Why two mass attracts each other?

[Farsight]

Your [POST=3066616]post #158[/POST] doesn't contain any new arguments. You've posted them on this forum before, and they've been rebutted before many times...

Of course there are no new arguments, it's merely a simple explanation pointing out the distinction between space and spacetime. Which hasn't been rebutted, and you know it.

Yet you're posting them again essentially unmodified. So it rather looks more like you aren't learning anything and you're just looking for a different audience.

I'm explaining the distinction between space and spacetime to Markus, because it came up in the conversation.

Personally I'm getting tired of explaining why you're wrong about something only to see you repeat the same argument a few months later as if nothing had happened.

Personally I'm getting tired of you suggesting you've explained that I'm wrong when you haven't.

So let's try it differently this time. One of the expectations of scientific discourse is intellectual honesty.

What, like Alphanumeric's ranting ad-hominem derail? And Markus's point-blank refusal to address post #158?

In particular, if you advance an argument, you are expected to be honest about any possible weaknesses in your argument or any reasons your conclusions might be wrong. In many ways you are expected to be your own harshest critic.

I am honest, and I'm always looking for possible weaknesses in an argument.

Here's a few select arguments you make in post #158:

1) "There is no motion in spacetime".
2) General relativity is, or can be interpreted as, a theory about flat but inhomogeneous space.
3) Albert Einstein was personally a proponent of point #2.

I could explain what's wrong with those arguments, but by now you should already know what I'm going to say.

No I don't. And don't paraphrase. Address what I actually said, not some straw -man reworking of what I said.

So what do you think my main criticisms would be

Ad-hominem, as usual.

and what specific responses have you come up with since the first time I made them?

I have re-iterated what Einstein actually said and that "the map is not the territory". Now address post #158 and point out where it is wrong. Come on, that shouldn't be a problem, now should it?

 

[Markus Hanke]

I didn't say they were. Now please address my post #158 instead of clutching at you don't understand differential geometry straws. It is important that you learn the distinction between space and spacetime. Light does not move through spacetime, because spacetime models space at all times. Therefore light does not curve because spacetime is curved. Take the differential of your curved spacetime and what have you got? Inhomogeneous space. That's what light moves through. And as I said, you know what die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert means. Do not dismiss it because it is not in accord with the general relativity you've been taught.

How many more times are you going to parrot this utter nonsense ? All of this has been addressed - unlike yourself, I will not repeat myself. You have, on this thread and many others, exhibited an extraordinary ignorance of the physics and maths of not just GR, but space-time physics and geometrodynamics in general. Many people have pointed this out to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. If an obvious fallacy is pointed out, the proper reaction would be one of "Hm. Perhaps you're right. I'll go and study it a bit more from a proper textbook", and to learn something in process and not make the same mistake again. You on the other hand respond by "You know you're wrong ! Just Google it !".

Ludicrous.

In either case, I have no desire to participate in this "I said...you said...he said...Google it !" nonsense. At the request of the members on another forum I am currently putting together an in-depth primer thread on General Relativity; once it's done I might copy-and-paste it on this forum as well. It will contain all the basic information and derivations, including vectors, line elements, metrics, tensors, connections and differential forms, the Riemann tensor and its precise meaning in terms of geodesic deviation and parallel transport, the derivation of the EFEs from Newton's theory and the Hilbert action, and a number of worked-through examples and calculations. Perhaps you'll learn something yet.

Take the differential of your curved spacetime and what have you got?

What differential ? Write this down in mathematical form, so that we at least have some idea what you are talking about.

Do not dismiss it because it is not in accord with the general relativity you've been taught.

And round, and round, and...
This has already been addressed in exhaustive detail, just like all of your points.

 

[Farsight]

How many more times are you going to parrot this utter nonsense? All of this has been addressed - unlike yourself, I will not repeat myself.

You haven't addressed it at all. You have absolutely ducked it. And die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert is not nonsense, as you know. Now stop huffing and puffing and spitting hubristic feathers, and address my post #158. You will then learn the distinction between space and spacetime, and you will cease to make the false assertion that light curves because it moves through curved spacetime.

 

[Farsight]

NB: you will find the parallel-mirror gif useful when examining the assertion that:

"we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies".

Here it is: View attachment 6257 It's a simplified exaggeration of NIST optical clocks which do not remain synchronised when separated by a vertical elevation of only a foot. Whilst simplified and exaggerated, it is not misleading. Because die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert is not nonsense.

 

[przyk]

Personally I'm getting tired of you suggesting you've explained that I'm wrong when you haven't.

For the record, are you claiming I've never responded to any of the material I referred to in my previous post?

