I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE]
"What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.
Yes, just as I thought. They're basically in fairy land. As if being able to model something using math proves its existence. If they can do that with math why not just use words and create their own larp reality? Oh wait, they did and men can be women now. Their metaphysics and epistemology are arbitrary.
The whole general relativity project was just another step in the revolution against objective reality and ultimately against God. Einstein was a Kabbalistic degenerate demon who fed the gullible masses falsehood with tiny bits of truth mixed in there. Most notably, he normalized the notion of "theoretical physics" and made it cool. Physics is not theoretical or abstract, it's always observable and subject to the scientific method. It's a hard science dealing with matter and its behavior.
Precisely. I'm glad to see someone else who sees this for what it is. Seeing the truth is the first step to any meaningful progress in science.
I wonder what would happen if more believers came together to advance physics in the absence of arrogant atheists and the Synagogue of Satan. Perhaps not sharing anything with those types at all.
True science leads to God because science is knowledge of His creation and the rules and regularities He enacted. Sadly, it has been perverted by those waging war against God, the Synagogue of Satan and as with anything the father of lies touches, it becomes a weapon of destruction and deception.
There's nothing more irrational than being an atheist and a materialist - those people have no justification for knowledge, truth or logic on which the pseudo-science they worship is supposed to be built. They have absolutely no reason to believe there is order or meaning in the universe (Hume's problem of induction for one) yet they act like there is.
I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE] "What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
[END QUOTE]
So
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.
Yes, just as I thought. They're basically in fairy land. As if being able to model something using math proves its existence. If they can do that with math why not just use words and create their own larp reality? Oh wait, they did and men can be women now. Their metaphysics and epistemology are arbitrary.
The whole general relativity project was just another step in the revolution against objective reality and ultimately against God. Einstein was a Kabbalistic degenerate demon who fed the gullible masses falsehood with tiny bits of truth mixed in there. Most notably, he normalized the notion of "theoretical physics" and made it cool. Physics is not theoretical or abstract, it's always observable and subject to the scientific method. It's a hard science dealing with matter and its behavior.
Precisely. I'm glad to see someone else who sees this for what it is. Seeing the truth is the first step to any meaningful progress in science.
I wonder what would happen if more believers came together to advance physics in the absence of arrogant atheists and the Synagogue of Satan. Perhaps not sharing anything with those types at all.
True science leads to God because science is knowledge of His creation and the rules and regularities He enacted. Sadly, it has been perverted by those waging war against God, the Synagogue of Satan and as with anything the father of lies touches, it becomes a weapon of destruction and deception.
There's nothing more irrational than being an atheist and a materialist - those people have no justification for knowledge, truth or logic on which the pseudo-science they worship is supposed to be built. They have absolutely no reason to believe there is order or meaning in the universe (Hume's problem of induction for one) yet they act like there is.