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!

 

[Marvas]

And physicists really need to learn some logic. You can't do any science if you don't have any logic. I proved logically based on the accepted definition of geodesics, that Einstein's spacetime geodesics are illogical, i.e. pure pseudo-science. By definition, geodesics can only be applied to a SURFACE. They cannot be applied to space, or to a curved space, or to time, or to fields, or anything which doesnt have an actual surface.

So Chris's arguments are illogical because they ignore the definition. And makes weak analogies with magnetic fields, which have no geodesics whatsoever. Because a magnetic field doesnt have a surface either ! Those are called magnetic field lines, or magnetic lines of force etc. Not geodesics.

And those magnetic lines of force are indicative that space is not empty, but filled with a substance which can transmit said EM force in space. According to Maxwell, that substance is aether, the same in which EM waves propagate, but of course you dont think that exists because the great Einstein rejected it based on the stupid MM experiment which I also debunked with classical wave physics.

And what you call 'physics' are Einstein's illogical brainfarts, which stem from his inability to understand basic classical physics, such as refraction and wave propagation. Or geodesics, which come from geodesy, the science which studies the earth's shape. Not the space's shape ! As if space had any shape.

noun: geodesy

1. the branch of mathematics dealing with the shape and area of the earth or large portions of it.
   
   Origin: from modern Latin geodaesia, from Greek geōdaisia, from gē ‘earth’ + daiein ‘divide’.

Anyone who understands these basic things sees that his theories are absolutelly illogical. Like Tesla, who was not so fond of Einsteins space bending theories and rejected them for being metaphysical and insane.
And no, I dont need to replace his metaphysical brainfarts with something else, in order to show that they are wrong.
If suffices to show they are logically incoherent and therefore unscientific and wrong. If I disproved Santa Clause I dont have to replace it with Grinch, or with Mickey Mouse. Disproving a theory does not necesarilly require to replace it with another one.

But nevertheless I replaced his gravitational redshift with refractional redshift, which completelly and absolutelly destroyed his general relativity theory. And his spacetime with aether, which completelly and absolutelly destroys his special relativity theory. The aether is not my theory though, it was Maxwell's classical wave theory, which required a medium for light wave propagation. Neither is refraction either, so in essence I just replaced Einstein's metaphysics, which completelly ignore refraction and aether, with classical physics. There is nothing really new in my work, other than the fact that I showed that almost all relativistic experiments can be easily explained with classical physics like refraction, or aether.

 

[Marvas]

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

I already showed in my other threads that all predictions of GR, such as light bending, slowing and changing wavelength, can be explained by refraction. And that Pound Rebka, Shapiro, Eddington, all these relative scientists ignored refraction and confused its effects with those of gravitation.

But curved space or not. It is just a way to do the math. I think the esiest way.

So easy, that Einstein himself could not do the maths by himself. And needed his friend mathematician Grossman to write/solve his field equations. If those equations are simple then you must be way smarter than Einstein, who later said that 'since mathematicians have invaded my general theory, I myself dont understand it anymore'.

That said, I think general relativity might be emergent from some deeper physics.

I think it is emergent from Einstein's crackpipe, who confused refraction with gravitation. Indeed, refraction physics are deeper, and his curved spacetime is just a superficial ret4rded way of explaining the effects of refraction, by bending space itself.

Figure out how that works and you have a Nobel price. But "hand waving" is not allowed, show us your work.

I already have, didnt you see all my other threads ? Each one of them explains the predictions made by Einstein's metaphysics via classical physics (except the one with Compton effect).

And I dont care about Mr Dynamite's prize, that is the reserved prize for crackpots like Einstein, Pound-Rebka, Shapiro and co, who blew it off bigtime. And I dont want to be associated with any of these relative pseudo-scientists, or their brainfart academy. In fact, I think it will be dismantled after my research reaches to the scientific community. No one will ever trust that academy again. Except Einstein's followers, which are more like a religious cult than a scientific community.