Note that acknowledging that I've responded to your arguments, with something that was at least an attempt at a scientific argument and wasn't an ad-hominem, is not the same as agreeing with said arguments.

For example, Joy Christian claims to have disproved Bell's theorem. His main arguments are that he exploits something that he thinks Bell's theorem didn't already account for (noncommuting observables) and that he thinks he has a mathematical local toy model that is a counterexample to the CHSH inequality. I can acknowledge that he has made such arguments, and that the details can be found in various papers of his, without agreeing with those arguments or his conclusions. Are you capable of this?

No I don't. And don't paraphrase. Address what I actually said, not some straw -man reworking of what I said.

Points 1) to 3) are one sentence summaries that should identify some themes I have already discussed with you. You already know the details of your own arguments -- they're in many of your previous posts, including [POST=3066616]post #158[/POST] -- and you should already know how I am going to respond to them by now.

Now address post #158 and point out where it is wrong. Come on, that shouldn't be a problem, now should it?

No, there isn't a problem. And if you'd actually absorbed and made an honest attempt to understand some of my previous posts, you should know I have answers ready.

So can you anticipate the arguments I'm going to make, or do you want me to prove that you really haven't learned anything?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I didn't say directly and I didn't say is. Would you care to address my post #158 instead of boring us all with your customary carping whining ad-hominems?

You said 'equates'. The curvature tensor equates to the tidal effect. No, the tidal effect can be extracted from the curvature tensor and the geodesic structure of the space-time.

As for your post 158 I haven't even read it. I have not been reading the forum much recently, I've been pulling 175% my usual work hours because I actually get paid to do science.

You haven't addressed it at all. You have absolutely ducked it.

Speaking of ducking out here's a simple direct question : Can you do the mathematics pertaining to the Riemann curvature tensor, geodesics, tidal tensor etc? If yes please explain when you learnt differential geometry and tensor calculus and from what source of information. If not please explain why anyone should think you know anything about it beyond mindlessly parroting Wikipedia and Google found links.

 

[przyk]

Speaking of ducking out here's a simple direct question : Can you do the mathematics pertaining to the Riemann curvature tensor, geodesics, tidal tensor etc? If yes please explain when you learnt differential geometry and tensor calculus and from what source of information. If not please explain why anyone should think you know anything about it beyond mindlessly parroting Wikipedia and Google found links.

I've asked something similar in a previous post, and it can't be stressed enough.

Farsight: you really should give a good answer to this at some point, especially in light of what I explained above in [POST=3066805]post #178[/POST] (about mathematics being a summary of experimental results and such). Because however snide or adversarial you think we sound, we are making a valid point. The number one priority in science is correctness. So of the many different views and opinions you can read in Einstein's and other's papers, in textbooks, on the internet, and on forums like these, how can you ultimately tell who's right and who's wrong if you can't do your own independent calculations and derivations?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So of the many different views and opinions you can read in Einstein's and other's papers, in textbooks, on the internet, and on forums like these, how can you ultimately tell who's right and who's wrong if you can't do your own independent calculations and derivations?

Einstein's work is actually an example of why details are essential. I've said it to Farsight before but I'll repeat it since he either won't remember or deliberately 'forgot' it, since he's never acknowledged it.

Both Newton and Einstein predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. If all you did is work in analogies and qualitative overviews then from the point of view of orbital precession Newton and Einstein are both right. But we know that isn't the case even for this one experimental domain because when we crunch the numbers they predict different amounts of precession. The difference is very small but it was within the ability of physicists in 1920 to detect.

Farsight, this is why you complete lack of quantitative detail utterly undermines your claims to explained various things. Even if superficially you have some analogy which seems to be similar to some observed phenomenon without details you have no reason to claim to be able to explain it. Someone claiming Newton explained orbital precession because his work predicts some precession would be wrong because while qualitative correct the quantitative details are not. Where are your quantitative details? The one and only time you have ever provided any response to my request (repeated dozens of times over more than 5 years) you provide even one quantitative model derived from your own work, along with its derivation, you provided terrible numerology done by someone else. You described it as astounding (or some other similarly praising word), right before you were laughed at by several people for not seeing the utterly flawed nature of the numerology. That illustrated you lack the ability to properly evaluate proposed physical models/ideas so why should any of us think your own work is anything more further failures in your understanding? Until you can provide unambiguous, precise detail you have nothing but a bunch of pictures, arm waving and a pile of self published books you cannot sell.

