[Petrochemicals]

Gravity
Pushes

Just like hydrology, if the masses are within the angular pressure radius drop distance they attract in a converging way, not necessarily to inpact. The angular radius of gravity is infinite, giving rise to the feeling that there are 2 types of gravity.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

...................Elucidation
Just to be clear , I was speaking of field-energy saturation .  The repulsive side of the strong-nuclear force would be an example . A bulls-eye target has two sides to each band , yes ?  But the bulls-eye itself has only one .  The Uni-Grav concept has a fresnel-lens aspect to it , see it ?
P.M.

[Zer0]

So...wats d final answer to d Questn??? (OP)

Isn't Space curved? (only space)

A light beam passing by from near a black hole bends, right? (gravitational lensing)

Light is made up of Photons, aren't photons massless???

So...a massless but not motionless photon travelling in a straight line near a black hole still seems to have a bent path, Right?
Because of Gravitational Force acting on a massless but not motionless particle?
Or because the Space around a black hole is Warped?

😵

[Halc]

Light is made up of Photons, aren't photons massless???

Photons have mass, just no proper (rest) mass.  So their bent trajectory can be interpreted as gravity attracting that mass, or by space being bent.

[Bill S]

So their bent trajectory can be interpreted as gravity attracting that mass, or by space being bent.

...or as gravity attracting that mass in a way that is most simply described by the concept of the bending of space?

I tend to think "visually"  (possibly because my "maths" has progressed little beyond dactylonomy) and I find it difficult to visualise bent space.

[Halc]

So their bent trajectory can be interpreted as gravity attracting that mass, or by space being bent.

...or as gravity attracting that mass in a way that is most simply described by the concept of the bending of space?

Yes, or as mass bending space in a way that is most simply described by the concept of the gravity attracting objects.

The distinction seems philosophical.  Perhaps not.  For that, one has to demonstrate that one or the other is blatantly wrong.  If that can't be done, the differences are only interpretational.

I tend to think "visually"  (possibly because my "maths" has progressed little beyond dactylonomy) and I find it difficult to visualise bent space.

But you said above that the bent-space interpretation was more simply described, which I took to mean you visualized it more easily.
For one, it is spacetime that is bent, not space.  If the latter, you get weird contradictions.
Suppose I want to get an object to a target 10 meters away.   I do a slow high lob and it lands perfectly at the target.  My buddy at the same time shoots a bullet over there and it takes a much different path but gets to the same place.

The bending-gravity interpretation says both those lines are straight and a minimal length path (a geodesic), and yet in terms of space, this is obviously a contradiction since the two objects took different paths.  In spacetime, both paths are straight, and yes, they are different paths, but that's because they go to different target events in spacetime, not the same point in space.

[Halc]

both those lines are straight and a minimal length path

Maybe not minimal length.  Any non-euclidean surface may have multiple solutions for straight lines between any two points.  I cannot assert that they're all the same length.

[Zer0]

OK well let's 4get d light beam n d black hole example...

Let's Improwise.

Two black holes spinning around each other, faster & faster...converge...beep!
It sends ripples of gravitational waves out into space, Right?

A pebble/stone thrown in a pond, generates ripples.
Hence even though Water being transparent & tasteless it's still a Substance/Medium.

If those gravitational waves are travelling through space, is not Space a medium or substance of sorts???

Are G waves travelling thru a gravitational force field in space & not just simply space itself?
Is there a grav field all over n evrywher in space, even in super voids?

P.S. - n Y did or rather wen did Einstein say if u remuv d earth below our feet, v wuld xperience free fallin???
Dat dosnt sound rite, Right?
Y wud v or an object free fall, fall is downwards rite, but no up & down in space...y won't v or d object just float freely in space?

@Mods
Sumone had tagged dis thread as ' p.m.s. ' & ' great swollen balls ' so I clicked on d little red x n remuved d previous tags n retagged it, Alrite!
If I'm not supposed 2 do so in d future, plz do lemme know
😀

[Halc]

Two black holes spinning around each other, faster & faster...converge...beep!
It sends ripples of gravitational waves out into space, Right?

A pebble/stone thrown in a pond, generates ripples.
Hence even though Water being transparent & tasteless it's still a Substance/Medium.

If those gravitational waves are travelling through space, is not Space a medium or substance of sorts???

Of sorts, perhaps.  The difference is that I can reach out of a boat and feel the water and detect if I am still or moving in that water.  You can't do that with space, per the principle of relativity.  The best they've been able to do is note the mean velocity of everything in sight and assign 'stopped' to that otherwise arbitrary velocity.

Are G waves travelling thru a gravitational force field in space & not just simply space itself?

They travel through space.  A field is not a thing, it is a mathematical abstraction, a value assigned to the relative depth of the gravity at every point in spacetime.  That slope of that depth determines the force that accelerates something at that point.  A flat depth would entail no acceleration, but it would still be a nonzero depth.

