and you youself saied that delation of time has nothing to do with
curved spacetime
no connection between them!!

space is nothing and has no properties except hosting particles!!

all the 'trikcks are in particles properties!!

got it parrots ???

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------

wrote:
Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Curvature, expansion, contraction of spacetime (not space, but
spacetime) have nothing per se to do with Relativity. They're also the
case for Newtonian Physics, as well; its theory of gravity, too, can be
rendered geometrically as a theory of curved spacetime.


Really?? Pls. share some reference about it. The following stuff
by Brian Greene is his book The Fabric of the Cosmos is what
caused me some "confusion" where to draw the line between
abstract warping of 4D geometry by gravity in GR and actual
literal space being expanding in cosmology. What do you think
of the following (others pls. comment as well). Did Greene
goof up:

(Partial quote)
"With general relativity, Einstein found that space and time are
flexible, not fixed, rubbery, not rigid; and he provided equations
that tell us precisely how space and time respond to the
presence of matter and energy." (Brian Greene)

(Complete Quote)

"Stretching the Fabric (By Brian Greene)

The history of the universe sounds like a big subject, but in
broad-brush outline it is surprisingly simple and relies in large
part on one essential fact: The universe is expanding. As this is
the central element in the unfolding of cosmic history, and,
surely, is one of humanity's most profound discoveries, let's
briefly examine how we know it is so.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the 100-inch telescope at the Mount
Wilson observatory in Pasadena, California, found that the couple
of dozen galaxies he could detect were all rushing away. In fact,
Hubble found that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster its
recession. To give a sense of scale, more refined versions of
Hubble's original observations (that have studied thousands of
galaxies using, among other equipment, the Hubble Space
Telescope) show that galaxies that are 100 million light-years
from us are moving away at about 5.5 million miles per hour,
those at 200 million light-years are moving away twice as fast,
at about 11 million miles per hour, those at 300 million
light-years' distance are moving away three times as fast, at
about 16.5 million miles per hour, and so on. Hubble's was a
shocking discovery because the prevailing scientific and
philosophical prejudice held that the universe was, on its
largest scales, static, eternal, fixed, and unchanging. But in
one stroke, Hubble shattere d that v iew. And in a wonderful
confluence of experiment and theory, Einstein's general
relativity was able to provide a beautiful explanation for
Hubble's discovery.

Actually, you might not think that coming up with an explanation
would be particularly difficult. After all, if you were to pass
by a factory and see all sorts of material violently flying
outward in all directions, you would likely think that there had
been an explosion. And if you traveled backward along the paths
taken by the scraps of metal and chunks of concrete, you'd find
them all converging on a location that would be a likely
contender for where the explosion occurred. By the same
reasoning, since the view from earth-as attested to by Hubble's
and subsequent observations- shows that galaxies are rushing
outward, you might think our position in space was the location
of an ancient explosion that uniformly spewed out the raw
material of stars and galaxies. The problem with this theory,
though, is that it singles out one region of space-our region-as
unique by making it the universe's birthplace. And were that the
case, it would entail a deep-seated asymmetry: the physical
conditions in regions far from the primordial explosion -far from
us -would be very different from those here. As there is no
evidence for such asymmetry in astronomical data, and
furthermore, as we are highly suspect of anthropocentric
explanations laced with pre-Copernican thinking, a more
sophisticated interpretation of Hubble's discovery is called for,
one in which our location does not occupy some special place in
the cosmic order.