 

[Markus Hanke]

You haven't addressed it at all. You have absolutely ducked it. And die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert is not nonsense, as you know. Now stop huffing and puffing and spitting hubristic feathers, and address my post #158. You will then learn the distinction between space and spacetime, and you will cease to make the false assertion that light curves because it moves through curved spacetime.

1. The speed of light does not vary
2. Light traces out null geodesics in curved space-time.

As already stated multiple times. I suggest a thorough read of Gravitation by Thorne/Misner/Wheeler. Not that I have much hope that you'd be able to actually understand any of it, and even if you did, your misconceptions are so deep-rooted that you are probably too far gone to be able to give them up.

distinction between space and spacetime

There is only space-time, not space.

 

[eram]

How do you help someone who suffers from Dunning-Kruger?

 

[rr6]

Mass O>Boson<OMass

There is only space-time, not space.

Markus, if our/your "space-time" Universe( occupied space ) is finite, then outside ergo beyond( meta ), exists as macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.

This is the first subcataorization--- inside - outside --- of "U"niverse, or Universe or universe etc.......depending on the individual terminological preference.

Non-occupied space beyond( meta )

Occupied space---includes your "space-time" --exists within non-occupied space

Non-occupied space ergo beyond( meta )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-occupied space = <>

Occupied space or "space-time" or spacetime, = ., or * , or o, or maybe expanded as O or O

Ergo <o> or expanded as <O>

r6

 

[Markus Hanke]

How do you help someone who suffers from Dunning-Kruger?

You can't, that's the problem. Farsight will forever be stuck in his own little dream world, and will actually think he is right, and everyone else is deluded.
Rather sad, really.

 

[wellwisher]

Space-time is a mathematical construct to help us define the interactions of tangible reality. Time is not a thing, which can be saved in a bottle while space is that nothing that exists between substance. The best way to describe space-time is analogous to the modern instrument display on the windshield of a fighter jet. A visual grid is set up on the windshield that superimposes onto the tangible things in the sky to helps us see and predict various relationships.

What they found is new pilots need to adapt to this windshield display, but once they adapted it, it becomes like second nature until the lines between tangible reality the windshield display (construct) seem to disappear. This is space-time in a nutshell. When we say gravity is the bending of space-time it is like saying the movement of the enemy jet is defined by the windshield display. There is no requirement in science that the mind be calibrated to avoid the confusion between tangible and reference variables once these merge.

One way to prove this would be to isolate only space-time and save some in a bottle so we can look at it. This would be like saving some of the LED display on the windshield in a bottle. It is not really there in that tangible sense. However, the values within the display, are important since they represent a graphic display of the numbers we plug into equations, so we can predict the tangible things.

If we go back to why mass attracts mass we cannot use the pilot's display, since that is only telling us how math equates the mass to mass, based on the display from the manufacturer.

We need to go old school and shut off the windshield's space-time display and then look at the world through the clear windshield. Instead of the math cart leading the horse, we need to develop a conceptual model before the math so the horse leads. If it like tracking an enemy pilot who will not make it easy by following the programming in the display so it appear to be better than it is. You need to forget the display and think like a pilot.

When mass attracts mass, energy is given off, such as kinetic energy, heat and pressure or contained energy (mass related) is converted to free energy. Since mass can't go the speed of light, there is net movement back to C.

 

[quantum_wave]

You can't, that's the problem. Farsight will forever be stuck in his own little dream world, and will actually think he is right, and everyone else is deluded.
Rather sad, really.

That's not sad, really. It is a difference of opinion. Before you object by saying that opinion and physics/mathematics are two different worlds, lol, let me add:

The point is that mathematics is a perfect tool to communicate between people with the education and ability to grasp each others math. But the math is a tool and not the physical phenomena.

If the physical phenomenon is gravity, are you saying that you are describing the effect of gravity with all of the spacetime math, or are you describing the phenomenon of gravity in terms of its physical nature?

 

[Markus Hanke]

If the physical phenomenon is gravity, are you saying that you are describing the effect of gravity with all of the spacetime math, or are you describing the phenomenon of gravity in terms of its physical nature?

GR is doing both. It is a model of the physical nature of gravity, and it describes quantitively its effects. GR yields mathematical predictions which can be tested against experiment and observation.

 

[Farsight]

For the record, are you claiming I've never responded to any of the material I referred to in my previous post?

No. I'm saying you haven't explained why that material is wrong.

Note that acknowledging that I've responded to your arguments, with something that was at least an attempt at a scientific argument and wasn't an ad-hominem, is not the same as agreeing with said arguments.

Noted.

