At Rest with our Hubble view

[Aqueous Id]

So, the hypothesis was that there is gravitational wave energy,

Energy attends gravitation. Waves are time-varying fields. Gravitational waves are explained here.

and I posted a couple of links to quantum gravity articles. I guess tach didn't mean there was no QG after he said everything I said was wrong. He posted a statement about not having said there was no gravitational wave energy, or something to the like; he does have a problem communicating on science issues when the response doesn't call for equations, or doesn't think QG is science, or thinks I'm arrogant by talking about it, or that I am saying GR is wrong, or is that AI saying that :shrug

I asked you at the beginning of my interaction with you to first establish the meaning of a field and a wave. Once you have struggled with this you will be cured of your aether-itis.

I don't read or at least don't remember the details of the posts that are filled with disdain, so that might mean trash was said that I didn't read. What I think tach means is that there is no gravitational wave energy or wave energy density unless he says there is, but maybe he will think I'm being argumentative just because he is.

You can turn this conversation around by defining the terms energy, field and wave. It cuts to the chase.

Another complaint was that I'm not a scientist, or maybe I just twisted that from being told I don't use the words and math of GR and so everything I say stimulates a response about me and the words, and not about the intended content. Smirk, sorry troll.

The intent is to provide you the feedback you haven't received in school, so you can discover your errors and advance.

Several got their panties in a swivel over me saying you can't see curved spacetime.

I think it was your belief that gravity diffracts light rather than bending the path it's traveling which led to the more strident replies.

Will anyone get upset when I say you can't see gravitational wave energy either. I doubt it.

You mean gravitational waves. If they hadn't been observed there wouldn't be much to say about them. If anything the more remarkable sources are the ones like Tach (or brucep?) pointed out, Cygnus X-1.

I used to think little or no moderation was better than too much, but there is clearly a call for some, and it is not a call to ban people for posting on science topics that interest them even if they are not credentially science professionals; and I have asked that the tread be moved to Alternative Theories when it became alternative.

Why did you open a thread in physics if you don't want to discuss Physics?

It seems that half of those responding yesterday were trolling for an argument or just wanted to be antagonistic. There were words put into my mouth, false interpretations, and obvious uncivil ginned up disdain. I'm just saying, you are the ones bringing the forum down, not me. How many times will that statement be the target today. Who will accuse me of disdain for posting it in response to disdain?

All the more reason to move on to energy, fields and waves and work this into a real discussion of Physics.

Look in the intended on-topic content for your responses, or ignore me, and you are a valued member. Farsight proved me wrong when I said he might not be able to resist responding to my alternative ideas, and even though he didn't agree with much other than the comment, "The speed of light is governed by the energy density of the environment through which it passes",

That's bogus. The speed of light is constant is all reference frames. You can clear this up in a 5-10 minute tutorial.

we have to have a lot in common to even agree on that. I don't blame him for taking the day off yesterday considering the ignorant disdain he receives from people who would rather see the forum go the hell than to ignore him. What is past is past and we don't need to know who wrote what if he doesn't push his book here.

Since you have no basis for evaluating what's correct and what's incorrect, you're just making arbitrary assessments. A little science can cure that.

Now maybe this is getting to the point of ranting, so here is the content to respond to. Gravitational wave energy, if there is such a thing,

You mean gravitational waves.

will not be observable any more that curved spacetime is observable,

Uh no. They originate in remote objects, in particular configurations, like binaries, so the observations are limited by path loss.

and the same observations support GR just as well as they do wave energy density.

It's probably not correct to say "GR is observable" but gravitation and the attendant spacetime curvature have now been corroborated as discussed above.

The math of GR works just as well for the wave energy density of space because it has the same effect on the motion of objects.

There is no such thing as wave density of space, unless this is a funny way of referring to c.

We don't know if there is quantum gravity.

It's now known that if it exists it's constrained to dimensions of -42 orders of magnitude or smaller, i.e., far below the Planck length.

