (and a positron). So in a way, the electron is made of motion. IMHO that's worth thinking about, is that.

Yes, but MOTION is a consequence of energy dynamical processing of energy-space itself from one location/interaction to another and another. The evolution of dynamical energy imbalances between locations and their environment of energy-space and other 'features' processing in/of that energy-space are what drives the motion.

Hence motion itself is not an independent 'entity' as such; much as time' is not an independent entity. While motion precedes time in the heirarchy of observables (the former is an observable, the latter is a derivative abstract from that motional observable), in no way is motion itself anything more than the observed consequences of energy-space itself processing in/across that energy-space context/dynamics from location to location.

I trust my rushed posting is still sufficient to clarify/distinguish between observable motion OF the energy-space entity per se, mate?

 

[Undefined]

Ah, I love it when people ignorant of the history talk about epicycles.

Some epicycles actually did point to physical phenomena. Most people do not know that the most significant epicycles in the modified Ptolemy system were coordinated with the Sun; they essentially tracked the position of the sun in the sky, with the movement of Venus and Mercury along their epicycles pointed (IIRC) toward the Sun and the other planets pointed away from the Sun.

So that is an interesting collection of evidence to consider in the phenomena of epicycles. One that is explained by the Copernican system: you have to introduce epicycles to match the motion of the planets around the Sun and their positions inside Earth's orbit or outside of it.

But the Copernican system is equally abstract. So what decides between them?

That wasn't the point of my referring to Epicycles construct. The point is that Epicycles was a mathematical model ONLY, and explained NOTHING of the mechanisms and physics in reality terms, only in maths model construct terms. And Newtonian Gravity was also a mathematical construct ONLY (it even ABSTRACTLY/MATHEMATICALLY inherently conjured up visions of "Instantaneous Gravitational Action at a Distance!"). And even Einsteinian maths 'spacetime' construct has only abstraction 'explanations/interpretations' which don't identify the Gravity mechanism in reality terms, only abstract geometric terms as part of the math construct itself, not reality extant in entity/mechanisms terms.

OK? Stop with the trolling personal/evasion tactics and 'cheerleading each other' in same. Just either address and refute the new points raised in reality terms/context or just ADMIT that all you have so far is 'abstraction math construct' interpretations and assumptions which even Einstein began to bemoan when he said that "the mathematicians invaded my theory such that I no longer understand it".

You and your fellow trolls will bring dishonor to the physicist mainstream profession if you keep using troll evasion/personal/semantics etc tactics/excuses because, as Grumpy might put it: "Got nothing?"

At least the REAL mainstream physicists are starting to catch up with this 'crank' (see my post #296 re "energy-space" to Russ for indication of that as recent as TODAY). Meanwhile you and your fellow trolls just mouth off old and tired evasions which even Sir Roger Penrose now rejects.

Get a clue of what is actually happening/developing NOW in mainstream before continuing with your old-hat abstract/math non-explanations in reality terms. Good luck, PhysBang.

 

[PhysBang]

I have stated clearly on countless occasions that math abstraction PARTIAL construct is USEFUL for 'describing/quantifying' observed dynamics and 'predicting' outcomes, but (like "Epicycles") pure abstraction cannot ever deliver the complete reality physics ToE. How many times does the distinction have to be pointed out to you before you drop that strawman which would imply that if one doesn't 'believe' in abstraction one doesn't 'believe' in 'reality', mate?

You demonstrate again and again a lack of understanding of the relevant science. That being the case, you are making empty claims that the mathematics of GR is pure abstraction without support. You certainly don't show any sign of understanding what in physics a supposed "theory of everything" would have to address.