Why space warping is incorrect?
Space theories are usually written with any consideration to its extended applications.
Where does this word ‘space fabric’ come into the context of science?
Well! It appears in all spiritual books. Every religious bible explains space as a fabric of consciousness.
Even if you consider this idea of ‘Space fabric’ or ‘space time continuum’ was discovered by Albert Einstein then here are some issues that test the plausibility of space warping that he explained through his theory of general relativity.
Anomaly 1
As Einstein says let us assume space is a fabric. This fabric surrounds the objects in a galaxy. An object is surrounded by space fabric on all its sides. Why do we apply the centrifugal effect always from the bottom/south pole of an object when space fabric surrounds it in entirety? Take any picture that show space warping around the Sun. From those pictures we see that the Sun sinks downward because of its mass and Earth is revolving around the Sun by its/sun’s sides. If Sun is surrounded by the space fabric then every point of the Sun is in touch with the space and every single point on the sphere can create the centrifugal effect. For example we will apply this effect to the left side of the Sun (from our point of view). So now the centrifugal force is towards the left side of the Sun which will result the Earth revolving around the sun top to bottom and not any more side ways to the Sun.
Anomaly 2
In case, we assume that the space fabric is only towards the south pole of an object then the axis of all galaxies should align with each other or in other words be parallel to each other. But we know that that is not the case.
Anomaly 3
There is one more inconsistency with this warping space theory. If we are to definitely apply this space warping theory then Earth’s orbit should get shorter and shorter with time. How? We know that Sun is traveling at a tremendous speed in its own orbit along with all the other stars in the galaxy. In this case, every year at a certain season Sun will come closer to Earth as Earth is almost in the path of the Sun’s orbit. And with space warping, Earth will be pulled into Sun due to the centrifugal effect with a greater gravitational force. Applying this effect to all the planets and Stars we would not have this many planets in the galaxies.
Do you think space warping is true, if true how far is it applicable?
As far as science is concerned your objection to the curvature term, in GR (1-2M/r). is meaningless unless you can provide an experimental result which shows that a GR prediction wrt natural phenomena is incorrect. The bottom line is Einstein's model has passed all tests to this point. Nobody is going to give a hoot whether you like the model or don't like the model. The type of objection you're making only shows you don't understand the basics of science. For your edification there is another model which has a one to one correlation with GR where tortion fills the roll that space time curvature fills in GR. So which model does the scientist use for analysis? The one that is easier for completing the analysis. The scientist isn't going to worry about 'spactime curvature or tortion' because they both work.
brucep
12th October 2009 - 02:07 AM
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 12 2009, 01:36 AM)
As far as science is concerned your objection to the curvature term, in GR (1-2M/r). is meaningless unless you can provide an experimental result which shows that a GR prediction wrt natural phenomena is incorrect. The bottom line is Einstein's model has passed all tests to this point. Nobody is going to give a hoot whether you like the model or don't like the model. The type of objection you're making only shows you don't understand the basics of science. For your edification there is another model which has a one to one correlation with GR where tortion fills the roll that space time curvature fills in GR. So which model does the scientist use for analysis? The one that is easier for completing the analysis. The scientist isn't going to worry about 'spactime curvature or tortion' because they both work.
The' one to one' word I should have used if 'correspondence'
KKris
12th October 2009 - 03:12 AM
QUOTE
So...if you imagine space as a trampoline, this gives it elastic properties?
I did not say or imagine that space is like a trampoline. You've to see AlphaNumeric's comment for that. Atleast that's what the scientific community imagines about space.
My question was, "if space is like a trampoline as Einstein suggested then is it stretchable/elastic in nature and how does it come to be so?"
KKris
12th October 2009 - 03:49 AM
brucep,
Here is one way that I perceive space.
Planets in our solar system are revolving because of the pushing force of the Sun and the 27 stars mentioned in the zodiacs. The star clusters of the zodiacs more or less form a circle around the center star Sun. Planets in our solar system are placed between the Sun and the zodiac stars and are pushed by the force from the Sun and the stars of the Zodiac symbols. To escape the push, planets either move clockwise or anti-clockwise and thus result in revolution around the Sun.
Stars, planets and other objects in space all have their own properties. If gravity pervades the entire Universe without any pushing force the Universe would've already strunk to a point by now.
What do you think about this model?
MjolnirPants
12th October 2009 - 04:27 AM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 11 2009, 10:49 PM)
brucep,
Here is one way that I perceive space.
Planets in our solar system are revolving because of the pushing force of the Sun and the 27 stars mentioned in the zodiacs. The star clusters of the zodiacs more or less form a circle around the center star Sun. Planets in our solar system are placed between the Sun and the zodiac stars and are pushed by the force from the Sun and the stars of the Zodiac symbols. To escape the push, planets either move clockwise or anti-clockwise and thus result in revolution around the Sun.