If there is quantum gravity it will work at both the quantum level and the macro level. GR will not work at the quantum level.
Everyone agree? Why or why not.

That's a little off tempo. Better would be to try to grab hold of this introductory explanation and see where it leads you.

 

[quantum_wave]

Energy attends gravitation. Waves are time-varying fields. Gravitational waves are explained here.


I asked you at the beginning of my interaction with you to first establish the meaning of a field and a wave. Once you have struggled with this you will be cured of your aether-itis.


You can turn this conversation around by defining the terms energy, field and wave. It cuts to the chase.


The intent is to provide you the feedback you haven't received in school, so you can discover your errors and advance.


I think it was your belief that gravity diffracts light rather than bending the path it's traveling which led to the more strident replies.


You mean gravitational waves. If they hadn't been observed there wouldn't be much to say about them. If anything the more remarkable sources are the ones like Tach (or brucep?) pointed out, Cygnus X-1.


Why did you open a thread in physics if you don't want to discuss Physics?


All the more reason to move on to energy, fields and waves and work this into a real discussion of Physics.


That's bogus. The speed of light is constant is all reference frames. You can clear this up in a 5-10 minute tutorial.


Since you have no basis for evaluating what's correct and what's incorrect, you're just making arbitrary assessments. A little science can cure that.


You mean gravitational waves.


Uh no. They originate in remote objects, in particular configurations, like binaries, so the observations are limited by path loss.


It's probably not correct to say "GR is observable" but gravitation and the attendant spacetime curvature have now been corroborated as discussed above.


There is no such thing as wave density of space, unless this is a funny way of referring to c.


It's now known that if it exists it's constrained to dimensions of -42 orders of magnitude or smaller, i.e., far below the Planck length.


That's a little off tempo. Better would be to try to grab hold of this introductory explanation and see where it leads you.

This doesn't get my panties in a swivel and it seems you have come through with something I can respond to.

There are problems in your post from my perspective. You should know what they are, because they are the same problems that are always in your posts to me. I don't want your links, or you teaching me the science you think is reality unless it addresses my content and says what observations or data you have that falsifies it, or what is internally consistent with it according to my so called model. The reason I don't want that is that I am generally aware of what link me to, and of what you want me to learn, and to the extent that it applies to my hypothesis, have taken it into consideration, or if not, I will be honest enough to say so, and to learn.

Here is my suggestion, if you care to consider it: 1) I am posting as if this thread was in Alternative Theories. Can you accept that, or not? 2) I will come back and go over your post in some detail, but first, I want to see if we are wasting each others time, which is most likely. You are wasting my time, if the upcoming post called, Relative to the Sweet Spot, gets your panties in a such a swivet that our discussion ends. Hopefully not.

Edit: Don't look for it tonight; its Friday night and I'm not planning to work dick around with it.

 

[Undefined]

Yeah, you "scientists" stick together, especially when it comes to polluting the science forums with anti-mainstream stuff, like the denial of spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing. Way to go, "quantum".

You kneejerk and insult as 'the first option'. That is your problem, Tach, you show no discernment, and so automatically and unthinkingly put everyone in the "crank" basket if they disagree or challenge/discuss any issue which you claim is "settled" in your view, even when their questions/hypotheses are not as outrageous as you make out. Which is why (as has been objectively observed and punished by the mods more than once) you then just attempt your usual (now too well overused and well known) personal attack tactics to bait/confuse the person/issue/discussion whenever you are found to have purposely and/or unthinkingly misunderstood/twisted the issue/discussion with the sort of personal and disruptive game playing you have been banned here for more than once by the mods. They also disagreed with you more than once. They are not 'cranks' too, are they, Tach?

And wherever did you get this patently crank idea of yours, that "...spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing."? Don't you know that "spaceTIME curvature" is actually just a "labeling term" used in the theoretical abstract spaceTIME mathematical/geometrical modeling tool that we use to "represent" graphically/mathematically what is actually observed of the effects and motions-in-space of the objects under study in that space over 'abstract time standards' arrived at by consensus comparing one motion in space with another (ie, comparing clock tick rates/processes with a standard clock referent)?

