The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[Randall]

Yeah, politics overarching science, is something of a recent big discovery for myself. I would never understand that somebody in a position of responsibility would turn back on reason as a basis of decision making.

Well, not that I'm necessarily a fan of laissez-faire capitalism, but if you haven't already seen it, you can watch the video of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It's will save you the long tortuous hours of reading the book. It dramatizes your sentiment well. Probably the hardest lesson for me to learn in life is that politics, power, and other forms self-interest take precedence over logic, reason, and fairness most of the time. When that's not driving decisions, then it's blind faith in some institution ( religious or otherwise ), and even if someone has no particular religious or political ties, there's still layers of social conditioning piled on so thick that most people are in denial about their basic human nature. It's a wonder society functions at all. But it does, and that's why I think the bigger picture is a lot more complex than conspiracy theories that try to reduce it all down to a global cabal or alien overlord scenario.

 

[DROBNJAK]

My problem with politics is that it creates so much fog.

In comparison with effective delivery of scientific process (that requires full transparency) politics (that is obfuscated in secrecy) not that it constantly delivers failures, but is the most primitive and backward way of thinking or making decisions. Basically two bunches of dilettantes mob each other, and than they just paper over their blunders.

Political approach to decision making makes sure that the lowest common denominator wins and guarantees that common resources are wasted.

I think that there science should be protected from politics by some sort of Border wall, like Trump's one ;-). That scientist should be untouchable by politicians.

Practically, I first become aware of it through ufology. There were so many scientist and engineers who studied UFOs, yet almost nobody ever promotes their work. Drumming up hype always carries the day and its no wander that UFO subject is ridiculed.

 

[Randall]

My problem with politics is that it creates so much fog.

In comparison with effective delivery of scientific process (that requires full transparency) politics (that is obfuscated in secrecy) not that it constantly delivers failures, but is the most primitive and backward way of thinking or making decisions. Basically two bunches of dilettantes mob each other, and than they just paper over their blunders.

Political approach to decision making makes sure that the lowest common denominator wins and guarantees that common resources are wasted.

I think that there science should be protected from politics by some sort of Border wall, like Trump's one ;-). That scientist should be untouchable by politicians.

That becomes a central theme in Atlas Shrugged.

Practically, I first become aware of it through ufology. There were so many scientist and engineers who studied UFOs, yet almost nobody ever promotes their work. Drumming up hype always carries the day and its no wander that UFO subject is ridiculed.

I certainly appreciate what you're saying, and it's difficult for idealists to accept ( because I once was one myself ), but the situation is that science is yet another institution that has all of the same problems. A technocracy could also be even more dangerous than a democracy. The first thing that comes to mind is eugenics and the enforcement scientific consensus rather than respect for personal freedom. In my debates with skeptics I've frequently had to point out the level of frauds and scams particularly in medicine. There are literally thousands of cases. And let's not forget all the times science has just been wrong.

The skeptics argue that such problems are with the people not the science, but they suffer from the same 'true believerism' as anyone who thinks their paradigm alone is the answer to all the worlds woes. We can say the same thing about ufology. If it weren't for the scammers, hoaxes, and political self-interest, the field would be objective, clean and cooperative. We'd become part of the great galactic federation, our planet would be healed, and the amazing technology would solve all our problems. Don't get me wrong. I think these are all wonderful things to strive for. After all, without a dream, how can a dream come true? But there's almost always a bigger picture to consider.

 

[Erno86]

I don't believe that "plasma is a propulsion side effect" for a foo fighter. The self-generated plasma is possibly used as fuel for a photon propulsion unit. Besides plasma having the ability to make a craft radar stealthy that is surrounded by a magnetically contained fusion plasma shield --- it has other obvious benefits as well --- Such as making the starship invincible to any weapon that we could possibly throw at them. The plasma shield would come in handy for starship landings in zones that require a plasma burn, so as to remove small trees and brushy vegetation for smooth landings; not to mention the plasma being used as a weapon of mass destruction.

Besides...the plasma scares the heck out of people when they see a foo fighter. Like the bright colors of poisonous creatures like the Gila Monster...red-orange fiery balled or brilliant bluish-white, is fair warning too stay away from such an advanced craft.