General relativity provides such an interpretation. With general
relativity, Einstein found that space and time are flexible, not
fixed, rubbery, not rigid; and he provided equations that tell us
precisely how space and time respond to the presence of matter
and energy. In the 1920s, the Russian mathematician and
meteorologist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian priest and
astronomer Georges Lemaitre independently analyzed Einstein's
equations as they apply to the entire universe, and the two found
somethin g striking. Just as the gravitational pull of the earth
implies that a baseball popped high above the catcher must either
be heading farther upward or must be heading downward but
certainly cannot be staying put (except for the single moment
when it reaches its highest point), Friedmann and Lemaitre
realized that the gravitational pull of the matter and radiation
spread throughout the entire cosmos implies that the fabric of
space must either be stretching or contracting, but that it could
not be s taying fi xed in size. In fact, this is one of the rare
examples in which the metaphor not only captures the essence of
the physics but also its mathematical content since, it turns
out, the equations governing the baseball's height above the
ground are nearly identical to Einstein's equations governing the
size of the universe. 6

The flexibility of space in general relativity provides a
profound way to interpret Hubble's discovery. Rather than
explaining the outward motion of galaxies by a cosmic version of
the factory explosion, general relativity says that for billions
of years space has been stretching. And as it has swelled, space
has dragged the galaxies away from each other much as the black
specks in a poppy seed muffin are dragged apart as the dough
rises in baking. Thus, the origin of the outward motion is not an
explosion that took place within space. Instead, the outward
motion arises from the relentless outward swelling of space itse
lf.

To grasp this key idea more fully, think also of the superbly
useful balloon model of the expanding universe that physicists
often invoke (an analogy that can be traced at least as far back
as a playful cartoon, which you can see in the endnotes, that
appeared in a Dutch newspaper in 1930 following an interview with
Willem de Sitter, a scientist who made substantial contributions
to cosmology our three-, ). This analogy likens dimensional
space to the easier-to-visualize two-dimensional surface of a sph
cal balloon, as in Figure 8.2a, that is being blown up to larger
and larger size. The galaxies are represented by numerous evenly
spaced pennies glued to the balloon's surface. Notice that as the
balloon expands, the pennies all move away from one another,
providing a simple analogy for how expanding space drives all
galaxies to separate.

An important feature of this model is that there is complete
symmetry among the pennies, since the view any particular Lincoln
sees is the same as the view any other Lincoln sees. To picture
it, imagine shrinking yourself, lying down on a penny, and
looking out in all directions across the balloon's surface
(remember, in this analogy the balloon's surface represents all
of space, so looking off the balloon's surface has no meaning).
What will you observe? Well, you will see pennies rushing away
from you in all directions as the balloon expands. And if you lie
down on a different penny, what will you observe? The symmetry
ensures you'll see the same thing: pennies rushing away in all
directions. This tangible image captures well our belief-
supported by increasingly precise astronomical survey s -that an
observer in any one of the universe Is more than 100 billion
galaxies, gazing across his or her night sky with a powerful
telescope, would, on average, see an image similar to the one we
see: surrounding galaxies rushing away in all directions.

And so, unlike a factory explosion within a fixed, preexisting
space, if outward motion arises because space itself is
stretching, there need be no special point-no special penny, no
special galaxy-that is the center of the outward motion. Every
point-even, penny, every galaxy-is completely on a par with
every other.

snip

(Brian continues)

By attributing the observed motion of galaxies to ths swelling of
space, general relativity provides an explanation that not only
treats all locations in space symmetrically, but also accounts
for all of Hubble's data in one fell swoop. It is this kind of
explanation, one that elegantly steps outside the box (in this
case, one that actually uses the "box" - space, that is) to
explain observations with quantitative precision and artful
symmetry, that physicists describe as almost being too beautiful
to be wrong. There is essentially universal agreement that the
fabric of the space is stretching.

"Cos_mo" wrote in message ups.com...


wrote:
Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Curvature, expansion, contraction of spacetime (not space, but
spacetime) have nothing per se to do with Relativity. They're also the
case for Newtonian Physics, as well; its theory of gravity, too, can be
rendered geometrically as a theory of curved spacetime.


Really?? Pls. share some reference about it. The following stuff
by Brian Greene is his book The Fabric of the Cosmos is what
caused me some "confusion" where to draw the line between
abstract warping of 4D geometry by gravity in GR and actual
literal space being expanding in cosmology. What do you think
of the following (others pls. comment as well). Did Greene
goof up:

No Greene didn't goof up unless you think you have sold more
books than he has.

