Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

river said:
Its a fallacy that space çan be bent etc .
To do so means that space its self can be grasped by a physical object .
Click to expand...
The latter statement does not follow from the former statement.

It is not necessary for something to be grasped by a physical object in order for it to be deformed.

There are plenty of phenomena in nature that will happily deform things without being touched by anything physical.
 
river said:
This is what I don't like about this site . It makes things up in their favour .
Click to expand...
Science doesn't care whose "favour" it is in.

What you are espousing is not science. You won't - or can't defend it. You might do better with a blog, where you can post your ideas with no one around to tell you you're wrong.

river said:
Space needs to be grasped a hold of . By anything . But it can't .
Click to expand...
This is not even coherent.

Look, a strong magnet can bend a steel wire into a loop without ever touching it.
Gravity can bend the straight trajectory of a meteor into a curved orbit.
There you go. Two things that can be warped without any "physical grasping".
 
DaveC426913 said:
Science doesn't care whose "favour" it is in.

What you are espousing is not science. You won't - or can't defend it. You might do better with a blog, where you can post your ideas with no one around to tell you you're wrong.


This is not even coherent.

Look, a strong magnet can bend a steel wire into a loop without ever touching it.
Gravity can bend the straight trajectory of a meteor into a curved orbit.
There you go. Two things that can be warped without any "physical grasping".
Click to expand...
Because of speed and mass . And rotation .
It is science of course .
 
river said:
Because of speed and mass . And rotation .
It is science of course .
Click to expand...
"Because of" is not science.

Nor is repeating the same unqualified assertions over and over again without the slightest hint of explanation or defense.
 
Rotation , spin by the Sun and Planets in this solar system . Should be investigated .
What are the conseques of all their interactions . Between Planets .we don't know .
That is what we need to know .
Why are there planetary rings ?
 
Last edited:
river said:
What I am saying is space can not be bent into any shape .
Click to expand...
And we are saying you are both wrong and intellectually limited, since science has proven it can be - even if you do not have the capacity to understand.

Prove , that physically space can be bent . You can't .
Click to expand...

Easy.

science.nasa.gov

Hubble Gravitational Lenses - NASA Science

Gravity can act like a lens, magnifying and distorting light of objects that would otherwise be invisible. Learn how Hubble uses gravitational lenses.
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov

Here's a picture of a gravitational lens; a lens caused when a large mass warps space and causes a "lens" effect. You can see several copies of the same spiral blue galaxy, bent by the large mass (in this case galaxy cluster 0024+1654.) This could not happen unless space was being warped in the region around that galaxy cluster.

 
river said:
Rotation , spin by the Sun and Planets in this solar system . Should be investigated .
Click to expand...
We have been studying this for about a millenium. We know how it works.

river said:
What are the conseques of all their interactions . Between Planets .we don't know .
Click to expand...
Yes we do.


Do not confuse "river does not know" with "The rest of humanity does not know."

These are very different things.


river said:
Why are there planetary rings ?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered.
 
billvon said:
Here's a picture of a gravitational lens; a lens caused when a large mass warps space and causes a "lens" effect. You can see several copies of the same spiral blue galaxy, bent by the large mass (in this case galaxy cluster 0024+1654.) This could not happen unless space was being warped in the region around that galaxy cluster.
Click to expand...
River has already passed judgement on this. He thinks it's (trying to keep a straight face here) ... a camera artifact.
 
DaveC426913 said:
River has already passed judgement on this. He thinks it's (trying to keep a straight face here) ... a camera artifact.
Click to expand...
Aha, he's borrowing from the UFO subforum, evidently.

One of the perennial condundrums on this forum is whether river is a troll, or just a jerk. He seems to walk such a careful line between the two that my conclusion is he's a troll, much as Magical Realist was.
 
river said:
Not to me .
Prove , that physically space can be bent . You can't .
Click to expand...

This is problem with mathematical models, when they are taken to literarily.

So as far as actual reality goes considering that we live in material objective reality you are correct,

pointing out that mathematical model do not describe actual physical mechanism that create gravitational field.