 

[Randall]

If you want to save yourself the agony ...

 

[DROBNJAK]

lets not create a distraction of this thread. It's my fault to had started off topic. We can start other thread in general area to talk this.

 

[Randall]

lets not create a distraction of this thread. It's my fault to had started off topic. We can start other thread in general area to talk this.

No worries, we can pick-up on the ETH again at any time. Maybe it would be a good idea for someone who's been following this thread longer than I have to bullet list where we're at with it and what to look at next. In the meantime I'll post this for consideration:

​

The above chart gives away two common fallacies:

1. That the ETH simply means visitors from another planet. It's actually a catchall term for anything not from this Earth.
2. That alternate dimensions and universes aren't part of the ETH. Logically, alternate universes and dimensions have to be ET because they are not part of this Earth.

Point 2. can get a bit technical. We've hashed it out on other threads, but it's always open for discussion.

 

[DROBNJAK]

My stance is that just because we are studying UFOs it doesn't mean that we can fly off in any direction that our fancy would like to take. And I would say that @Thomas R Morrison would agree with this and @marduk and few others.

Our scientific knowledge is not anymore in a rookie stage. It's actually tragic how poor is acceptance of science among general population in comparison with volume of problems that science had mastered. Thankfully, science had been attracting funding and best minds over the last 100 years.

I read somewhere than just in a field of physics 30,000 papers are published monthly. What was achieved by electrodynamics, general relativity and quantum mechanics is not to be laughed at. There would be no modern TV, radio, medicine, chemistry, biology, computers, Internet etc. etc. without science.

Quite impressively, quantum mechanics can very accurately describe internal structure of stars, not to mention pulsars and neutron stars. GR predicted black holes whose existence was confirmed.

I don't know how level of knowledge is measured, but in a comparison with beginning of 18th century, when approximately science started strongly influencing economy, we progressed in amounts of knowledge not less than 100,000 times.

So, in your diagram, if we are taking our subject seriously, I would without any regret throw away AUH, EDH and TTH. That's purely science fiction stuff, supported by little bit of fanciful mathematics. By taking untested ideas seriously we are only guaranteeing that we'll mislead ourselves into some blind alley. I devoted lots of my personal time to improve my knowledge of mainstream science and it served me well in my UFO research.

Maxwell, GR and QM are plenty enough to create solid ground under our feet in otherwise very shaky subject of UFOs.

 

[Randall]

My stance is that just because we are studying UFOs it doesn't mean that we can fly off in any direction that our fancy would like to take.

Count my vote in favor of that.

So, in your diagram, if we are taking our subject seriously, I would without any regret throw away AUH, EDH and TTH. That's purely science fiction stuff, supported by little bit of fanciful mathematics. By taking untested ideas seriously we are only guaranteeing that we'll mislead ourselves into some blind alley. I devoted lots of my personal time to improve my knowledge of mainstream science and it served me well in my UFO research. Maxwell, GR and QM are plenty enough to create solid ground under our feet in otherwise very shaky subject of UFOs.

Generally speaking, I'm with you on the EDH and TTH as sci-fi tropes. The AUH ( and attendant dimensions ) however is perfectly reasonable and requires no fanciful mathematics. There are a couple of versions. Both are forms of the multiverse theory. One is that there are other universes like ours beyond the range of our observation but still within the same infinite spacetime continuum as ours. They have undergone the same sort of Big Bang and are evolving similarly to ours and there could be an unlimited number of them. If that's the case, there could be another world out there just like ours. The other is that universes can be artificial constructs run on some vastly powerful processing system.

Both types of universe are IMO so likely to exists as to be a virtual certainty. But we still run into the same old question: How do they [UFOs] get here from there? In my reflections on this I think it may be the case that transporting between universes may be easier than interstellar travel the old fashioned spaceship way, but we simply don't know the trick. In the meantime, given what we actually have evidence for, our universe is known with a reasonable degree of certainty to exist and harbor at least one planet with intelligent life and therefore it possesses the capability of producing other intelligent life that could conceivably create the technology for interstellar travel.

So although the AUH ( and attendant dimensions ) are reasonable possibilities, IMO the most likely situation given the evidence at hand remains one of the ETH options. Which one do you favor?