No wonder you confuse what is and is not really the observed factor. Observing the effects (varying motions in space), and then abstractly calling it "spaceTIME curvature" as part of an equally abstract "theoretical modeling tool" construct is not a basis for claiming to "know the cause of gravity is curvature of spacetime" as you keep doing while insulting others who wish to politely challenge, explore and discuss the basis itself for that patently false claim you keep making.

...by poking at your crank claims? How does it ruin the forum?

Nope, it doesn't since your "hypothesis" has been debunked by several of us poking at it.

I don't want to ignore you, I want to point out the falsity of the BS you are trying to pass as science.

And right there you betray (and confirm for all the genuine members here) that polite discussion of scientific matters equates with "poking" in your mind.

A damning unwitting admission of your disruptive and intentionally dishonest and malicious agenda on the forums. We've all seen it (even the moderators here and elsewhere), which is why you have already been banned more than once for it.

This and other science forums are discussion sites, not "poking sites" for trolls and assorted other unthinking thugs to disrupt and pretend to be defending mainstream by insulting and misconstruing what others are saying/discussing.

Forum site rules and guidelines demand honest engagement in discussion, not egomaniacal and disruptive taunts in lieu of proper discourse on the issues and questions as presented and not as "strawmanned" for your specious insulting followed by your usual spurious "corrections" of same in order cover and confuse the issues so that you can pretend to yourself and your troll cronies that you are 'the defender of mainstream', even when you have been stupidly and horrendously and disastrously wrong but still cannot admit it.

Leave polite company to discuss scientific issues, Tach; your trollish disruptive (some have labelled it shrill) childish tactics of poking in lieu of polite discourse is not helping anyone, especially genuine members and interested viewers/participants who are not cranks and want to explore the issues raised in a sober and friendly manner. Thanks but no thanks for your insults-and-disruption-in-lieu-of the considerate honest discussion which this and other science discussion boards were ostensibly and rightly created for, Tach. Bye.

 

[quantum_wave]

You kneejerk and insult as 'the first option'. That is your problem, Tach, you show no discernement, and so automatically and unthinkingly put everyone in the "crank" basket if they disagree or challenge/discuss any issue which you claim is "settled" in your view, even when their questions/hypotheses are not as outrageous as you make out. Which is why (as has been objectively observed and punished by the mods more than once) you then just attempt your usual (now too well overused and well known) personal attack tactics to bait/confuse the person/issue/discussion whenever you are found to have purposely and/or unthinkingly misunderstood/twisted the issue/discussion with the sort of personal and disruptive game playing you have been banned here for more than once by the mods. They also disagreed with you more than once. They are not 'cranks' too, are they, Tach?

And wherever did you get this patently crank idea of yours, that "...spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing."? Don't you know that "spaceTIME curvature" is actually just a "labeling term" used in the theoretical abstract spaceTIME mathematical/geometrical modeling tool that we use to "represent" graphically/mathematically what is actually observed of the effects and motions-in-space of the objects under study in that space over 'abstract time standards' arrived at by consensus comparing one motion in space with another (ie, comparing clock tick rates/processes with a standard clock referent)?

No wonder you confuse what is and is not really the observed factor. Observing the effects (varying motions in space), and then abstractly calling it "spaceTIME curvature" as part of an equally abstract "theoretical modeling tool" construct is not a basis for claiming to "know the cause of gravity is curvature of spacetime" as you keep doing while insulting others who wish to politely challenge, explore and discuss the basis itself for that patently false claim you keep making.




And right there you betray (and confirm for all the genuine members here) that polite discussion of scientific matters equates with "poking" in your mind.

A damning unwitting admission of your disruptive and intentionally dishonest and malicious agenda on the forums. We've all seen it (even the moderators here and elsewhere), which is why you have already been banned more than once for it.