 

[Classical Motion]

Our measurements are true. But they are also relative. What’s relative? OUR speed and angle are relative. What is relativity? Relativity is the error of observation and measurement due to OUR speed and angle. Relativity is the difference in measurements of two scenarios.

A measurement of the dynamic at a still and incident position. And 2nd, a measurement of the same dynamic while moving and changing angle. Changing angle is an acceleration. These are the relativities that we all live with every day.

If that is all relativity is, why do we have spacetime relativity?

Because the measurements show a result which defies the laws of physics.

One law is the light speed limit law. The speed of light can not be exceeded. This is because of the Eo and Uo of space. Electrical field reactance.

The other law is the inertia of mass speed law. Matter can not reach or exceed the speed of light. Because of mass gain.

Our earthly measurements back up these laws.

BUT, our starlight measurements indicate that stars and whole galaxies, very far out from us, are moving away from us at multiples of light speeds.

SO, how does one explain such an in your face contradictions?

Why, expanding space of course. A NEW physics. Space Physics. Space itself is an entity with variable properties. And it conveniently takes care of the gravity mystery.

This is modern science. Space can modulate the physics of light and matter.

Spacetime is an irreversible lobotomy. And we will never understand the cosmos with it.

 

[stanwaterman]

And physicists really need to learn some logic. You can't do any science if you don't have any logic. I proved logically based on the accepted definition of geodesics, that Einstein's spacetime geodesics are illogical, i.e. pure pseudo-science. By definition, geodesics can only be applied to a SURFACE. They cannot be applied to space, or to a curved space, or to time, or to fields, or anything which doesnt have an actual surface.

So Chris's arguments are illogical because they ignore the definition. And makes weak analogies with magnetic fields, which have no geodesics whatsoever. Because a magnetic field doesnt have a surface either ! Those are called magnetic field lines, or magnetic lines of force etc. Not geodesics.

And those magnetic lines of force are indicative that space is not empty, but filled with a substance which can transmit said EM force in space. According to Maxwell, that substance is aether, the same in which EM waves propagate, but of course you dont think that exists because the great Einstein rejected it based on the stupid MM experiment which I also debunked with classical wave physics.

And what you call 'physics' are Einstein's illogical brainfarts, which stem from his inability to understand basic classical physics, such as refraction and wave propagation. Or geodesics, which come from geodesy, the science which studies the earth's shape. Not the space's shape ! As if space had any shape.



Anyone who understands these basic things sees that his theories are absolutelly illogical. Like Tesla, who was not so fond of Einsteins space bending theories and rejected them for being metaphysical and insane.
And no, I dont need to replace his metaphysical brainfarts with something else, in order to show that they are wrong.
If suffices to show they are logically incoherent and therefore unscientific and wrong. If I disproved Santa Clause I dont have to replace it with Grinch, or with Mickey Mouse. Disproving a theory does not necesarilly require to replace it with another one.

But nevertheless I replaced his gravitational redshift with refractional redshift, which completelly and absolutelly destroyed his general relativity theory. And his spacetime with aether, which completelly and absolutelly destroys his special relativity theory. The aether is not my theory though, it was Maxwell's classical wave theory, which required a medium for light wave propagation. Neither is refraction either, so in essence I just replaced Einstein's metaphysics, which completelly ignore refraction and aether, with classical physics. There is nothing really new in my work, other than the fact that I showed that almost all relativistic experiments can be easily explained with classical physics like refraction, or aether.

More and more and more twaddle!

 

[Thermoman]

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.

In a nut shell, that is correct !

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

Ok,

But space has no surface,
and time does not have one either, so geodesics in space/time are not applicable.

Correct space has no surface but Space-time does have a ''surface'' . Einstein firstly discovered space-time and described this as an interwoven manifold . Later in time Peter Higgs proposed that all of space had an energy field that was stationary but not immovable . This in essence advancing the information on the ''fabric of space''. My unwritten paper explains the Higgs field as spaces conserved light .

Therefore space/time cannot have any curvature, which was kind of obvious from the beginning- unless you were on crack like Einstein.

At this point I'll ask you to reconsider the above comment from yourself now I have provided you with the details and facts!