 

[DROBNJAK]

Under strong influence of @Thomas R Morrison and his illumination of General Relativity (GR) for members of this forum I am in favor of ETH. GR offers faster than speed of light travel in a form of warp drives. In GR a massive object must move slower than speed of light, but it is perfectly acceptable for a bubble of spacetime to move through spacetime faster than speed of light (FTL). Very similar to a special type of super fast Russian anti-ship torpedo, called Schval, that travels through water inside cavity filled with gas. If UFOs make that kind of spacetime bubble around their hull, speed of light is not anymore a limitation.

Warp drives work on push-pull interaction between positive and negative mass. Negative mass being different from anti-matter in a sense that negative mass just has negative inertia and negative mass. If positive and negative mass touch, there is no annihilation, like with anti-matter. Essentially, when you push negative mass it gets pulled, and when you drop it in gravitational field it ascend upwards, instead of falling down. When two objects, one made of normal positive mass and the other made of a negative mass are put close to each other they start accelerating indefinitely. I am not a physicist and there is some debate, but some physicists are saying that this concept is in agreement with both conservation of energy and momentum.

If I have any kind of expertise that is from memorizing about 100-200 UFO cases and reading about 20 scientific papers related to physical effects around UFOs. From these data sources we can with a high degree of confidence say that UFOs are surrounded by extremely strong pulsating electromagnetic field. Practically UFOs are what is called in electronics oscillating LC circuits (Inductor & Capacitor), like an antennae, but it is not antennae ;-).

Now when one connects GR with large number of in plasma dependent UFO observations one is inevitably lead to conclusion that UFOs hull plays a big role in propulsion. It is consistently conspicuous that strength of that pulsating EM field is proportional to the distance between UFO and the ground. When EM field is at its strongest, UFOs appear as (Phase #1) blinding bright light (similar to welding torch) because EM field creates lots of dense plasma. When UFOs start slowing down (Phase #2), hull emerges that is only veiled in a shimmering thin, usually orange plasma. And finally, just before landing (Phase #3) plasma is almost completely gone and most UFOs appear dull gunmetal or pewter in texture. This is a general, most frequent description. We must allow for different ET civilizations having different variations around this basic principle. What @marduk described, had no plasma, it was all just bare metal. Again from observations, it appears that for UFOs 1,000ml/h is 'slow' and they can be in 'gun meal' texture mode for these speeds.

Now, the above sequence was consistently observed in many UFO cases. In some cases whole sequence was seen during one event, from beginning to the end. In other cases only part of the sequence was seen. For example, in the case which forum member @Constance had seen, while flying in a passenger plane, she had only seen Phase #1, blinding light, and Phase #2, a metallic object emerging from plasma.

When that oscillating electromagnetic field is turned off UFO will be sitting on the ground and the whole UFO's hull is just normal positive mass. When oscillating EM field is on, than parts of the hull are converted into negative mass and through interaction between positive-negative mass UFO starts accelerating. What comes out is that UFOs are using strong electric voltages and currents to convert parts of the hull into negative mass. Obviously, they are not using materials as we know them. They have some kind of very special metamaterial that can flip back and forth between positive and negative mass when energized with electric currents. That puts them at least 300 years, if not 1,000 years, ahead of us in terms of science and technology.

Now, the above model is obviously only qualitative and far fetched, but as well quite relatable from point of view GR, standard model and electrodynamics. Basically, model is just around the corner in terms what experimental science can do within next 100 years. So AUH is not needed in the slightest and we stay within four dimensions and within modern science we are used to. Modern science is a very solid edifice and we should take advantage of this robustness and use it for our benefit.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

The current search for the ninth Planet which seems to be alluding sicence is it plausible the some unkown ( magnetic field ) Dark-matter /bubble is hidding its discovery? Pure speculation could this give some clues to these UFOs interaction in space and low Earth orbit seen by some astronauts/ military in past ?