This and other science forums are discussion sites, not "poking sites" for trolls and assorted other unthinking thugs to disrupt and pretend to be defending mainstream by insulting and misconstruing what others are saying/discussing.

Forum site rules and guidelines demand honest engagement in discussion, not egomaniacal and disruptive taunts in lieu of proper discourse on the issues and questions as presented and not as "strawmanned" for your specious insulting followed by your usual spurious "corrections" of same in order cover and confuse the issues so that you can pretend to yourself and your troll cronies that you 'the defender of mainstream', even when you have been srupidly and horrendously and disastrously wrong but still cannot admit it.

Leave polite company to discuss scientific issues, Tach; your trollish disruptive (some have labelled it shrill) childish tactics of poking in lieu of polite discourse is not helping anyone, especially genuine and viewers/participants who are not cranks and want to explore the issues raised in a sober and friendly manner. Thanks but no thanks for your insults-and-disruption-in-lieu-of the considerate honest discussion which this and other science discussion boards were ostensibly and rightly were created for, Tach. Bye.

Whew. Sorry you had to say that, but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Undefined]

That salutation is familiar. I have a feeling you've sparred with me before.


Let's go there. But first, let's be sure that any heat in the kitchen is entirely self-inflicted.


You should pursue this one of two ways. One is to cut to the chase and divulge your fringe theory, and the second is to follow the factual predicate which went like this



which I answered with grav. lensing and Gravity Probe B. That lays the predicate for any controverting fact or evidence you want to bring to refute my claim and reinstate q_w's.


You sound like a person who has no actual field/lab experience.


Submit your claim ticket to q_w. He was last seen raiding the university depot, smashing the briefcases, burning the books and shredding the class notes. I just happen to be one of the folks who's already passed through, so no sweat off my back. You won't hear anything different from me than you're already getting. I just happen to couch ideas this particular way.

Surely, I have no patent on such a form of greeting? Are you implying that only one other person in the history of greetings ever greeted you in that manner? But no, let's not go there, A-Id; as 'baggage' is never conducive to clear thinking or polite discourse on the objective issues. So please excuse me if I don't take your bait, A-Id.

As for the rest: did you not read and understand what I pointed out is the difference between:

- observing motions effect in space, as distinct from

- modeling those observed effects/motions using an abstract mathematical/geometrical modeling tool "construct" wherein the modeled behaviour is labeled "spacetime curvature", without any explanation of the actual mechanism for that "abstractly assumptive interpretation" of the "labeled observations" according to theoretical overlays which are not the thing itself.

So no, A-Id, we have not yet observed "spacetime" or "curved spacetime" as such, A-Id; we have merely observe effects and motions in space and called it "gravity" and assume abstract notions of "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature" in order to call it something describing the effects and not the causes as such of the actual real motions in space observed.

Energy attends gravitation. Waves are time-varying fields. Gravitational waves are explained here.


I asked you at the beginning of my interaction with you to first establish the meaning of a field and a wave. Once you have struggled with this you will be cured of your aether-itis.


You can turn this conversation around by defining the terms energy, field and wave. It cuts to the chase.


The intent is to provide you the feedback you haven't received in school, so you can discover your errors and advance.


I think it was your belief that gravity diffracts light rather than bending the path it's traveling which led to the more strident replies.


You mean gravitational waves. If they hadn't been observed there wouldn't be much to say about them. If anything the more remarkable sources are the ones like Tach (or brucep?) pointed out, Cygnus X-1.


Why did you open a thread in physics if you don't want to discuss Physics?


All the more reason to move on to energy, fields and waves and work this into a real discussion of Physics.


That's bogus. The speed of light is constant is all reference frames. You can clear this up in a 5-10 minute tutorial.


Since you have no basis for evaluating what's correct and what's incorrect, you're just making arbitrary assessments. A little science can cure that.


You mean gravitational waves.


Uh no. They originate in remote objects, in particular configurations, like binaries, so the observations are limited by path loss.


