[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Gravity is not caused by space -time curvature , in fact there is not such curvature and there is not any proof of this curvature, vacuum is vacuum it is nothingness it can't be curved it in fact doesn't exist so it can't be curved.There must be a clear and logical explanation, not an imaginary curvature of space-time.

Two masses M and m will attract each other as a result of gravity force between these two masses:
The existence of mass in a place causes non-existence of vacuum in that place, if there is mass then there is not vacuum, if there is vacuum then there is not mass.

When mass exist in a place and vacuum doesn't exist at that place , the mass will be attracted to fulfill this absence of vacuum, i.e there is gravity potential , mass is positive , absence of vacuum is negative.
The mass causes a field just like magnets and charges,  however this field is related deeply to matter level, it is about any matter in the universe, in this case the force of gravity appears between any mass as result of gravitational field that spread throughout the universe.

If there is magnetic and electrostatic field why not a gravitational field ? some kind of field that is related to matter   We have positive and negative matter, positive matter is mass itself , negative matter is the absence of vacuum caused by the existence of mass, two masses will be attracted to each other, mass M will be attracted to fulfill mass m vacuum absence, mass m will be attracted to mass M to fulfill its vacuum absence, and we have a gravitational matter field exactly as we have fields for charges and magnets.

The idea of vacuum absence doesn't necessarily imply any curvature to vacuum, it doesn't mean vacuum exist an a way that it has absence and then it has curvature.Vacuum is nothingness,i.e it doesn't exist , and its absence is in fact another existence, of something else ,i.e mass. Vacuum doesn't exist by itself it doesn't behave in any way "curvature" but it could have absence status by the existence of something else" mass "
If we have nothingness then we could have something else"mass" in this empty nothingness " vacuum", vacuum is nothingness it doesn't exist it doesn't curve but we could have deeper status of this nothingness'vacuum" which is the nothingness " absence" of nothingness" vacuum".

If this theory is about vacuum that doesn't mean the gravitational field I suggested is about vacuum , i.e vacuum or space-time curvature, the mass itself causes this field just like a magnet or charge and the absence of vacuum causes negative field ,and this field in fact interact with the absence of vacuum in the other mass, the absence of vacuum is negative, mass is positive and the vacuum itself is neutral , since vacuum itself is neutral it doesn't have any effects according to my theory but its absence has the effect which is negative field, matter is positive because it is something that exist , vacuum is neutral because it is non existence of matter and vacuum absence is negative since it is the non-existence of this non-existence.

The interaction between mass"positive" and the non-existence of vacuum"negative" induce the gravitational field of the mass and the non-existence of vacuum and causes gravity force.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Electric force is caused by electric charge, electric charge is in fact losing electrons forming the electric field , it is a similar idea for gravity as I mentioned in my OP. Mass is like electrons and losing electrons is like vacuum absence.
It is physically logical that all forces are governed with the same idea, electric force, magnetic force and gravity

[Bored chemist]

You talk a lot about vacuum.
Gravity works just fine in air.

Also, please explain how gravity affects the path of light.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

You talk a lot about vacuum.
Gravity works just fine in air.

Gravitational fields caused by mass penetrate matter and works fine through air, gravitational field doesn't affect matter it affects absence of vacuum see my OP

Also, please explain how gravity affects the path of light.

Anything that exists displaces vacuum including photons, however photons cause "space-time curvature" and behaves like mass in this exact situation.The path of light will be affected by gravitational field of photons and gravitational field of a star

[Kryptid]

Gravitational time dilation clearly demonstrates that you are wrong. That's a distortion of time caused by a gravitational field.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Gravitational time dilation clearly demonstrates that you are wrong. That's a distortion of time caused by a gravitational field.

It doesn't demonstrate I'm wrong it demonstrate I don't have explanation for time dilation, I still don't know what this field is.
Imagine that there is a flat piece of wood with high gravity and a ball running over it how it is possibly we say the ball is running in an arc while it actually runs on straight line?  what would we say if the ball actually ran over the piece of wood in an arc? would we say there is space we see and a hidden space? the geometric relation between the straight line we see and the arc we see is different from the relation between what space time suggests .space we see is real, hidden space doesn't exist it is imaginary, at least we can't have two spaces.
Speaking of light path bent by a star gravity we have twice the bent of Newtonian laws of gravity, one component due to Newtonian gravity and one due to the effect of space curvature on light , why does light particularly is affected by
space-time curvature,?
My explanation is a photon have twice its measured energy, one is its kinetic energy the other one is its contained energy, so gravitational force on it is twice

[Bored chemist]

You don't have a theory; you barely have a hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Kryptid]

It doesn't demonstrate I'm wrong

It does if you claim that gravity can't distort time, because that's exactly what it does.

My explanation is a photon have twice its measured energy, one is its kinetic energy the other one is its contained energy, so gravitational force on it is twice

That would violate conservation of energy. An electron and a positron annihilate to produce two (or sometimes three) gamma rays with a measured energy equal to that of the original electron and positron. If those photons actually have some extra energy hidden in them, then that energy popped up out of nowhere.

Secondly, photons having double the expected energy would do nothing to change gravitational lensing. It's for the same reason that a bowling ball falls at the same rate in a vacuum as a ping pong ball. Even though the bowling ball is attracted much more strongly by the gravitational field, its extra mass also makes it much more resistant to acceleration. So in the end, your "double-heavy" photons would experience a bend in their path identical to that of regular photons.

hidden space doesn't exist it is imaginary

And yet you claim that you can have such a thing as hidden energy in photons...

Not that it matters, as there is no requirement for a "hidden space" to explain gravity. The arc you are talking about is an arc in space-time. Time is an essential part of the equation.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

It does if you claim that gravity can't distort time.

I didn't claim anything about time.