 

[Randall]

Under strong influence of @Thomas R Morrison and his illumination of General Relativity (GR) for members of this forum I am in favor of ETH. GR offers faster than speed of light travel in a form of warp drives. In GR a massive object must move slower than speed of light, but it is perfectly acceptable for a bubble of spacetime to move through spacetime faster than speed of light (FTL). Very similar to a special type of super fast Russian anti-ship torpedo, called Schval, that travels through water inside cavity filled with gas. If UFOs make that kind of spacetime bubble around their hull, speed of light is not anymore a limitation.

The problem with believing in warp drives is that the geometry used to describe spacetime is only an analogy to the real thing. This is unlike your torpedo analogy because torpedoes and gas and water are all material. Space isn't. It's simply extant. The fact is that we don't see space itself. We only see objects in it. From those observations there's every reason to think space itself isn't curved. Morrison wasn't in agreement, but also had no counterpoint sufficient to either prove space itself is curved or invalidate the reasoning that it's not. This doesn't necessarily mean that if someone comes up with the technology to test warp theory that there won't be an effect. It just means that we really don't understand what the actual effect is ( But who cares if it works right? ). Unfortunately, it could also mean that the whole quest for a warp drive is a fools errand. I tend to think the latter. But that still doesn't invalidate the ETH.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

The problem with believing in warp drives is that the geometry used to describe spacetime is only an analogy to the real thing.

No, Randall - that's your own personal, idiosyncratic interpretation based on nothing but your stubborn attachment to the out-dated concept of Euclidean geometry that dates back to 300 BC.

This is what you're not understanding: spacetime is a field. The electric field, which is also subject to distortion, is a vector field (rank 1 tensor). The Higgs field is a scalar field (rank 0 tensor). Spacetime is a tensor field (rank 2 tensor). The ancient Greeks modeled space and time as absolute because within the limited capabilities of their observations, the deflection from Euclidean geometry was too small to detect. But we now know that the spacetime field can be attenuated, just as the electric field can be, and the Einstein field equation describes this attenuation to extremely high precision (to within our finest measurement capabilities in all observational scenarios ranging from orbital dynamics to gravitational lensing to gravitational waves). So from a scientific point of view, this theory of gravitation is proven, barring any as-yet-undiscovered inconsistencies between observation and theory.

Space isn't. It's simply extant. The fact is that we don't see space itself. We only see objects in it. From those observations there's every reason to think space itself isn't curved. Morrison wasn't in agreement, but also had no counterpoint sufficient to either prove space itself is curved or invalidate the reasoning that it's not.

All of this is wrong. Or more accurately, it's unscientific speculation. And I did provide you with ample counterpoints previously, but I'm certain that you didn't read the papers I provided. All non-metric-curvature models of gravitation have been ruled out by observation in concert with rigorous theoretical analyses, which can be found in this excellent and comprehensive review paper which sums up the status of general relativity and all known theoretical challengers:

“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014

So all non-metric theories of gravitation have been ruled out: spacetime is not Euclidean. If this metric distortion of spacetime is some kind of illusion, nobody has been able to devise a theory that makes the correct experimental predictions without employing a real and physical metric curvature. You're free to attempt to devise such a theory, if you can, but until you or somebody else can present a scientifically valid description of spacetime and gravitation that is based on Euclidean geometry and some kind of mechanism which only presents an illusion of spacetime curvature, then what you're arguing here can accurately be termed pseudoscience.

This doesn't necessarily mean that if someone comes up with the technology to test warp theory that there won't be an effect. It just means that we really don't understand what the actual effect is.

The reason this argument is unscientific is that it's unfalsifiable. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by admitting that the observations are correct, and the general theory of relativity works...but you're postulating that there's an unspecified underlying theory that explains all of the observations without any actual metric curvature. And your only motivation for reaching this conclusion appears to be that you simply don't like the idea of curved spacetime. I'm sorry, but that's insufficient. Unless you can come up with some credible theoretical argument that challenges the logical or observational foundation of general relativity, you're just blowing smoke.

Unfortunately, it could also mean that the whole quest for a warp drive is a fools errand. I tend to think the latter.

You're building conclusions upon a foundation of totally unsubstantiated (and in fact widely refuted) idle speculation. There are some interesting arguments disputing the technological feasibility of warp field propulsion, but there are no theoretically valid arguments against it - the mathematics of general relativity predict this propulsive effect if the required conditions are present. Even the most vociferous skeptics of warp field propulsion admit this.