If you have ever converted between polar and rectangular
coordinates, then you understand the form of an object
does not change, only the way you describe it.

Here is how Euclidean space is converted to spacetime..
Ahh... presumably there is a way to reverse the process.
Since few people ever do, few people know how. ;-)

"Space-time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

Sue...


(Partial quote)
"With general relativity, Einstein found that space and time are
flexible, not fixed, rubbery, not rigid; and he provided equations
that tell us precisely how space and time respond to the
presence of matter and energy." (Brian Greene)

(Complete Quote)

"Stretching the Fabric (By Brian Greene)

The history of the universe sounds like a big subject, but in
broad-brush outline it is surprisingly simple and relies in large
part on one essential fact: The universe is expanding. As this is
the central element in the unfolding of cosmic history, and,
surely, is one of humanity's most profound discoveries, let's
briefly examine how we know it is so.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the 100-inch telescope at the Mount
Wilson observatory in Pasadena, California, found that the couple
of dozen galaxies he could detect were all rushing away. In fact,
Hubble found that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster its
recession. To give a sense of scale, more refined versions of
Hubble's original observations (that have studied thousands of
galaxies using, among other equipment, the Hubble Space
Telescope) show that galaxies that are 100 million light-years
from us are moving away at about 5.5 million miles per hour,
those at 200 million light-years are moving away twice as fast,
at about 11 million miles per hour, those at 300 million
light-years' distance are moving away three times as fast, at
about 16.5 million miles per hour, and so on. Hubble's was a
shocking discovery because the prevailing scientific and
philosophical prejudice held that the universe was, on its
largest scales, static, eternal, fixed, and unchanging. But in
one stroke, Hubble shattere d that v iew. And in a wonderful
confluence of experiment and theory, Einstein's general
relativity was able to provide a beautiful explanation for
Hubble's discovery.

Actually, you might not think that coming up with an explanation
would be particularly difficult. After all, if you were to pass
by a factory and see all sorts of material violently flying
outward in all directions, you would likely think that there had
been an explosion. And if you traveled backward along the paths
taken by the scraps of metal and chunks of concrete, you'd find
them all converging on a location that would be a likely
contender for where the explosion occurred. By the same
reasoning, since the view from earth-as attested to by Hubble's
and subsequent observations- shows that galaxies are rushing
outward, you might think our position in space was the location
of an ancient explosion that uniformly spewed out the raw
material of stars and galaxies. The problem with this theory,
though, is that it singles out one region of space-our region-as
unique by making it the universe's birthplace. And were that the
case, it would entail a deep-seated asymmetry: the physical
conditions in regions far from the primordial explosion -far from
us -would be very different from those here. As there is no
evidence for such asymmetry in astronomical data, and
furthermore, as we are highly suspect of anthropocentric
explanations laced with pre-Copernican thinking, a more
sophisticated interpretation of Hubble's discovery is called for,
one in which our location does not occupy some special place in
the cosmic order.

General relativity provides such an interpretation. With general
relativity, Einstein found that space and time are flexible, not
fixed, rubbery, not rigid; and he provided equations that tell us
precisely how space and time respond to the presence of matter
and energy. In the 1920s, the Russian mathematician and
meteorologist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian priest and
astronomer Georges Lemaitre independently analyzed Einstein's
equations as they apply to the entire universe, and the two found
somethin g striking. Just as the gravitational pull of the earth
implies that a baseball popped high above the catcher must either
be heading farther upward or must be heading downward but
certainly cannot be staying put (except for the single moment
when it reaches its highest point), Friedmann and Lemaitre
realized that the gravitational pull of the matter and radiation
spread throughout the entire cosmos implies that the fabric of
space must either be stretching or contracting, but that it could
not be s taying fi xed in size. In fact, this is one of the rare
examples in which the metaphor not only captures the essence of
the physics but also its mathematical content since, it turns
out, the equations governing the baseball's height above the
ground are nearly identical to Einstein's equations governing the
size of the universe. 6

The flexibility of space in general relativity provides a
profound way to interpret Hubble's discovery. Rather than
explaining the outward motion of galaxies by a cosmic version of
the factory explosion, general relativity says that for billions
of years space has been stretching. And as it has swelled, space
has dragged the galaxies away from each other much as the black
specks in a poppy seed muffin are dragged apart as the dough
rises in baking. Thus, the origin of the outward motion is not an
explosion that took place within space. Instead, the outward
motion arises from the relentless outward swelling of space itse
lf.