Is there a grav field all over n evrywher in space, even in super voids?

Yes, there is.  The field may be relatively flat there, but it is anything but zero.

P.S. - n Y did or rather wen did Einstein say if u remuv d earth below our feet, v wuld xperience free fallin???
Dat dosnt sound rite, Right?
Y wud v or an object free fall, fall is downwards rite, but no up & down in space...y won't v or d object just float freely in space?

That's what free fall is: Not having a non-gravitational force acting on you.  Here we have the Earth below us putting a non-gravitational force upward on our feet and preventing our free fall.

[Zer0]

Hmm...so Space is a sort of a Medium.
Only my senses aren't dat evolved 2 feel it...
Sounds lyk my problem, not Space's.

PS - freefallin still  doesn't sound rite 2 mee!
I have been brainwashed since childhud 2 attribute fallin = goin down...
Freely Floating seems just rite, but den again...
Ain't ne1 elses prob, juz mine.

😑

[Halc]

Hmm...so Space is a sort of a Medium.
Only my senses aren't dat evolved 2 feel it...
Sounds lyk my problem, not Space's.

Nothing can feel it, so not your problem.

[Bill S]

PS - freefallin still  doesn't sound rite 2 mee!
I have been brainwashed since childhud 2 attribute fallin = goin down...
Freely Floating seems just rite, but den again...
Ain't ne1 elses prob, juz mine.

Wolfson tries to divert "hitch-hikers"from the problem.

Richard Wolfson, “Simply Einstein”, uses the term “free-float” rather than free fall; the meaning is the same, but as he is writing for lay people, he considers it aids visualisation in the case of objects that are not obviously “falling”.

[Zer0]

Contradictory thought:

Now wen I think bout it, even " Floating " seems incorrect, or rather dsnt sound rite.

Folks wud attribute it 2 a surface...buoyancy & density of a medium.

Wish ther wz a new word 4 it...like ' spazing ' or sumthin.
Spalling or sploating etc etc.
😑

[PmbPhy]

Does gravity attract masses in an existing space, or does it curve the space between them?

The answer to this question is much more complex than meets the eye?

It can do both. BTW you're referring to spacetime curvature, not space curvature. You can have a gravitational field without spacetime curvature. An example is a uniform gravitational field. Spacetime curvature is the same thing as gravitational tidal forces. A uniform gravitational field has zero spacetime curvature,

[Professor Mega-Mind]

True , man !
I was specifically describing a field in the context of motion and change . 
Good see !
P.M.   .
> For more analysis of this subject , go to NSF thread : How does the expansion of space work ?
Link : www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79683.0new;topicseen#new


 

[Kryptid]

Yeah...
You do target certain people .

I won't deny that. Those people tend to be repeat offenders in terms of posting things that don't make sense or lack good evidence.

Now then , seeing as how MAINSTREAM science allows that the universe was much denser and slower in the deep past , the logical extension of that is the opposite . In other words , the trend I described . As far as the "Vector of time" goes , that springs directly from Relativity , which is mainstream enough for me .

The following statements do not align with relativity (or other mainstream theories):

As this universe ages , time will pass ever faster . Eventually , it will be infinitely fast

Addendum : These distortions have an effect upon all matter and energy entrained therein , and are likely responsible for the ironically named illusion of "Dark-Matter" .

Another thing here ; this is a discussion forum , not a test by some hostile professor . In otherwords , it is here for discussion and debate .

It is a discussion forum with rules. If another moderator thinks I'm being unreasonably strict, then I will cease this pursuit. But I don't want passersby to think nonsense like "time will move infinitely fast in the future" is what actual scientists accept as true.

Time to stop sabotaging other posters , and let them enjoy their conversations !

If you want to talk about your new idea, then post it in the appropriate forum. That is a common sense rule that would apply to most discussion boards across the Internet.

[Kryptid]

I seem to have missed the above quote when splitting the topics...

At any rate, anyone looking for Professor Mega-Mind's discussion on space expansion may now refer to this thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79683.0

[geordief]

It can do both. BTW you're referring to spacetime curvature, not space curvature. You can have a gravitational field without spacetime curvature. An example is a uniform gravitational field. Spacetime curvature is the same thing as gravitational tidal forces. A uniform gravitational field has zero spacetime curvature,

That is interesting.Could you expand on that at all?
How would a uniform gravitational field manifest its quality of producing no spacetime curvature?

Would there be any other effects that would distinguish it from what might be described as a  concentrated source of gravitation?

[Professor Mega-Mind]

To : geordief
Mr. Pimby won't see your response here . Just drop him a message (use the NSF message board) .
P.M.

[PmbPhy]

[That is interesting.Could you expand on that at all?
How would a uniform gravitational field manifest its quality of producing no spacetime curvature?

There is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field. It's a myth that all gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Curved spacetime is the same thing as tidal forces and a uniform gravitational field has no tidal forces.