Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

[river]

You have already been told at least twice that we know neither the how or the why. Why do you continue to feign such obtuseness and ignorance?
We can only speculate.

I don't , you keep adding the fuel with your ridiculous responses .

 

[river]

river said: ↑
What about space evolves ?

Never heard of expansion?

Sure , but so what .

What about expansion evolves space ?

 

[paddoboy]

I don't , you keep adding the fuel with your ridiculous responses .

Yes you have, and probably more then a couple of times....
post 199

The space and the time [spacetime ] came into existance at around 10-43 seconds after the BB. Before that we can only speculate as to why and how.

.

I'm certainly not going back any further just to appease a proven troll.

Sure , but so what .

So it evolves. Dave already told you that much earlier.

What about expansion evolves space ?

go back to post 199

 

[paddoboy]

No , many things bend .

But not space .

Just though it worth resurrecting to prove the point I'm trying to make.
Yes, spacetime certainly bends..and warps and twists as per the evidence I have already shown you in graphical representations and observations.
And of course bending is a property, as well as being able to expand.

 

[river]

Besides the perhelion shift of Mercury and gravitational lensing, there is another experiment which has shown that spacetime warps, bends, twists and waves in the presence of mass energy. It was the GP-B experiment which showed that the rotating Earth does indeed twist within its immediate vicinity, the spacetime surrounding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) was a satellite-based mission to test two unverified predictions of general relativity: the geodetic effect and frame-dragging. This was to be accomplished by measuring, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth satellite orbiting at 650 km (400 mi) altitude, crossing directly over the poles.

The satellite was launched on 20 April 2004 on a Delta II rocket.[4] The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005;[5] its aim was to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress–energy tensor (which is related to the distribution and the motion of matter in space) in and near Earth. This provided a test of general relativity, gravitomagnetism and related models. The principal investigator was Francis Everitt.

Initial results confirmed the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging effect was similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by initially unmodeled effects due to nonuniform coatings on the gyroscopes). Work continued to model and account for these sources of error, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging signal. By August 2008, the frame-dragging effect had been confirmed to within 15% of the expected result,[6] and the December 2008 NASA report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to better than 0.5%.

Yet gravity waves away from the source not inwards , into the source .

Further , the moon should not have been captured by Earths gravity .

 

[paddoboy]

Does light bend in a pure vacuum ?

Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime just as you have been shown.

No

Yes, spacetime warps, bends, twists in the presence of mass and energy just as observational experements have shown. eg: GP-B

So how would space bend in a pure vacuum ?

Space is not a pure vaccum. Space essentially does not bend...it is spacetime that bends just as you have been shown earlier with photos and experiments.

 

[DaveC426913]

Further , the moon should not have been captured by Earths gravity .

It wasn't, so ... well done there.

 

[river]

↑

So how would space bend in a pure vacuum ?

Space is not a pure vaccum. Space essentially does not bend...it is spacetime that bends just as you have been shown earlier with photos and experiments.

Non-Sequitur

 

[paddoboy]

Yet gravity waves away from the source not inwards , into the source .

Gravitational waves [not gravity waves] carry gravitational energy away into space via spacetime ripples from a coalescing mass or explosion.

Further , the moon should not have been captured by Earths gravity .

Bullshit.
The Moon simply falls into the Earth's gravitational warping or well, as the earth [and planets] fall into the Sun's gravitational well.

 

[paddoboy]

↑
No, simply more river ignorance and/or trolling.
Read up on GP-B as a recent experiment that shows the warping of spacetime due to Earth, and the twisting of the same spacetime due to the Earth's rotation.



Non-Sequitur

 

[paddoboy]

↑
Non-Sequitur

No, simply more river ignorance and/or trolling.
Read up on GP-B as a recent experiment that shows the warping of spacetime due to Earth, and the twisting of the same spacetime due to the Earth's rotation.

 

[DaveC426913]

The Moon simply falls into the Earth's gravitational warping or well, as the earth [and planets] fall into the Sun's gravitational well.

Well, except that the Moon was not captured by the Earth.

The Moon formed in Earth's orbit.

 

[river]

Space-time bends but not space ?

 

[paddoboy]

I don't , you keep adding the fuel with your ridiculous responses .

"The space and the time [spacetime ] came into existance at around 10-43 seconds after the BB. Before that we can only speculate as to why and how".post 199

You going to recognise you lied river?

 

[river]

Well, except that the Moon was not captured by the Earth.

The Moon formed in Earth's orbit.

How so ?

 

[paddoboy]

Well, except that the Moon was not captured by the Earth.

The Moon formed in Earth's orbit.

Yep, agreed, but you know, having to deal with his continued nonsensical fairy tales, one does less to consider as you have detailed. Point is river most assuredly did not know the evidence shows that our Moon was probably formed after a planetary sized body slammed into a still molten early Earth.

 

[paddoboy]

How so ?

Told you Dave!!

 

[DaveC426913]

How so ?

Considering these two steps, which order do you think makes the most sense?


First: learn about how things work and how things happen.
Second: make your own assertions based on how things work and how things happen.

or

First: make your own assertions based on how things work and how things happen.
Second: learn about how things work and how things happen.


You talk about how the Moon should or should not have come to be in Earth orbit - and yet you don't even know how it did or did not come to be in Earth orbit.

 

[paddoboy]

Space-time bends but not space ?

Convention tells us that space is what is between the planets and galaxies.
Convention tells us that time is what separates events.
The scientific model supporting Einsteins GR, tells us that spacetime is the unified multi dimensional framework against which all events are postured, and stems from the fact that the speed of light is a finite number and constant in all FoR's.
Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers.

 

[river]

Yep, agreed, but you know, having to deal with his continued nonsensical fairy tales, one does less to consider as you have detailed. Point is river most assuredly did not know the evidence shows that our Moon was probably formed after a planetary sized body slammed into a still molten early Earth.

Oh I have heard of this theory .