To grasp this key idea more fully, think also of the superbly
useful balloon model of the expanding universe that physicists
often invoke (an analogy that can be traced at least as far back
as a playful cartoon, which you can see in the endnotes, that
appeared in a Dutch newspaper in 1930 following an interview with
Willem de Sitter, a scientist who made substantial contributions
to cosmology our three-, ). This analogy likens dimensional
space to the easier-to-visualize two-dimensional surface of a sph
cal balloon, as in Figure 8.2a, that is being blown up to larger
and larger size. The galaxies are represented by numerous evenly
spaced pennies glued to the balloon's surface. Notice that as the
balloon expands, the pennies all move away from one another,
providing a simple analogy for how expanding space drives all
galaxies to separate.

An important feature of this model is that there is complete
symmetry among the pennies, since the view any particular Lincoln
sees is the same as the view any other Lincoln sees. To picture
it, imagine shrinking yourself, lying down on a penny, and
looking out in all directions across the balloon's surface
(remember, in this analogy the balloon's surface represents all
of space, so looking off the balloon's surface has no meaning).
What will you observe? Well, you will see pennies rushing away
from you in all directions as the balloon expands. And if you lie
down on a different penny, what will you observe? The symmetry
ensures you'll see the same thing: pennies rushing away in all
directions. This tangible image captures well our belief-
supported by increasingly precise astronomical survey s -that an
observer in any one of the universe Is more than 100 billion
galaxies, gazing across his or her night sky with a powerful
telescope, would, on average, see an image similar to the one we
see: surrounding galaxies rushing away in all directions.

And so, unlike a factory explosion within a fixed, preexisting
space, if outward motion arises because space itself is
stretching, there need be no special point-no special penny, no
special galaxy-that is the center of the outward motion. Every
point-even, penny, every galaxy-is completely on a par with
every other.

snip

(Brian continues)

By attributing the observed motion of galaxies to ths swelling of
space, general relativity provides an explanation that not only
treats all locations in space symmetrically, but also accounts
for all of Hubble's data in one fell swoop. It is this kind of
explanation, one that elegantly steps outside the box (in this
case, one that actually uses the "box" - space, that is) to
explain observations with quantitative precision and artful
symmetry, that physicists describe as almost being too beautiful
to be wrong. There is essentially universal agreement that the
fabric of the space is stretching.

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...


If you have ever converted between polar and rectangular
coordinates, then you understand the form of an object
does not change, only the way you describe it.


If you have ever conversed between polar and kodiak
bears, then you understand the form of an object
does change; especially you when one bites you.
So does the colour... to red.

Androcles

T Wake wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dimensios are dynamic Don.
The not only curve they can move.

Do you have any proof for this?

Yes I do twake. Relativity.
Its the machinary behind the theory.
Speed up and you catch up to time.
Time going slower? Sound familiar?

my question is much simpler with not so much talking as yourse:

its nice that the galaxies are running outwards
yet how do they run outwards

is it not just outwards in *stright lines from the 'big bang point???*

if yess than where is the prove of 'curved spacetme'?

if it is in stright liner form the big bang point than:

scpace has no curvature and no shmervature
it is a prove agianst that theory!!

(i have nothing against relativity
i have a lot against 'curved spacetime)

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------

Does a rocket traveling straight up follow a curve?
Einstein was right about curvilinear motion caused
by his curved space but he didn't go far enough.
Its the same with falling objects. They don't
necessarily follow a curve. Instead they accelerate.

You want to ask questions porat?
Then answer why gravity moves things all the same.