And here's the thing: the widely reported performance characteristics of AAVs/UFOs consistently and precisely conform to the exact behavioral characteristics predicted for a warp field propulsion effect:

* Silent hovering without any emissions of any kind.
* Virtually instantaneous accelerations in defiance of inertia.
* Hypersonic velocities without a sonic boom.
* Intramedium travel (space, air, water).
* No acceleration forces (g-forces) experienced by the device even under extremely high accelerations.
* The potential for superluminal spaceflight - the ideal method for interstellar travel.

Sure, it's conceivable that some other as-yet-unimagined field propulsion mechanism might be discovered someday which just happens to exhibit all of these same exact performance characteristics. But it's illogical to presume such a thing when the current warp field theory explains all of these characteristics perfectly.

Look: I've said this before and it merits repeating. We're in a very similar position today, as we were with regard to magnetism 300 years ago. Back then, the only way we knew how to make a stronger magnetic field was by gathering together more lodestone - just as today, the only way we know how to make a stronger gravitational field is by gathering together more mass-energy. But once we understood the fundamental nature of the magnetic field (a magnetic field is simply the product of moving electrical charge) suddenly we didn't need any lodestone at all. We quickly discovered that we could generate a vastly more powerful magnetic field by simply running electrical charges through a coil wrapped around a bar of iron - this simple understanding of the true nature of the magnetic field directly precipitated the entire modern technological era.

The same thing is going to happen once we understand the precise phenomenological nature of the gravitational field. Instead of having to gather up more mass-energy to produce a stronger gravitational field, we'll be able to create the gravitational field directly, and with magnitudes inconceivable by today's physics, just as we did with magnetic fields 200 years ago.

And there's an even more compelling factor to consider here: in the weak field limit, the formula for the gravitational field is identical in form to the equation for the electrical field. The only difference is the sign of the equation. So just as the electrical field is dipolar in nature, we can assume that gravitational field is also dipolar in nature. And in fact we've recently discovered that this is indeed an empirical fact - because whatever the source of the dark energy effect, we know from its behavior that it represents a negative gravitational field, i.e., a negative gravitational pole. This is indisputable - there is currently no explanation for the dark energy effect that doesn't involve a negative gravitational field. But interestingly, we already had a solid theoretical example demonstrating the dipolar nature of the gravitational field that dates back to 1963 with Robert L. Forward's gravitational dipole generator concept (but this discovery was ignored by the mainstream physics community because it conflicted with the dogma at the time that a negative gravitational pole was impossible/laughable). So today we have both the theoretical basis and the observational evidence for a negative pole of the gravitational field, which is the key component required to produce gravitational field propulsion. And the self-accelerating interaction between gravitational poles has been a known feature of general relativity within the academic literature for over sixty years.

So the case for the validity of warp field propulsion now boasts:

* Decades of mathematical and theoretical elucidation in the peer-reviewed academic literature.
* Proof of the physical reality of the required negative gravitational pole in the form of dark energy observations.
* Over 70 years of AAV/UFO reports that match the predicted propulsive characteristics perfectly.

Confronting all of these converging data points, it seems inescapable to conclude that gravitational field propulsion is in fact technologically achievable, and that one day if our civilization persists, we will achieve it just as the exotic aerial devices occasionally operating in our airspace demonstrate it every time that they deftly outperform our top military interceptors or give some random eyewitness a stunning demonstration of their performance capabilities.

I can't fathom how anyone could look at all of these clearly converging data points and reach any other working conclusion. But this is the internet, where some people argue that the Moon landings were all hoaxes and that the Earth is flat, so I guess nothing should surprise me online anymore.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

This is the kind of forum gold I’m talking about! Though, sadly, I will be unable to adequately convey any of this excellent and comprehensive response to friends or fellow enthusiasts and seekers, I already feel smarter having read it (twice). I wish I had something more constructive and pertinent to add to this discussion but it is way above my level of education. I’m content to watch greater minds duke it out and simply benefit from the exchange of ideas, theories and opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

No, Randall - that's your own personal, idiosyncratic interpretation based on nothing but your stubborn attachment to the out-dated concept of Euclidean geometry that dates back to 300 BC.