It's probably not correct to say "GR is observable" but gravitation and the attendant spacetime curvature have now been corroborated as discussed above.


There is no such thing as wave density of space, unless this is a funny way of referring to c.


It's now known that if it exists it's constrained to dimensions of -42 orders of magnitude or smaller, i.e., far below the Planck length.


That's a little off tempo. Better would be to try to grab hold of this introductory explanation and see where it leads you.

In your opening comment, you essentially agree that gravitational energy is a valid concept. And also that time varying fields can be considered as energy density fluctuations/perturbations of that gravitational energy field. Thanks.

Maybe you should explain to Tach what's what on that aspect so he won't keep making his spurious 'corrections' accompanied by insults and accusations of 'crank ideas' while he denies the existence of gravitational energy gradients/density-variations in the space surrounding gravity-field/well generating objects.

Thanks anyway for your posts, A-Id, as they have provided opportunities to set some things straight that seem to have been confused by certain trolls of late. Thanks again and good luck, A-Id. No hard feelings and no baggage. Bye for now.

 

[Tach]

And wherever did you get this patently crank idea of yours, that "...spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing."?

1. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler: "Gravitation"
2. Rindler: "Relativity, Special , General and Cosmological"
3. Raine and Thomas : "Black Holes"
4. Wald: "General Relativity"
5. Chandrashekar: "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes"

I can keep on going but it is clear who the crank is. You can give trolling a rest, try getting one of these books and study it.

 

[Undefined]

1. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler: "Gravitation"
2. Rindler: "Relativity, Special , General and Cosmological"
3. Thomas : "Black Holes"
4. Chandrashekar: "General Relativity"

I can keep on going but it is clearly apparent who the crank is. You can give trolling a rest, try getting one of these books and study it.

More of your usual "link to death" and claim "to know" and "cranks need to learn" etc etc, all without a shred of supporting arguments made by you in support of your own patently "crank" claims and even "crankier" spurious "corrections".

Those books/models are what they are. No problem as long as you bear in mind what it is they are, ie: various abstract models of reality using abstract labels for things assumed abstractly according to those abstract models, and not reality as such.

Calling it "spacetime curvature" does not mean we actually observe either that "spacetime" or that "spacetime curvature" as such.

Can you understand that:

- these are all theoretical models using labels for the observed/measured effects (ie, the actually observed motions in space of something which we say is due to something we call "gravity"); and that

- the actual causes of that "gravity", and how the actually observed space and motions effects in that space come about, have not yet been actually observed, but merely as yet abstractly label it as "curvature" in an equally abstract "spacetime model" which are not actually real observables but merely theoretical/modeling constructs/assumptions which we use to label those effects (motion in space path variations) actually observed.


Oh, and have you understood what is meant by the non-controversial concept of "gravitational energy density" variations along the radial gradient in a "gravitational energy field" well yet? If not, then perhaps your friend Aqueous Id can enlighten you, as he seems to have grasped the concept quite easily.

Good luck, Tach.

 

[Aqueous Id]

There are problems in your post from my perspective.

I know. It's called science.

You should know what they are, because they are the same problems that are always in your posts to me.

Fields, waves, energy, axioms, theorems, proofs, derivations . . . etc.

I don't want your links, or you teaching me the science you think is reality

Science is what it is. Love it or leave it. Why are you posting on a science board anyway?

unless it addresses my content and says what observations or data you have that falsifies it,

Nailed that with lensing, Gravity Probe B (GPS was mentioned by someone else) and there went your claim.

or what is internally consistent with it according to my so called model.

You don't have a model. Modeling requires science, math and programming. You have none of that.

The reason I don't want that is that I am generally aware of what link me to,

Science.

and of what you want me to learn,

Science.

and to the extent that it applies to my hypothesis,

You have none, you haven't even got a definition of 'hyothesis'. You have no framework (e.g., Geometry) to process a hypothesis in; no system of logic, no rules. You're making up everything as you go and pretending to be somehow grounded in the thing you hate, namely, science.

have taken it into consideration, or if not, I will be honest enough to say so, and to learn.

