[Gulliver]

There is NO evidence that space "bends".

Citation needed.

[Lemmiwinks]

There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.

There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.

There is also direct evidence that space does bend.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm

Not only was there a device that could directly measure it, but also its called your eye and a telescope and observe the gravitational lensing around dense objects.

[Tom Bishop]

There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.

There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.

There is also direct evidence that space does bend.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm

Not only was there a device that could directly measure it, but also its called your eye and a telescope and observe the gravitational lensing around dense objects.

Wrong. Incorrect. Frame dragging is described as follows:

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.

The clock is moving faster because the clock is experiencing more acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference. We saw the same thing in the clock-on-a-jet experiment. It is caused by frames of reference. There is nothing directly telling us that "space is bending". It is telling us that clocks put under acceleration will experience time dilation.

What evidence is there that space is actually bending? There is NONE.

Your second link deals with light bending around stars. But, again, there could be a lot of things pulling light towards stars, not just the bending of space. QM has another explanation for that. Light bending towards stars or a ball moving towards the earth does NOTHING to tell us that space itself is bending.

[Rama Set]

Wrong. Incorrect. Frame dragging is described as follows:

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.

The clock is moving faster because the clock is experiencing more acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference. We saw the same thing in the clock-on-a-jet experiment. It is caused by frames of reference. There is nothing directly telling us that "space is bending". It is telling us that clocks put under acceleration will experience time dilation.

What evidence is there that space is actually bending? There is NONE.

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.  GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see.  It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though.  You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe.  It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests.  Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?

Your second link deals with light bending around stars. But, again, there could be a lot of things pulling light towards stars, not just the bending of space. QM has another explanation for that.

Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR?  I was not aware it was.  Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description? 

Light bending towards stars or a ball moving towards the earth does NOTHING to tell us that space itself is bending.

Well feel free to propose your own solution.  Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.

[Tom Bishop]

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see.  It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though.  You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe.  It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests.  Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?

GR has not been tested. I could publish the same square root attraction equations and say that things attract because there is a special negative pressure property to the background universe where mass is pushed and clumped together by fluid-space. The more mass, the more powerful the universe clumps it together as it seeks to create the most empty space possible. My theory is "tested" because the equations work.

Not! This special property to the universe has not been detected. That the equations work is irrelevant.

Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR?  I was not aware it was.  Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description?

Yes. It is mutually exclusive. The mechanism of gravity under QM is entirely different than the mechanism of gravity under GR.

Well feel free to propose your own solution.  Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.

A mathematical model can be made for magnets, but it says nothing on the cause for the mechanism of magnetism, or whether all bodies in the universe are magnetic. The concept of the bending of space is entirely fabric-ated!

[Rama Set]

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

Actually, it isn't.

GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see.  It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though.  You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe.  It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests.  Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?

GR has not been tested.

Yes it had.

I could publish the same square root attraction equations and say that things attract because there is a special negative pressure property to the background universe where mass is pushed and clumped together by fluid-space. The more mass, the more powerful the universe clumps it together as it seeks to create the most empty space possible. My theory is "tested" because the equations work.

And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics.  The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system.  The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.

Not! This special property to the universe has not been detected. That the equations work is irrelevant.

It is actually the most relevant part of GR.

Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR?  I was not aware it was.  Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description?

Yes. It is mutually exclusive. The mechanism of gravity under QM is entirely different than the mechanism of gravity under GR.

Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then.  There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.

Well feel free to propose your own solution.  Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.

A mathematical model can be made for magnets, but it says nothing on the cause for the mechanism of magnetism, or whether all bodies in the universe are magnetic. The concept of the bending of space is entirely fabricated!

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

[Lemmiwinks]

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

Steps of the Scientific Method

Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Wheres the prove part? I missed it.

[Tom Bishop]

And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics.  The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system.  The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.

Time, the "fourth dimension", is dilated because bodies near a body which is attracting it are being put under an acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference than bodies outside of that frame. The phenomenon says nothing about the bending of space. That someone can predict that time will be dilated when a body accelerates bodies towards it is MEANINGLESS as evidence towards bending space.

Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then.  There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.

There is NO Grand Unified Theory which marries relativity to quantum mechanics.

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.