That is not valid counterpoint to the reasoning I've given, and unfortunately mere proclamation isn't sufficient.

This is what you're not understanding ...

Your language indicates that you think that just because I don't agree with you or what you believe, that I don't understand what you're talking about and therefore I must be mistaken. That is unproductive, irksome, and invalid counterpoint. So instead of repeating the same argument over and over again as if I just don't get it, in order to disprove my counterpoint you need to directly address it with something other than proclamation, innuendo, and the same arguments you've already used that aren't applicable.

spacetime is a field. The electric field, which is also subject to distortion, is a scalar field. Spacetime is a tensor field. The ancient Greeks modeled space and time as absolute because within the limited capabilities of their observations, the deflection from Euclidean geometry was too small to detect. But we now know that the spacetime field can be attenuated, just as the electric field can be, and the Einstein field equation describes this attenuation to extremely high precision (to within our finest measurement capabilities in all observational scenarios ranging from orbital dynamics to gravitational lensing to gravitational waves). So from a scientific point of view, this theory of gravitation is proven, barring any as-yet-undiscovered inconsistencies between observation and theory.

We've been through this before. You're appear to be looking at spacetime purely as a mathematical representation, and as in all math, the result is an abstraction from reality. It is useful in making models and predictions about the real world. But it is not the real world. In contrast, I look at the problem on a fundamental level which is existential rather than purely mathematical. This keeps me in touch with the heart of the problem rather than getting so lost in the math that I lose touch with reality.

All of this is wrong. Or more accurately, it's unscientific speculation. And I did provide you with ample counterpoints previously, but I'm certain that you didn't read the papers I provided. All non-metric-curvature models of gravitation have been ruled out by observation in concert with rigorous theoretical analyses, which can be found in this excellent and comprehensive review paper which sums up the status of general relativity and all known theoretical challengers: “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014

Again, your objection is a proclamation or repetition of your previous points that don't directly address the points I've made in the past or here. To reiterate the fundamental viewpoint I have. I don't dispute that the new math is better at making predictions than the old math. However the new math doesn't necessitate that space itself is curved. It only makes better predictions about how things in space behave. In other words, one could take a perfectly uniform volume of space and plot ( via simple x,y,z coordinates ), the movement of an object within that space over time ( t ) using any math you want, and this is where the leap in logic from "curved paths" to "curved space" happens.

Example: The trajectory of an object e.g. a photon around a star using the math you're talking about will result in a curved trajectory that precisely matches the math. Hypothetically, the photon could be coming from any of the 360 degrees around the equator of the star. When those trajectories are all plotted against distance from the star, what we get is a grid of possible trajectories that curves around the star. This sort of grid is often referred to as the "rubber sheet" model "Minkowski Space". Now you see there what has happened? Suddenly someone has made the leap in logic that a grid of possible trajectories based on the math means space is curved. Yet the underlying uniform space that we used to plot the trajectories remains the same ( see diagrams below ).

Reminder: Counterpoint that consists of "wrong" or "you don't understand" or "it's not scientific" or reiterates your previous position without directly addressing the reasoning above ( and below ) is not valid counterpoint. If we can get past this point we can deal with the rest.

Diagram 1. Illustrates how curved space can be modeled perfectly
within the x,y,z, coordinates of uniform volumetric space ( space itself ).

​

Diagram 2. Illustrates the apparent position of a distant star due to gravitational lensing,
The actual position of the star in real space, and the
direct path through space itself.



​

The logic is as follows:

• A uniform x,y,z, coordinate system ( diagram 1. ) is the fundamental basis of all volumetric space, including curved space models.
• The trajectory of things moving in space such as light can be accurately predicted and plotted within space ( diagram 2. )
• This allows the actual ( uniform x,y,z ) coordinates of objects in space to be determined, and straight line paths calculated to them.
• Consequently space itself cannot be curved.
• To invalidate my position you would need to:

1. Disprove the possibility of plotting a direct and accurate path between objects in uniform x,y,z space as in diagrams 1. and 2. using the results from the math we both agree is most accurate. NOTE: ( it's not relevant whether instantaneous travel is possible or not ).