All I said was, start with a definition of a field and a wave. It's not like I asked you to amputate your left testicle in service to the gods of Academia. This is the kindergarten stuff, just to give you legs to stand on.

Here is my suggestion, if you care to consider it: 1) I am posting as if this thread was in Alternative Theories.

Not really, you are not even following those rules. They just don't try to come down too hard on you guys. You are supposed to at least pretend like you are using logic and backing up your claims.

Can you accept that, or not?

2) I will come back and go over your post in some detail, but first, I want to see if we are wasting each others time, which is most likely. You are wasting my time, if the upcoming post called, Relative to the Sweet Spot, gets your panties in a such a swivet that our discussion ends. Hopefully not.

Edit: Don't look for it tonight; its Friday night and I'm not planning to work dick around with it.

Whatever dude. To be sure, I'm strictly a boxers kind of guy. No torsion undergaments here.

Too bad you're so afraid of learning. :shrug:

 

[Tach]

Those books/models are what they are.

"Those books" are written by the exponents of mainstream physics, recognized experts in the field. You, on the other hand, are a prime example of crank pretending to "explain" physics, in the vein of Farsight. Come to think of it, Farsight is not as bad as you.

 

[quantum_wave]

I know. It's called science.


Fields, waves, energy, axioms, theorems, proofs, derivations . . . etc.


Science is what it is. Love it or leave it. Why are you posting on a science board anyway?


Nailed that with lensing, Gravity Probe B (GPS was mentioned by someone else) and there went your claim.


You don't have a model. Modeling requires science, math and programming. You have none of that.


Science.


Science.


You have none, you haven't even got a definition of 'hyothesis'. You have no framework (e.g., Geometry) to process a hypothesis in; no system of logic, no rules. You're making up everything as you go and pretending to be somehow grounded in the thing you hate, namely, science.


All I said was, start with a definition of a field and a wave. It's not like I asked you to amputate your left testicle in service to the gods of Academia. This is the kindergarten stuff, just to give you legs to stand on.


Not really, you are not even following those rules. They just don't try to come down too hard on you guys. You are supposed to at least pretend like you are using logic and backing up your claims.


Whatever dude. To be sure, I'm strictly a boxers kind of guy. No torsion undergaments here.

Too bad you're so afraid of learning. :shrug:

Have it your way.

Edit: I know it is bad form to say it, and I know all the come backs of disdain for doing it, but your posts just disappeared. I'll peek once in awhile to see if you say anything pertinent.

 

[Undefined]

"Those books" are written by the exponents of mainstream physics. You, on the other hand, are a prime example of crank pretending to "explain" physics, in the vein of Farsight.

Yes, and what you fail to realize, in your now well known trollish zeal to "correct" all and sundry, is that they all are still books about theoretical modeling of effects, not actual explanations of causes or actual observations of their abstract "spaceTIME" within which these books apply. Abstract "spaceTIME construct" is not an "observable"; hence the further theoretical modeling/labeling of a "curved" spaceTIME isn't actually an observable either. Merely abstract labels from abstract constructs using abstract concepts attempting to "describe" (but not actually "provide or observe the mechanism for) the observed effects modeled abstractly in those books. Try to see what mainstream is actually saying, rather than being such a crank as to claim they "observe spacetime" and "spacetime curvature". They do not say they do any such thing. They rightly claim only to be able to abstractly model what actually are "observables", ie, motions in space, using their abstract theories and models which may have certain domains of applicability to "predict" but not to "explain" actual causes and mechanisms which are as yet not actually observables as such. Try, Tach.

 

[Tach]

is that they all are still theoretical modeling of effects, not actual explanations of causes or actual observations of their abstract "spaceTIME" within which these books apply.