For example, Joy Christian claims to have disproved Bell's theorem. His main arguments are that he exploits something that he thinks Bell's theorem didn't already account for (noncommuting observables) and that he thinks he has a mathematical local toy model that is a counterexample to the CHSH inequality. I can acknowledge that he has made such arguments, and that the details can be found in various papers of his, without agreeing with those arguments or his conclusions. Are you capable of this?

Definitely.

Points 1) to 3) are one sentence summaries that should identify some themes I have already discussed with you. You already know the details of your own arguments -- they're in many of your previous posts, including [POST=3066616]post #158[/POST] -- and you should already know how I am going to respond to them by now...

No, there isn't a problem. And if you'd actually absorbed and made an honest attempt to understand some of my previous posts, you should know I have answers ready.
So can you anticipate the arguments I'm going to make, or do you want me to prove that you really haven't learned anything?

Don't try the when did you stop beating your wife line with me przyk. Instead, stop beating around the bush and respond to post #158.

 

[Farsight]

1. The speed of light does not vary
2. Light traces out null geodesics in curved space-time.

Address post #158 instead of ducking it, and refer to the gif.

It isn't misleading. Now, does the speed of light vary or not?

As already stated multiple times. I suggest a thorough read of Gravitation by Thorne/Misner/Wheeler. Not that I have much hope that you'd be able to actually understand any of it, and even if you did, your misconceptions are so deep-rooted that you are probably too far gone to be able to give them up.

I suggest a thorough read of die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert, along with a look in the mirror.

Now come on, stop ducking post #158. All you have to do is respond to it piece by piece and point out where it goes wrong. What's the problem?

There is only space-time, not space.

How many times so I have to make it clear that spacetime is a mathematical model that presents all times at once. Because of this, it's static. There's no motion in it. Light doesn't move through it. Instead light moves through space over time, and we draw a line in spacetime to represent this. But the light is not moving up that worldline. Just as a stationary body is not moving up its vertical worldline.

 

[Farsight]

Einstein's work is actually an example of why details are essential. I've said it to Farsight before but I'll repeat it since he either won't remember or deliberately 'forgot' it, since he's never acknowledged it.

Both Newton and Einstein predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. If all you did is work in analogies and qualitative overviews then from the point of view of orbital precession Newton and Einstein are both right. But we know that isn't the case even for this one experimental domain because when we crunch the numbers they predict different amounts of precession. The difference is very small but it was within the ability of physicists in 1920 to detect.

Farsight, this is why you complete lack of quantitative detail utterly undermines your claims to explained various things...

No it doesn't. I've done most of the explaining on this thread. My explanations are backed up by experimental evidence and references to Einstein, Minkowski, Maxwell etc along with bona-fide websites including course notes. I suggest you read back through the thread to check this. Then address post #158, or other physics posts, instead of derailing the thread with personal criticism. If you find some place where my explanation needs some revision, no problem, but please do check your facts first.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Address post #158 instead of ducking it, and refer to the gif.

The pic is meaningless, it does not reflect null geodesics in space-time, which is what light traces out. Its speed is the same everywhere.

It isn't misleading. Now, does the speed of light vary or not?

It doesnotvary.

What's the problem?

The problem is that it is meaningless, because you are attempting to isolate space from space-time. That is simply nonsensical. There is only space-time, and worldlines and geodesics in space-time. Acknowledge that, and all your misconceptions vanish. Forget about the crap with light clocks and plots and inhomogeneities. None of this is needed, or even meaningful.

How many times so I have to make it clear that spacetime is a mathematical model that presents all times at once. Because of this, it's static. There's no motion in it. Light doesn't move through it. Instead light moves through space over time, and we draw a line in spacetime to represent this. But the light is not moving up that worldline. Just as a stationary body is not moving up its vertical worldline.

Light is null geodesics in space-time. That is all there is to it. If space-time is curved, then so are null geodesics in it. It is so simple.

 

[wellwisher]

The point is that mathematics is a perfect tool to communicate between people with the education and ability to grasp each others math. But the math is a tool and not the physical phenomena.

One way to prove this is take two masses separated by distance X. Next, we will tweak only space-time, using only space-time, to induce an expansion in space-time and see if the masses cooperate or continue to attract. The space-time construct can be moved either way, but can't do anything to the substance which will continue to attract. I can heat the two masses; only tangible variables, and the construct has to follow as they separate apart.

Science needs to create the rule that the mind has to be calibrated before it can merge with the windshield display, since this lack of reference is confusing tangible reality with simulation.

I suppose if a test pilot refused to use the windshield display but preferred to wing it, this places limits as to what he can do, since computers allows more information to be processed and therefore can extend the practical value. But you will still need to shut off the display, periodically, when new scenarios appear. It useful to have the option.