That would violate conservation of energy.

It doesn't .A mass could have energy equivalent to its mass and kinetic energy of its motion.

Secondly, photons having double the expected energy would do nothing to change gravitational lensing. It's for the same reason that a bowling ball falls at the same rate in a vacuum as a ping pong ball.

It's not about the rate of falling it's about the bending proccess, two objects with different masses will have different bending angles its simple mechanics.

Not that it matters, as there is no requirement for a "hidden space" to explain gravity. The arc you are talking about is an arc in space-time. Time is an essential part of the equation.

Still I need explanation of difference between space we see and space which is curved.

[Kryptid]

I didn't claim anything about time.

You did when you said this:

Gravity is not caused by space -time curvature

It doesn't .A mass could have energy equivalent to its mass and kinetic energy of its motion.

All of the energy of an object contributes to mass, including its kinetic energy. The faster an object moves, the more massive it becomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass

It's not about the rate of falling it's about the bending proccess, two objects with different masses will have different bending angles its simple mechanics.

No it doesn't. Photons have a relativistic mass that is determined by their energy. A photon with a higher energy therefore has more mass. If what you claimed about mass and path bending was true, then more energetic (bluer) photons would be more strongly affected by gravitational lensing than less energetic (redder) photons. They aren't. Both red and blue photons are deflected by the same amount: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1029-is-light-of-different-colors-affected-differently-by-gravity-intermediate

This is in agreement with the equivalence principle.

Still I need explanation of difference between space we see and space which is curved.

There is no difference: you can see the effects of a distortion in space if you know where and how to look. The anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is one such detectable example, as is the geodetic effect and gravitomagnetism.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

You did when you said this:

"Gravity is not caused by space -time curvature"

There is not space-time curvature but there is time dilation, I agree there is time dilation but that doesn't mean it's only explained by the idea of space-time curvature

All of the energy of an object contributes to mass, including its kinetic energy. The faster an object moves, the more massive it becomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass

Yes it contributes to its mass, but mass and energy are different forms, matter is frozen energy,  I claim the only energy that is measure for a photon is its contained energy, kinetic energy is not measured

No it doesn't. Photons have a relativistic mass that is determined by their energy. A photon with a higher energy therefore has more mass. If what you claimed about mass and path bending was true, then more energetic (bluer) photons would be more strongly affected by gravitational lensing than less energetic (redder) photons. They aren't. Both red and blue photons are deflected by the same amount: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1029-is-light-of-different-colors-affected-differently-by-gravity-intermediate

But all  rays are one entity and the final gravity on them is a collection of the whole rays , they are one entity being attracted as one collection of color rays.

There is no difference: you can see the effects of a distortion in space if you know where and how to look. The anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is one such detectable example, as is the geodetic effect and gravitomagnetism.

Your explanation is not clear. could you give a detailed one? what is the difference in my previous example between space we see and space that is curved?

[Kryptid]

There is not space-time curvature but there is time dilation, I agree there is time dilation but that doesn't mean it's only explained by the idea of space-time curvature

Einstein's equations predicting time dilation as a product of space-time curvature match the observational measurements. So far, all of Einstein's predictions regarding distorted space-time that have actually been tested have turned out to be accurate.

matter is frozen energy,

Citation needed.

I claim the only energy that is measure for a photon is its contained energy, kinetic energy is not measured

This is demonstrably wrong, as we can measure the kinetic energy of light. It pushes things, and we can measure that push: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

But all  rays are one entity

Obviously not, otherwise two different people wouldn't be able to see the same object at once. Each person must be seeing their own ray of light. One photon can be absorbed while another in the same beam of light keeps going.

I don't understand what you are talking about .Could you give me simple and detailed explanation?

All three of those things refer to different measurable changes in an object's orbit due to the distortion of space around that object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism#Gravitomagnetic_fields_of_astronomical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

This is demonstrably wrong, as we can measure the kinetic energy of light. It pushes things, and we can measure that push: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

OK, good, if the contained energy is equal to kinetic energy, then when light pushes a surface it will lose its kinetic energy and its contained energy , then photons disappear and won't reflect" since its kinetic energy and its contained energy is one thing" but I claim its kinetic energy is different from its contained energy it will lose its kinetic energy without effect in its contained energy so that it will reflect again as photons.

"But all  rays are one entity"

Obviously not, otherwise two different people wouldn't be able to see the same object at once. Each person must be seeing their own ray of light. One photon can be absorbed while another in the same beam of light keeps going.

I missed a word all color rays

All three of those things refer to different measurable changes in an object's orbit due to the distortion of space around that object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism#Gravitomagnetic_fields_of_astronomical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

Could you focus in my example and explain the problem I am asking about?

[Bored chemist]

Could you focus in my example and explain the problem I am asking about?

WHy bother?
Either your idea also explains these  things, or it is less useful than the current theories which do explain them.

I missed a word all color rays

That makes no sense.
Nobody knows what you mean by "colour rays" and it doesn't matter what colour things are, Two people can see the same thing, whatever colour it is.
So your idea that "But all  rays are one entity" is still obviously wrong.

[Kryptid]

OK, good, if the contained energy is equal to kinetic energy, then when light pushes a surface it will lose its kinetic energy and its contained energy , then photons disappear and won't reflect"

Not necessarily. If that surface happens to be a mirror, only some of the photon's energy will be transferred to the mirror while the rest remains in the reflected photon.

but I claim its kinetic energy is different from its contained energy it will lose its kinetic energy without effect in its contained energy so that it will reflect again as photons.

Then that would mean that photons don't have "twice the measured energy" like your originally claimed.

I missed a word all color rays

That doesn't make it any more sensible.

Could you focus in my example and explain the problem I am asking about?

We can already see curved space, so I don't know which example you are talking about.