You've been singing this song for more than two years on this forum. It is the song of the ignorant denier who keeps clamoring for the "actual explanation". The fact is that you do not understand any explanation because you can't read any of the books recommended to you. Instead, you elect to troll, in the hope of impressing people with your (inexistent) knowledge of the subject matter. You can fool nobody with your pretentions, the same way Farsight fools nobody with his pretensions.

Abstract "spaceTIME construct" is not an "observable"; hence the theoretical modeling of a "curved spaceTIME' isn't actually an observable either.

The vast literature on the subject says that you are full of hot air. Spacetime curvature is observed experimentally through:

1. gravitational lensing
2. Shapiro delay
3. advancement of the perihelion of different planets

Merely abstract labels from abstract constructs using abstract concepts attempting to "describe" (but not actually "provide or observe the mechanism for) the observed effects modeled abstractly in those books.

Sorry to burst your bubble but experimental observation contradicts your metaphysical ideas. The effects listed above have been observed directly. What you are doing in this forum has nothing to do with physics, despite your posturing.

They rightly claim only to be able to abstractly model what actually are "observables", ie, motions in space, using their abstract theories and models which may have certain domains of applicability to "predict" but not to "explain" causes and mechanisms as such. Try, Tach.

BS. There are thousands of experiments that measured (and continue to measure) the effects of spacetime curvature, despite your continued delusional denial. Give trolling a rest, take a class, read a good paper , you are not impressing anyone with your posturing.

 

[Undefined]

You've been singing this song for more than two years on this forum. It is the song of the ignorant denier who keeps clamoring for the "actual explanation". The fact is that you do not understand any explanation because you can't read any of the books recommended to you. Instead, you elect to troll, in the hope of impressing people with your (inexistent) knowledge of the subject matter. You can fool nobody with your pretentions, the same way Farsight fools nobody with his pretensions.



The vast literature on the subject says that you are full of hot air. Spacetime curvature is observed experimentally through:

1. gravitational lensing
2. Shapiro delay
3. advancement of the perihelion of different planets




Sorry to burst your bubble but experimental observation contradicts your metaphysical ideas. The effects listed above have been observed directly. What you are doing in this forum has nothing to do with physics, despite your posturing.






BS. There are thousands of experiments that measured (and continue to measure) the effects of spacetime curvature, despite your continued delusional denial. Give trolling a rest, take a class, you are not impressing anyone with your posturing.

I have no problems with the experiments or the modeling approaches. They are what they are. That is not the issue with you.

You keep repeating the crank claim that "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature" are "observables" even while at the same time (in your last sentence, which I bolded a certain segment of) you admit that it is the "effects" only that are observed and measured, and not the abstract "spacetime" or the "curved spacetime" per se.

Stop your trollish zealotry for just a minute, and consider that what mainstream sience "observed" is the "motions in space", and not abstract "spacetime itself"; and that what mainstream "treats abstractly" is the modeling of these motions in space without actually claiming to "observe spacetime or spacetime curvature" itself, since they have no problem realizing that "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature" are abstract concepts" for use in their abstract modeling tools to describe, predict the observed effects (motion in space etc) and theorize upon possible causes which have not yet been elevated (by mainstream) to anything more than what they say it is: abstract model of, not actual observation of, the "abstractions" (spacetime, spacetime curvature) which they constructed for their modeling. No more and no less than that, Tach. It is you and others like you insist that mainstream claims to have observed the abstractions they labeled "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature". They only claim to observe motions in space etc, not their abstractions of it for their abstract predictive models of the actually observed phenomena of motion in space etc.

Basically, Tach, you are making claims for the mainstream which the mainstream does not pretend to make at all. Mainstream is fine on this. You seem to be zealously inclined to overstate the actual state of affairs as to "observables', for reasons of your own. Thanks but no thanks. Mainstream is ok on that. You are not. Until you realize this, you are just making "mainstream-pretender" noises that do not agree with what the mainstream understandings on "observables" actually are. Good luck. Bye.

 

[Tach]

I have no problems with the experiments or the modeling approaches. They are what they are. That is not the issue with you.