What if the outward acceleration of galaxies is anti gravity?

sue jahn wrote:
"Cos_mo" wrote in message ups.com...


wrote:
Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Curvature, expansion, contraction of spacetime (not space, but
spacetime) have nothing per se to do with Relativity. They're also the
case for Newtonian Physics, as well; its theory of gravity, too, can be
rendered geometrically as a theory of curved spacetime.


Really?? Pls. share some reference about it. The following stuff
by Brian Greene is his book The Fabric of the Cosmos is what
caused me some "confusion" where to draw the line between
abstract warping of 4D geometry by gravity in GR and actual
literal space being expanding in cosmology. What do you think
of the following (others pls. comment as well). Did Greene
goof up:

No Greene didn't goof up unless you think you have sold more
books than he has.

If you have ever converted between polar and rectangular
coordinates, then you understand the form of an object
does not change, only the way you describe it.

Here is how Euclidean space is converted to spacetime..
Ahh... presumably there is a way to reverse the process.
Since few people ever do, few people know how. ;-)

"Space-time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

Sue...

Ok. I thought Mark said relativity and space expansion is not
compatible or related.

Can the following be a rough guide.

3D space can expand and contract literally (as when universe is
once as small as an electron)

4D spacetime can curve causing gravity..

So we only use 4D spacetime and the Minkoswsi geometry when
referring to gravity and its only curving.

In literal space expansion, time is not involved. Minkowsi must
be transformed to Euclidian when gravity is not being talked about.

Also if time is involved, relativity comes in turning it into
Minkowski.

Duh... from the above, what do time and gravity have in common??

Can gravity be condensed time? Lol....

I'm still learning vector calculus and tensors that's why I can't
start reading proper relativity books.. because I'm not as good in
math as geniuses such as Sue or Y.Porat. That's why I need to start
with concepts.


Cos_mo

Cos_mo, physicists continue to use the ballon analogy even while
claiming it has its limitations in trying to get across what they mean.
The limitations are that the balloon is only one single plane in a 3d
universe and does not cover the space within the balloon nor does it
explain where the "air" comes from which is blowing up space. Nor does
it explain how space can have the capability to blow up not only on a
single plane but obviously in all planes of the 3d universe. It
implies that the space inside the balloon can be static since our
motion can make it appear it too is moving away from us.

It is full of holes, in my opinion. There is no "fabric" of space to
stretch. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is nothing
scientific about it. To equate beauty with fact is fallacious logic
and makes the observer seem to be trying to justify his/her position
with other than empirical observations, hoping to appeal to those who
want to be thought of not only as being of great intelligence but also
of having artful talent. Being "almost too beautiful to be be wrong"
is not a statement I can appreciate as an argument about the validity
of any particular theory.

TomGee wrote:
Cos_mo, physicists continue to use the ballon analogy even while
claiming it has its limitations in trying to get across what they mean.
The limitations are that the balloon is only one single plane in a 3d
universe and does not cover the space within the balloon nor does it
explain where the "air" comes from which is blowing up space. Nor does
it explain how space can have the capability to blow up not only on a
single plane but obviously in all planes of the 3d universe. It
implies that the space inside the balloon can be static since our
motion can make it appear it too is moving away from us.

It is full of holes, in my opinion. There is no "fabric" of space to
stretch. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is nothing
scientific about it. To equate beauty with fact is fallacious logic
and makes the observer seem to be trying to justify his/her position
with other than empirical observations, hoping to appeal to those who
want to be thought of not only as being of great intelligence but also
of having artful talent. Being "almost too beautiful to be be wrong"
is not a statement I can appreciate as an argument about the validity
of any particular theory.


Tonight as I go to sleep I'll try to think in terms of Minkowski to
hone my 4D visualization. I wonder how my dreams would be like if
it's in Minkowski. Also what would the images in the TV look like
if they convert it to Minkowski. Does anyone knows of a program where
they convert Eucli to Mink so I can input an mpeg and see the
Minkowski output, thanks.

Cosmo