So from what I understand you propose rotation as source of gravity.

My question would be:

What that rotation is interacting with to create gravitational field?

The gravitational field on Earth's surface is not perfectly uniform but is close enough for most practical purposes. It varies slightly due to factors like Earth's oblate shape, altitude, and local geology.

How rotation could create uniform gravitational field?

How rotation would explain field in which acceleration is time dependent not distance traveled dependent?

How rotation would explain field in which all objects are affected by this field uniformly?

Acceleration is not mass dependent etc.
 
grzegorzsz830402 said:
pointing out that mathematical model do not describe actual physical mechanism that create gravitational field.
Click to expand...
Masses such as particles generally travel in straight lines. If they pass near a massive object - such as a galaxy, or even just the sun, their straight path is bent into a curve. If it's curved enough it becomes an orbit.

At first, we thought that gravity was a force, pulling on the mass of these objects, and changing their direction.

This is all well and fine when we are talking about objects with mass, but it turns out the same phenomena happens with light rays. Their paths get bent when they pass near massive objects as well. But how is that possible, if gravity acts on the mass of an object, yet light is massless?

That's when Einstein came along and suggested modeling gravity - not as a force but as a curvature of spacetime. The upshot of this model is that ALL objects - be they massive particles or massless light rays - follow the curvature of the spacetime that is produced by a nearby massive object.

Here's the kicker: The Einsteinian model of curved spacetime is extremely good at predicting what we actually see when we observe objects in the neighbourhood of large masses. and that's what matters.

Because here is the thing that river is missing: when we make theories - such as Einstein's general relativity - we are not trying to describe what reality "is". That is not what science is about. Science is about making predictive models. His model predicts what we see exceedingly well - far better than any other model produced.

And that ability to quantitatively predict, with supreme accuracy, what a particle or a light ray is going to do when it passes near a massive object - is what has allowed us to explore the deep sky in unprecedented detail, looking back more than 10 billion years.

If we were to reject the idea of curved spacetime, we would still be stuck looking at the night sky in ignorance, wondering what Einstein Rings are, and being unable to make use of the valuable information they are telling us about our distant past.

1746641432362.png
 
DaveC426913 said:
Here's the kicker: The Einsteinian model of curved spacetime is extremely good at predicting what we actually see when we observe objects in the neighbourhood of large masses. and that's what matters.

Because here is the thing that river is missing: when we make theories - such as Einstein's general relativity - we are not trying to describe what reality "is". That is not what science is about. Science is about making predictive models. His model predicts what we see exceedingly well - far better than any other model produced.
Click to expand...

He is not wrong trying to find better alternative.

I am on board. Our understanding of gravity can improve, hopefully to the point where we can manipulate it.

Yet, pointing out incompleteness of our current understanding do not validate alternative that is proposed in consequence.



If he could let go of attacking what is, and actually try to present what he is proposing he would have a fair shot on testing his idea.

As for now, I do not see how his idea could offer anything even close to what is.

So, he is not wrong thinking there have to be a better way to model and understand gravity, he is wrong (my opinion) that what he is proposing is actually it.

Nature of novel ideas is that 99,999% of them are doomed to fail.

So, being wrong takes nothing away from River.

Not testing your idea, not being able to accept it has failed and move on to next one. Is the problem.

Because you can get stuck with it.

For example:

It takes Venus longer to rotate once on its axis than to complete one orbit of the Sun. That's 243 Earth days.

Venus has a surface gravity that is about 91% of Earth's gravity.


Venus has a mass that is about 81.5% of Earth's mass.



So, similar mass, similar gravity, yet totally different rotation speed.

If gravity would be rotation related, should it not reflect on Venus gravity?
 
river:
river said:
Rotation , spin by the Sun and Planets in this solar system . Should be investigated .
What are the conseques of all their interactions . Between Planets .we don't know .
That is what we need to know .
Why are there planetary rings ?
Click to expand...
None of this is in the least bit relevant to the thread topic.

Also, I previously took some time to explain to you how planetary rings are formed.

Why did you ignore my previous response to you, only to bring up the same question again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top