You keep repeating the crank claim that "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature" are "observables".

This is what the textbooks teach. This is what the experiments confirm. Meaning that your continuous rehashing of your fringe misconceptions on the subject makes no sense. Stop droning and start reading, I have provided some very good references.

It is you and others like you insist that mainstream claims to have observed the abstractions they labeled "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature".

Yeah, Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, Rindler, Chandrashekar are all cranks, they should start listening to "professors" Undefined and Farsight.

 

[Undefined]

This is what the textbooks teach. This is what the experiments confirm. Meaning that your continuous rehashing of your fringe misconceptions on the subject makes no sense. Stop droning and start reading, I have provided some very good references.



Yeah, Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, Rindler, Chandrashekar are all cranks, they should start listening to "professors" Undefined and Farsight.

They teach theoretical concepts from abstract models using abstract concepts like spacetime and spacetime curvature constructs as tools to describe and predict but in no way do they claim to actually have "observed spacetime" or "spacetime curvature". There is a difference. Subtle, but important.

And again, in the last sentence of your previous post you unwittingly recognize that it is the effects of motion in space, and not the abstract "spacetime curvature" that is the "observable".

Please take a moment to go back and re-read your own statement there; and think again about what is the actual point being discussed. Leave aside for a moment your zealous need to "correct others irrespective", and just think of what you just said there about effects not spacetime curvature being the observables/measurables; while the rest is abstract overlay from theory assumption and interpretation according to modeling 'labels' for what might be the cause of the effects/observables. I am not trying to turn your world upside down, Tach, I just want you to stop making claims for mainstream that mainstream does not make for itself. This latest claim of yours being an example of such which leads you to go on the attack and indiscriminately calling people "crank" because you clearly (as in this case) misunderstanding what is the point at issue.

Be more polite and circumspect. Don't kneejerk to assume others are always wrong. You are not infallible. No one is. Just discuss positively and properly and all will be well. Good luck.

 

[brucep]

Have it your way.

Edit: I know it is bad form to say it, and I know all the come backs of disdain for doing it, but your posts just disappeared. I'll peek once in awhile to see if you say anything pertinent.

Delete.

 

[Tach]

They teach theoretical concepts from abstract models using abstract concepts like spacetime and spacetime curvature constructs as tools to describe and predict but in no way do they claim to actually have "observed spacetime" or "spacetime curvature".

These are the people who teach GR. You would benefit by spending time learning it from them rather than wasting your time posturing and trolling. As it stands, you have demonstrated a total lack on the subject of physics in general and GR in specific.

 

[quantum_wave]

You're an imbecile.

Lol, that wasn't one of them. You ignored my earlier post asking you a question. Did you ignore it on purpose?

 

[Undefined]

These are the people who teach GR. You would benefit by spending time learning it from them rather than wasting your time posturing and trolling. As it stands, you have demonstrated a total lack on the subject of physics in general and GR in specific.

They teach theory. The concepts used are abstract model constructs. The motion in space observables they use are the effects.

The interpretation of these effects is according to theoretical constructs/concepts labeled "spacetime" and "spacetime curvature", ie, what is commonly referred to as gravity.

The effects (variable path of motion in space) they model are measurable/observable, while the constructs of the model used (spacetime and spacetime curvature) to predict and surmise as to causes of the observable effects are not themselves observables.

To stress again clearly what q_w and others (including mainstream) point out:

Neither spacetime nor spacetime curvature are observables. They are abstract notions used to model those effects which are the observables the models treat abstractly. Motion in space and the varying paths of said motions are due to unseen and as yet unexplained factors which have yet to be actually observed. Claiming abstract un-observables like spacetime and spacetime curvature as something which exists outside the abstract modeling constructs is not a mainstream claim. That's all one needs to understand on this point. Good luck.

 

[Tach]

They teach theory.

They teach something that you clearly don't know and will never know. Because you spend all your time trolling and posturing instead of learning.