Re: How wrong is this analogy for the curvature of Spacetime?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/04/04 

Date: 4 Dec 2004 02:34:14 -0800

Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<l872r05i8c7oktg8odob443do3mno6fcnf@4ax.com>...
> On 3 Dec 2004 03:42:30 -0800, lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<eppvq0924pdkvq4grg0ge0ltmbo3r6n3be@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >>
> >SNIP
> >
> >> GR doesn't 'need' to explain why 'curvature' exists. It's just
> >> a mapping method. It HAS NO physical basis. That why it IS
> >> empty of physical content, just like Newton's gravitational
> >> correlation. That's the POINT! To get causation you HAVE TO
> >> look elsewhere. knock, knock, knock..., Hello!
> >
> > Yours is a novel idea to me. I had not thought of GR as merely
> > a mapping method, but I can see why that may be so wrt curvature.
> > The method is of course geometry, which is of course a math
> > construct, but I am under the impression that GR specifically
> > claims to replace the theory of gravitation in saying that there
> > is no gravitational force, only curved space-time.
>
> A rolling marble on the dimpled rubber sheet when 'forced' by
> 'gravity' to follow the curvature of the dimple does indeed
> experience a 'force'. However, if I 'map' the curvature caused
> by the dimple (and the object causing it), I can 'decribe' the
> path of any object traversing the region quite accurately WITHOUT
> saying anything about the cause(s). Now this is but one of several
> narrative descriptions of processes that 'map' out to following
> curvatures in path thru space.
>
> > It is curved space-time that has no physical basis, ...
>
> Because the fabric (the rubber) is missing from the mapping.
> However, don't be like the mental midget Hobba and confose
> the map for the territory.
>
> > but space is physical in the sense
>
> There exist in nature the following,
>
> - No empty space,
> - No attractive forces,
> - No point objects,
> - No infinite propagation range,
> - No infinite properties
>

I can agree off-hand with all of the above except "No attractive
forces" since that is up for debate with SR's "curved spacetime".

 
> > that it exists to us at the least as a visual separation
> > of discrete objects, and at the most today as the place where
> > dark matter and energy apparently exist.
>
> I seriously doubt either Dark matter or Dark Energy exists.
> They are symptoms of SERIOUS failures of current theory(ies).

I have seen no theories about that. Mine is the only one which claims
it is the medium for light and gravitation and that as such, it
comprises space. It has been suggested that certain observed and
confirmed effects cannot be explained by the amount of visible matter
we can observe, so that strongly infers that there is non-observable
matter and energy which creates these effects. Only those with little
to lose have posited a theory about it so far, as more information is
required to make a theory about it unfalsifiable since such
matter/energy is invisible to us. If you know of a theory, let me
know.

> IOW, epicycles added to patch things up. I doubt they'll
> survive the next twenty five years.
>

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

> > Comparing the concepts of space curvature and space-time curvature
> > to gravitation theory, the theory of space curvature has content
> > because space is real, but the theory falls because it is
> > unfalsifiable (we cannot ever know that it is physical space and
> > not something else that explains any apparent curvature of space,
> > just like we cannot ever know whether or not it is God that creates
> > so much sorrow for us).
>
> OK, you've goaded me into give the 3-D analog. Take the Schwartschild
> solution (a single non-rotating point mass). The mundane analog is
> a very large (conceptually infinite) region of still air in which a
> small sherically symmetric intake nozzle is positioned attached to a
> vacuum pump. The pump when running, it will create at the nozzle
> a 'symmetrical' (I KNOW it's not perfectly symmetrical) inflow &
> pressure gradient. Anything moving thru this region will 'map' out a
> curved path, even sound waves.
>
> This is WHY GR's mathematical form is well known as a hydrodynamical
> expression.

And such a pump exists where in our universe (other than in our minds,
i.e.)?

>
> > Space-time curvature is a viable idea and useful as a math construct
> > for, as you say, mapping regions of space, but as you also point out,
> > it has no physical content. It is a figment of our imaginations and
> > no matter how much we wish it to be, it cannot be a physical place nor
> > any more than a math construct.
> >
> > The distinctions at issue here are important because Hobble is only
> > the tip of the iceberg, as it were, when it comes to being able to
> > distinguish between reality and fantasy. There is a great silent
> > majority who will not speak up to help the Hobbles straighten up their
> > acts and so science hobbles along slowed by the Hobbles of the world
> > (Oh what a good boy am I). I truly hope we have been able to help the
> > OP to get a better understanding of the real issues confronting
> > science today.
>
> Quite True... Mental midgets will alway confose the map for the actual
> territory. These type worship the mathematical forms NOT physical
> processes.
>
> Paul Stowe

Yes, agreed.
TomGee 120404

Relevant Pages