The Leap in Logic Reviewed:

When the trajectories of things in space around a massive object are plotted in uniform 3D space over time, the result is a curve. When a few dozen such trajectories are plotted against the distance from the massive object the result is a grid that resembles the typical "rubber sheet" diagrams of Minkowski Space. This is where the leap in logic happens. The grid plot of possible trajectories is conflated with space itself, even though the fundamental x,y,z,t factors remain uniform and unchanged.

Why Do People Say Space is Curved Then?

Because of the effectiveness of the calculations that result in a plot of curved trajectories, the phrase "curved space" is used to describe the model used to make the predictions. Indeed we can think of space as curved just like we can think of the number ten as a group of beads on an abacus, but neither the group of beads, nor the number, are the actual thing being counted. They are abstractions the describe a situation about things, not the thing itself. In the case of space, the thing itself is the fundamental nature of volume. It simply exists ( it's extant ). Nobody knows how or why is came into existence. It just is, and it's most fundamental expression is as a combination of length, width, and height.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

1. Disprove the possibility of plotting a direct and accurate path between objects in space as in diagrams 1. and 2. ( it's not relevant whether instantaneous travel is possible or not ).

Your consistent and stubborn refusal to read the analysis in the review paper that I keep providing to you, is not equivalent to a valid point. Just because you can create a graphical depiction of a straight line between two points in a curved spacetime, does not mean that spacetime isn't curved. A graphical depiction isn't bound by the laws of physics - I could make a graphical depiction of a pig flying to the Moon: that doesn't mean that pigs can actually fly to the Moon - so your logic is fundamentally faulty. Here in physical reality, all matter and energy couples to spacetime, so the rest frame trajectory of all mass and energy in the real world follows the curved geodesics defined by the general theory of relativity.

You need to actually study and understand basic operation of the general theory of relativity before you can boldly assert that it's wrong, in the face of overwhelming observational and theoretical arguments that you've never even read.

 

[Randall]

Your consistent and stubborn refusal to ...

Again. What you need to do is:

1. Disprove the possibility of plotting the positions of and a direct ( straight line ) path between, visible objects in uniform x,y,z space even when the path of the light given off by the objects has been curved in the presence of a massive object. If space itself is curved, this will not be possible. If space itself is not curved, it will be possible.

When you can do that, then I'll be more receptive to your argument.

Try to excuse the poor graphics, but this is not possible - Why?



​

 

[Randall]

... A graphical depiction isn't bound by the laws of physics - I could make a graphical depiction of a pig flying to the Moon: that doesn't mean that pigs can actually fly to the Moon ...

Your counterpoint actually illustrates the same point I've made. The "laws of physics" aren't immutable. They are in fact a type of illustration that describes an idea, and they have evolved over time as more and more accurate illustrations have come along. But the question here is: What is being illustrated? The fact is that what is being illustrated by real-world experiments is the behavior of things in space, not space itself. For example The "rubber sheet" illustration representative of Minkowski Space is derived from the curve created by plotting by the possible paths of light around the equator of a massive object.

All real world experiments that are used to test the "laws of physics" involve the observation or measurement of the behavior of things in space. From that, a leap in logic has been made that space is curved. However space itself has not been observed. We don't "see" it at all. We simply exist in it. It's a purely extant thing that's fundamentally described by length width and height.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

What you need to do is:
Disprove the possibility of plotting the positions of and a direct ( straight line ) path between, visible objects in uniform x,y,z space even when the path of the light given off by the objects has been curved in the presence of a massive object.

First of all, I "need to do" no such thing. You're the one making the claim that GR is incorrect - the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. Which is impossible, because you evidently haven't spent five minutes actually studying the subject. And I can't teach you four years of physics and mathematics on a chat forum.

Look - I can make this very simple for you. You haven't been able to articulate your theory so I'll do it for you: you're saying that spacetime is Euclidean, and that gravity is a force that attracts all particles passing by the star (such as a photon), thus curving its trajectory, just as a positive electric field exerts an attractive force on a passing electron.

