The 'curvature of space-time' is the physical expansion of matter.

[RascalPuff]

Matter is an omnidirectionally expanding, accelerating field. This generates the illusion that 'descending' test objects 'fall', when in fact, the entire frame of reference (coordinate system) is rising up to overtake and strike the apparently precipitating test objects. This is what inspired Einstein's famous quote about the 'curvature of space-time', regarding falling objects.

Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

What exactly are you suggesting here rascal.That we are witnessing an illusion taking
place?




regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

What exactly are you suggesting here rascal.That we are witnessing an illusion taking
place?




regards michael.

_________________________

Yes. Michael. Definitely and categorically.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Best regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

_________________________

Yes. Michael. Definitely and categorically.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Best regards,
- RP

Thats what I thought,thanks for confirming.


regards michael.

[thinking]

the problem arises though when one realises that neither space or time has any substance.

further RP I still , after thinking about your opening point , I still don't get. mass moves UP to a mass? what of those at the north and south end the mass at the same time and with equal masses?

[RascalPuff]

the problem arises though when one realises that neither space or time has any substance.

further RP I still , after thinking about your opening point , I still don't get. mass moves UP to a mass? what of those at the north and south end the mass at the same time and with equal masses?

Dear north:
The proposed physical expansion is omnidirectional.
Clearly you haven't given this enough thought.
Your entire outlook on the behavior of precipitating test objects lacks study and insight.

I have repeatedly posted an illustration of 'the curvature of space-time' on this forum. It is considered irksome etiquette to continue to post the same example, but hopefully Robert will bear with me if varying approaches to disagreeing with the obvious continue to impose in the issued discussion.

Argument is a constructive process only when it is progressive.

If and when you read http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, you may continue to challenge, but I think your present preoccupation with the subject of gravity and the precipitation of test objects (on or near a major gravitational coordinate system) will change, dramatically.

If not, then you can tell me why.

Best regards,
- RP

[thinking]

[QUOTE]

Dear north:
The proposed physical expansion is omnidirectional.
Clearly you haven't given this enough thought.
Your entire outlook on the behavior of precipitating test objects lacks study and insight.

I agree that physical expansion is omnidirectional ( I'm assuming 3D , since you think in terms of 3D space. which I fully agree).

but as I see it , wouldn't this imply , an expansion that is not actually happening.

this is my point ( by the way I'm a steady-state supporter myself) why wouldn't our galaxy push galaxies one way , outwards , and others do the same , towards us . then when thinking in 3D , why would you not come to the conclusion of a null expansion situation?

[thinking]

Further

"According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
____

this though I disagree . the field to my mind doesn't represent the " physical reality of space " but rather that field that is IN SPACE is caused by matter itself.

[RascalPuff]

[quote=north;33247]

I agree that physical expansion is omnidirectional ( I'm assuming 3D , since you think in terms of 3D space. which I fully agree).

but as I see it , wouldn't this imply , an expansion that is not actually happening.

this is my point ( by the way I'm a steady-state supporter myself) why wouldn't our galaxy push galaxies one way , outwards , and others do the same , towards us . then when thinking in 3D , why would you not come to the conclusion of a null expansion situation?

_________________________

Dear north:
I would speak to you about the cause of the so called 'universal rate of descent of free falling objects in the absence of air resistance', but, until further notice, you have yet to acknowledge that very fundamental fact. It is remarkable that you are unaware of this.

To engage in discussion with you beyond that (unacknowledeged) point would be futile on my part.

Let me know when you have grasped the unexpected findings of Galileo and how those discoveries - about free falling objects - have been much further refined and confirmed, since then (re: 'Roland von Eotvos' and related experiments since then, on google).

As long as you adhere to heavier, larger, more massive objects falling faster than test objects of lesser magnitude, you are in a post graduate classroom asking jr high school questions with accompanying objections.

Do you know what 'inert' and 'heavy' mass, is?

Do you understand the importance of the Principle of Equivalence and what it means?

Do you understand why Einstein called the equivalence of 'inert' and 'heavy' mass:
"An astonishing coincidence"/

As you have previously presented your arguments, without concession to my counterpoints, it will be a waste of both of our times and efforts to proceed to even more questions, statements and allegory enigmas.

I have written ten sold out small press editions of a book over a period of nearly fifty years (in three languages) and I restrain myself from re-writing it again - piecemeal - in this debate.

You will find a condensed work in progress of my book at the afore provided URL.

Complimented by your (however limited) indulgence but averse to your persistence on a course, the fundamental levels of which you're apparently ignoring or otherwise abandoning as being cogent to what you now introduce a different - and more upgraded - approach to the same unresolved issue(s).


'Null expansion'.
While you're about your research, take note that a repelling force was confirmed in 1996 and that Einstein's formerly abandoned 'cosmological constant' (becomes stronger with distance - refer accelerating expansion) is back on the slate. The Big Bangers have rescued themselves with what they formerly rejected ('the biggest blunder of my life' - Einsten)

Google: 'Cosmological constant - Einstein may have been right after all'.

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

post graduate

Rascal ... take a step back .... the mot-juste here is pre- not post

cool bananas ... greg