Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

Prove , that physically space can be bent . You can't .
I notice that you have added in the weasel word "physically", thus modifying your initial claim that space can't be bent, period.

Do you accept that the theory of relativity models spacetime as a curved manifold, and that the curvature is the result of mass and energy in that theory?

If you do, then you accept that space can be curved, at least in this model.

Now, if you want to assert that spacetime, as described by the theory of relativity, is not "physical" then that's fine, as far as it goes. But then no scientific theory is "physical" in that sense. All scientific theories are ideas, not physical objects. So, of course ideas can't be "physically" bent. Nobody disputes that. Nobody can physically grab onto an idea and bend it.

So, congratulations on stating the bleeding obvious, river. Well done, you!

This doesn't help your original claim at all, however - your claim that gravity is somehow caused by rotation. You have done nothing to try to support that claim, despite asserting it repeatedly in several different threads. This thread is not the place to discuss that silly claim, however, because it is entirely off topic here.

Generally, though, you are skating on thin ice, river, by continually making pseudoscientific assertions that you won't even attempt to support with evidence or argument. You've already got yourself excluded permanently from posting in our Science sections. You're on the verge of getting yourself banned from the entire forum, permanently. Tread carefully.
 
Have we any other models of space and time (or spacetime) than that it is just the measured interval between objects ,times or events?

Nothing like,say the amount of work needed to get from one place or event to another?

I am curious about the idea that the universe is,I think said to (have) make/made its own space as it expanded(inflated?)**

Does it likewise "eat up" its own space if (as is not believed to occur) it contracts subsequently?


**is that a global phenomenon or does it apply locally too?
 
As I have made clear on several occasions, when I research a subject I look for common denominators that tie seemingly disparate subjects together under a larger universal umbrella, a common theme that yields a deeper understanding of how natural phenomena relate to other natural phenomena.
Yes. You do. That's your agenda (see post 250, where you confirm this). It is counter to the goal of any particular poster's thread. Any particular thread is asking a specific question, defined briefly in the title and clarified in the OP.

What you are doing is derailing the attempt for the poster to get a succinct answer to the question they are asking, for your own benefit, because you think they're asking the wrong question.

That's hijacking.



Question: Is the Universe a bottle with energy or stuff in it? If so, is space curved inside the bottle? Is space "emptiness or stuff" ?
Start your own damn thread.

You've been here long enough to know better. You've been here long enough to know why everyone has lost patience with you and either slaps you down hard or just ignores you.

You have no excuse for such incredibly and historically rude behaviour toward all other members.

FFS.
 
Moderator note: some off-topic posts have been moved to a separate thread, here:

 
Tesla remarked that curved space is nonsense, or words to that effect.

Tesla actually claimed to possess evidence that falsified special relativity. The same 1935 interview says: "He has measured cosmic ray velocities from Antarus ... which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light..."

Clearly, Tesla was wrong.
 
In the theory of General Relativity I think that mass-energy ,(inter alia* ?) curves spacetime.

I know that GR is a classical theory but is mass -energy calculated as a continuous quantity or does it have a counterpart in Quantum Mechanics which is calculated as multiples of quantized values?

If the latter is the case would that imply that the curvature in the GR model could be modeled in a discontinuous model(so that spacetime curvature might not be smooth but angular )

* eg I have heard that gravity self interacts and is a source of gravity itself
 
In the theory of General Relativity I think that mass-energy ,(inter alia ?) curves spacetime.

I know that GR is a classical theory but is mass -energy calculated as a continuous quantity or does it have a counterpart in Quantum Mechanics which is calculated as multiples of quantized values?

If the latter is the case would that imply that the curvature in the GR model could be modeled in a discontinuous model(so that spacetime curvature might not be smooth but angular )
GR does not concern itself with discrete quantities of mass. It's application is cosmological in scale, so it doesn't concern itself with subatomic nuances. And it does not attempt to describe what mass is mathematically, it is simply a number.

In fact, that GR is a field theory, with infinitesimally-continuous values, is one of the primary reasons why it is incompatible with QM.
 
GR does not concern itself with discrete quantities of mass. It's application is cosmological in scale, so it doesn't concern itself with subatomic nuances. And it does not attempt to describe what mass is mathematically, it is simply a number.

In fact, that GR is a field theory, with infinitesimally-continuous values, is one of the primary reasons why it is incompatible with QM.
So is there no counterpart,in QM to the concept of mass -energy in GR?

Again could the idea that gravity or spacetime curvature simply does not exist at the micro level not be fruitful?

Any point to ask whether the concept of "quantum gravity" could be an oxymoron?

Is the idea that there could be a Theory of Everything be flawed and "rules" require circumstances to be applicable?
 
So is there no counterpart,in QM to the concept of mass -energy in GR?
I'm not sure that's saying the same thing.

Again could the idea that gravity or spacetime curvature simply does not exist at the micro level not be fruitful?
Well it has to exist. After all it's a field. Even if it's locally flat.

Any point to ask whether the concept of "quantum gravity" could be an oxymoron?
An area of active research.

Is the idea that there could be a Theory of Everything be flawed and "rules" require circumstances to be applicable?
A theory of everything, by definition, includes the circumstances wherein any given phenomenon is applicable.
 
He may have been intelligent and extremely innovative but he got Relativity wrong.
There are interpretations of the Einstein tensor equations of relativity that don't involve curved space. Curved space may be just an artifact of the mathematics that was first adopted to explain the equations.

This is similar to the adoption of Minkowski space/time to explain Special Relativity.
 
Back
Top