This was the assumption of all physicists in the post-Newtonian era. And using this model, you can calculate exactly how much the path of light should be deflected as it passes by a star if gravitation is acting as a force upon the photon. Einstein ran a different calculation for general relativity where the metric of spacetime is curved, and he predicted twice the deflection of starlight that was predicted by the old Newtonian model of "force acting upon the photon." So astronomers devised an experimental proposal to measure the deflection of starlight during a solar eclipse, and when the conditions became available in 1919, Eddington conducted the observation.

Einstein was right. The deflection is twice the value predicted by the "force acting in Euclidean space" model. Newtonian gravitation was defeated. And in the intervening century, a raft of increasingly precise and diverse experiments have been conducted, all of which vindicate the metric curvature theory presented by Einstein. At this point all non-metric-curvature models have been completely defeated, as described in the paper that you refuse to look at.

Of course, none of this will impact your wrong conclusion that spacetime doesn't curve, because your mind is made up on the matter and you're unwilling to do the work required to understand this subject.

But that's not my fault - it's yours. So I'm done wasting my time with this futile debate. If you ever actually want to understand what we've been debating here, there are thousands of online resources that explain everything about the general theory of relativity, and explain why the Euclidean spacetime model of antiquity has been ruled out. Or you can take a class.

All real world experiments that are used to test the "laws of physics" involve the observation or measurement of the behavior of things in space. From that, a leap in logic has been made that space is curved. However space itself has not been observed. We don't "see" it at all. We simply exist in it. It's a purely extant thing that's fundamentally described by length width and height.

You don't understand what you're talking about. Length, width, volume, height, and time are all variables that depend on the differences between two reference frames - they're not constants. Even in special relativity - where there's no spacetime curvature - the length of an object decreases along the direction of motion via Lorentz contraction. The rate of time is dilated by the exact same factor for any given velocity - this is a proven experimental fact borne out every moment of every day via the GPS satellite network.

The special and general theories of relativity are amazing, albeit counterintuitive, and they work perfectly to describe both kinematics and gravitation. It's a shame that you won't bother to actually study them. Over 100 years ago people raised all of the objections that you have to these ideas, and they were all proven wrong. If you had the humility and diligence to actually look into it, then you'd come to understand why they were wrong, and you'd become a passionate advocate of these theories just like everyone else who actually understands them. It's not easy to understand them (although really special relativity is just high school algebra so it's not that difficult), but nothing worth doing is ever easy.

In the meantime though, you should stop going around telling people that spacetime doesn't curve, because you're promoting ignorance - and that's a serious disservice to your fellow man.

 

[Randall]

Einstein was right ...

I didn't say Einstein was wrong. But I do seem to be having a heck of a time getting my points across effectively. I suggest we try applying the Dialectic Method to the debate. For example: The Socratic Method is a particular form of dialectic whereby a series of questions clarifies a more precise statement of a vague belief, logical consequences of that statement are explored, and a contradiction is discovered. In this case, the vague belief is that space itself is curved and the main contradiction is:

1. Any plot of the the path of an object created using the math that is used to claim space itself is curved, can be framed by a uniform x,y,z, coordinate system resulting in a model where the curvature is not of space, but of the path of the object through uniform space. Therefore all the same experiments used to claim space is curved can also be used to claim space is uniform.
   
   
2. Furthermore because such experiments observe the behavior of objects in space, and not space itself, there is no observational evidence that space itself is curved. In fact, nobody has ever observed space itself and there's no evidence space is composed of anything that can be observed, curved or quantized.

The situation above makes your point about deflection irrelevant because in either case the math involved doesn't make any difference to the point being made. In other words, in either case the plot will result in the object being in exactly the same place. The key difference is that what's actually being observed in real world experiments are things in space rather than space itself e.g. a light ray moving past a massive object. In point of fact, nobody knows for sure what space itself actually is. I certainly don't claim to have that answer. You lean toward a mathematical "tensor field" model. I lean toward the theory that it's a vast computational construct analogous to a Star Trek holodeck.

At this juncture:

1. No progress can be made in this discussion by simply reiterating the points you've made that have led to the contradiction.
2. No progress can be made in this discussion by making comments about a participant's capacity for comprehension.
3. No progress can be made in this discussion without dealing directly with the contradiction.

So my suggestion is that we either deal with the contradiction in the manner suggested, or move on.