[Tom Bishop]

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

Steps of the Scientific Method

Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Wheres the prove part? I missed it.

Conclusion

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Surely Albert Einstein, of all people, would have put his hypothesis through the esteemed Scientific Method before publishing his work.

[Lemmiwinks]

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

Steps of the Scientific Method

Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Wheres the prove part? I missed it.

Conclusion

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Surely Albert Einstein, of all people, would have put his hypothesis through the esteemed Scientific Method before publishing his work.

con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.

Semantics is a poor debate technique Tom.

I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.

1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests

So on, so forth.

[Tom Bishop]

con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.

There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.

Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.

See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.

I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.

1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests

So on, so forth.

None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".

[Rama Set]

And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics.  The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system.  The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.

Time, the "fourth dimension", is dilated because bodies near a body which is attracting it are being put under an acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference than bodies outside of that frame. The phenomenon says nothing about the bending of space. That someone can predict that time will be dilated when a body accelerates bodies towards it is MEANINGLESS as evidence towards bending space.

That is not the only phenomenon predicted by GR.

Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then.  There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.

There is NO Grand Unified Theory which marries relativity to quantum mechanics.

So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.

So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.

[Rama Set]

con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.

There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.

Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.

See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.

I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.

1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests

So on, so forth.

None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".

Stop pretending to understand QM. There is famously no theory of quantum gravity. It is the most famous problem of modern physics.

I am wondering why you are now championing QM anyway. I recall you holding the position that there are no "magic puller particles". What is your actual position?

[Lemmiwinks]

There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.

Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.

See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.

You flip flop mid statement here, either there is such a thing as a proof or there is not. Which is it? I think you are confusing a mathematical proof with a scientific conclusion.

None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".

How does Quantum Mechanics help you with a flat earth theory?

[Lemmiwinks]

I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.

You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.

There are no scientific proofs.

[markjo]

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Tom, are you saying that gravitational lensing has not been observed or that it is not consistent with warped space-time?

[Tom Bishop]

So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?

I said nothing of the GUT except that it does not exist.

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.

So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.

The existence of electo-magnetism is self apparent. But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.

You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.

There are no scientific proofs.

Sure there are. Proof is an exercise in logic. It is arriving at a logical conclusion based on available evidence.

Unfortunately, in this case, the available evidence presented shows that something is attracting things to bodies, not that space is bending.

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Tom, are you saying that gravitational lensing has not been observed or that it is not consistent with warped space-time?

Gravitational Lensing has been observed. That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof. The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.

[markjo]

Gravitational Lensing has been observed.

Okay, that's a start.

That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof.

First of all, GR is hardly "some square root attraction math".  Secondly, GR predicted gravitational lensing before it was observed.  If by "square root math" you're referring to Newton's gravity formula, then, to the best of my knowledge, no such prediction has ever been made using Newtonian's gravity formulas.

The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.

True.  No one ever said that warped space-time was the only explanation for gravitational lensing, but it has been shown to be a very good and reliable one. 

[Rama Set]

So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?

I said nothing of the GUT except that it does not exist.

You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.

So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.

The existence of electo-magnetism is self apparent.[/quote]

The existence for gravity is also self-apparent. 

But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is.  It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else.  It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism. 

Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson.  The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles.  The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon.  Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field.  You should let it go now, it has been too long.

[Tom Bishop]

Gravitational Lensing has been observed.

Okay, that's a start.

That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof.

First of all, GR is hardly "some square root attraction math".  Secondly, GR predicted gravitational lensing before it was observed.  If by "square root math" you're referring to Newton's gravity formula, then, to the best of my knowledge, no such prediction has ever been made using Newtonian's gravity formulas.

The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.

True.  No one ever said that warped space-time was the only explanation for gravitational lensing, but it has been shown to be a very good and reliable one.

Right. There are a lot of labels can be slapped over that math.

You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM

What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?

The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.

Gravity is a word which historically refers to the theory. Gravitation is the physical action of attracting bodies.

But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is.  It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else.  It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism. 

Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson.  The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles.  The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon.  Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field.  You should let it go now, it has been too long.

There are plenty of references indicating that the hypothetical mechanism of Magnitism is via special photons. The main thing to take away from this page and others is that they don't really know what causes it.