The absurdity of space-time curvature and geodesics

[Marvas]

Einstein's theory of gravity is based on the notion that space-time can be curved (by mass and energy) and uses geodesics to describe its curvature.

So what is a geodesic ?
A geodesic is the shortest line between two points on a spherical or curved surface (Oxford def.).


But space has no surface, and time does not have one either, so geodesics in space/time are not applicable. Therefore space/time cannot have any curvature, which was kind of obvious from the beginning- unless you were on crack like Einstein. Who not only did not understand refraction, he did not understand what geodesy is either.

The notion of Geodesic comes from Geodesy, the science which studies earth's shape, which has a curved surface (Geo meaning Earth in latin). It has nothing to do with space, which has no shape or surface. General relativity is based on a complete misuse and misunderstanding of the notion of geodesics. It is completelly illogical as it ignores the definition which requires a surface, which space obviously does not and cannot have.

Unless it is a physical object, like the solid sky firmanent from the holy babble. Which is not what Einstein believed in, as he called it a book of childish superstitions. (amen to that)

And 'the fabric of space-time', in which he believed, is nothing but a geometrical concept. There is nothing physical in it, as he rejected the existence of aether. The fabric is made of nothing. Therefore, there is nothing in space that can curve. Or expand for that matter.

 

[Gibsense]

The notion of Geodesic comes from Geodesy, the science which studies earth's shape, which has a curved surface (Geo meaning Earth in latin). It has nothing to do with space, which has no shape or surface. General relativity is based on a complete misuse and misunderstanding of the notion of geodesics. It is completelly illogical as it ignores the definition which requires a surface, which space obviously does not and cannot have.

A reflection of the attitude of King Linelander in the book Sphereland. He just could not figure out the extra dimensions that determined the physics of his world.

The fact is the theory (GR & SR) works. It accurately describes reality. Bluster is not enough to validate whether an alternative cause is a better explanation. But I do take on board your rebellion against other conventional misthinking (not that my thoughts are profound, lol). Or maybe....

 

[billslugg]

I go with the Standard Model and don't care about anything else. Get your idea into the Standard Model and then I'll take a look at it.

 

[Classical Motion]

“The fact is the theory (GR & SR) works“.

It works ONLY if you believe our clocks. Once you use a stable clock, GR and SR fail.

GR and SR only demonstrate we do not have a stable clock.

There are only two physical relativities. Speed and angle. Relativities only effect the observation and measurement, NOT the dynamic. Interaction is different than seeing and measuring. That’s why we study.

Any oscillation… a pendulum, a crystal and an atomic, will change rate with gravity or an acceleration. Because an oscillation has a defined alternating time/length ratio motion, and that g density can distort that length of motion. The accelerometer principle. Of course this is all explained with spacetime and inertial frames today.

An incident rotation can keep that time/length ratio without distortion under G and acceleration forces.

A rotating vertical shaft has the same time on both ends. And why all particles have the same time.

A stable clock only needs a stable rotation. Any clock rates you need can come from division or multiplication of the reference rotation. As long as that reference stays stable.

Or with the distance, different velocities from the rotation. Our clocks are just rate setters. Tickers. We need a rotational ticker. A stable ticker will not change with elevation.

Until this, GR and SR will thrive. And folks will think that times changes. Because of atomic clocks.

Our institutions will not study this, because they are sure time changes.

They will not measure one way light. Because they are sure of c.

SR in frame, GR out of frame.

There is only one frame. One time frame. And we need a stable clock to see it.

Just another 2 cents. I going broke.

 

[ChrisA]

But space has no surface, and time does not have one either, so geodesics in space/time are not applicable. Therefore space/time cannot have any curvature, ..... The fabric is made of nothing. Therefore, there is nothing in space that can curve. Or expand for that matter.

General relatively is a field theory, It is like Maxwell's equations. Both are field theories.

I guess you would argue that a magnetic field can not be curved because there is "nothing" to curve.

BTW, you can't say something is wrong without proposing a better idea and showing how it is better at predicting observations.

But curved space or not. It is just a way to do the math. I think the esiest way. For example is classical physics we think of the Solar System as being centered around the Sun. But that need not be the case, it is 100% valid to have an Earth-centered frame of reference. But the math is harder. You can actually do all the predictions of where the plants will be using Earth-centric cartesian coordinates. It works, I've seen it done.

I suspect you could use some transformation that maps curved space to something else and do the math differently. But that would not change reality. We say it is the way we do because it grossly implies the mathmatics.

That said, I think general relativity might be emergent from some deeper physics. Figure out how that works and you have a Nobel price. But "hand waving" is not allowed, show us your work.

 

[Gibsense]

But curved space or not. It is just a way to do the math. I think the esiest way. For example is classical physics we think of the Solar System as being centered around the Sun. But that need not be the case, it is 100% valid to have an Earth-centered frame of reference. But the math is harder. You can actually do all the predictions of where the plants will be using Earth-centric cartesian coordinates. It works, I've seen it done.

A very good point to 'bring up' and that is why it is important to try to understand the principles (philosophy) behind the numbers. It is I admit not enough to just have arithmetic that works although it is a good start.
I guess that's partly why the church was so resistant.

The same idea may be applied to current Cosmology—mathematics alone is not enough for a complete understanding. Simpler ideas are likely closer to the truth, even if they seem extraordinary or weird. Even so ChrisA's request is crucial: "Show us your work" !!

 

[stanwaterman]

“The fact is the theory (GR & SR) works“.

It works ONLY if you believe our clocks. Once you use a stable clock, GR and SR fail.

GR and SR only demonstrate we do not have a stable clock.

There are only two physical relativities. Speed and angle. Relativities only effect the observation and measurement, NOT the dynamic. Interaction is different than seeing and measuring. That’s why we study.

Any oscillation… a pendulum, a crystal and an atomic, will change rate with gravity or an acceleration. Because an oscillation has a defined alternating time/length ratio motion, and that g density can distort that length of motion. The accelerometer principle. Of course this is all explained with spacetime and inertial frames today.

An incident rotation can keep that time/length ratio without distortion under G and acceleration forces.

A rotating vertical shaft has the same time on both ends. And why all particles have the same time.

A stable clock only needs a stable rotation. Any clock rates you need can come from division or multiplication of the reference rotation. As long as that reference stays stable.

Or with the distance, different velocities from the rotation. Our clocks are just rate setters. Tickers. We need a rotational ticker. A stable ticker will not change with elevation.

Until this, GR and SR will thrive. And folks will think that times changes. Because of atomic clocks.

Our institutions will not study this, because they are sure time changes.

They will not measure one way light. Because they are sure of c.

SR in frame, GR out of frame.

There is only one frame. One time frame. And we need a stable clock to see it.

Just another 2 cents. I going broke.

This is just twaddle I'm afraid, the writer really needs to learn some physics!