Stars, planets and other objects in space all have their own properties. If gravity pervades the entire Universe without any pushing force the Universe would've already strunk to a point by now.
What do you think about this model?
Congrats. You've managed to demonstrate an extreme ignorance of astronomy, relativity, and scientific methodology in one, stupid post.
1. The stars of the constellations pertaining to the various astrological signs are neither a uniform distance from earth, nor are any of a distance to contribute gravitational interference with earth in any way.
2. Astrology is pseudoscience. The zodiacal signs are a part of astrology.
3. The earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
4. Read this:
Wikipedia - Astrology and Science and this:
Wikipedia - Astrology and Astronomy
Beer w/Straw
12th October 2009 - 04:33 AM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 12 2009, 03:49 AM)
brucep,
Here is one way that I perceive space.
Planets in our solar system are revolving because of the pushing force of the Sun and the 27 stars mentioned in the zodiacs. The star clusters of the zodiacs more or less form a circle around the center star Sun. Planets in our solar system are placed between the Sun and the zodiac stars and are pushed by the force from the Sun and the stars of the Zodiac symbols. To escape the push, planets either move clockwise or anti-clockwise and thus result in revolution around the Sun.
Stars, planets and other objects in space all have their own properties. If gravity pervades the entire Universe without any pushing force the Universe would've already strunk to a point by now.
What do you think about this model?
I believe you would be interested in dark matter and energy. Gravity is always attractive, it doesn't 'push' However observation have been made that has the universe expanding at an accelerated rate. Where dark energy 'the push' may grow in strength that it may overtake gravity altogetgher.
In 1998, observations of distant supernovae revealed that about 70% of the universe consists of mysterious dark energy which is pushing on the expansion of the universe and causing it to accelerate.http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html
KKris
12th October 2009 - 04:44 AM
QUOTE
1. The stars of the constellations pertaining to the various astrological signs are neither a uniform distance from earth, nor are any of a distance to contribute gravitational interference with earth in any way.
Again, I'm not talking about gravity but the pushing force from the stars that the planets experience.
brucep
12th October 2009 - 04:49 AM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 12 2009, 03:49 AM)
brucep,
Here is one way that I perceive space.
Planets in our solar system are revolving because of the pushing force of the Sun and the 27 stars mentioned in the zodiacs. The star clusters of the zodiacs more or less form a circle around the center star Sun. Planets in our solar system are placed between the Sun and the zodiac stars and are pushed by the force from the Sun and the stars of the Zodiac symbols. To escape the push, planets either move clockwise or anti-clockwise and thus result in revolution around the Sun.
Stars, planets and other objects in space all have their own properties. If gravity pervades the entire Universe without any pushing force the Universe would've already strunk to a point by now.
What do you think about this model?
That's interesting. Does that have something to do with astrology? For me I need a model which has an equation of motion. Something to confirm orbits precess and can be used to derive useful details for stuff such as space flight or a Global Positioning system. Peace.
KKris
12th October 2009 - 04:51 AM
QUOTE
In 1998, observations of distant supernovae revealed that about 70% of the universe consists of mysterious dark energy which is pushing on the expansion of the universe and causing it to accelerate.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html I guess, people of this forum will be happy now as this is coming from NASA and not from KKris.
Gravity is a result force from the acceleration of Earth.
Beer w/Straw
12th October 2009 - 05:07 AM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 12 2009, 04:51 AM)
Gravity is a result force from the acceleration of Earth.
This doesn't make sense.
AlphaNumeric
12th October 2009 - 09:12 AM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 12 2009, 12:50 AM)
Working on that but it's not for this forum.
If you're working on it, let's see your workings. Just outline it, say which equations you're starting with and what you are doing with them. And don't worry about excessive mathematical detail, I'm up to speed on the mathematics of quantum field theory and general relativity.
Or could it be you don't have anything?
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 12 2009, 12:50 AM)
I guess, people of this forum will be happy now as this is coming from NASA and not from KKris.
But NASA provide experiments and theoretical derivation of results. You haven't provided anything.
MjolnirPants
12th October 2009 - 03:21 PM
QUOTE (KKris+Oct 11 2009, 11:44 PM)
Again, I'm not talking about gravity but the pushing force from the stars that the planets experience.
1. The 'pushing force" does not come from the stars of the zodiacal signs.
2. The "pushing force" does not act over distances as small as a galaxy.
3. The stars are neither a uniform distance from earth nor a uniform mass. This means there would be no uniform motion of the earth, if you were right.
KKris
12th October 2009 - 04:26 PM
AlphaNumeric,
Thanks for showing much interest in my mathematical formulae. As I said earlier, it is not for this forum.
And then, even if I put it out here, it is not going to be supported or encouraged in anyway for sure.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.