The Conceptual Flaw of a 'Curved Space'

What do you mean by its properties? That the planets rotate around the sun that is curvature. That our galaxy spins that is curvature. How else other than through properties, and observations can we describe it.

ryan Henningsgaard

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thomas Posted - 08 Jan 2006 : 07:57:25

---

I feel that too many discussions in this forum focus on the observational evidence for or against the Big-Bang theory, but neglect the inherent conceptual flaws which should already invalidate it a priori:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Assumptive errors would be a good start. What I mean by assumptive error is a statement that is made as an assumption but is taken as a fact. That redshift has a doppler interpretation is an assumption. That space expanded is an assumption. That matter condensed into a black hole is an assumption. That the CMBR is from the past is an assumption. Now, there in nothing inherantly wrong with making assumption but if it is then taken as fact and forms as fact the basis of another assumption, then it is an error. If the redshift doppler assumption is taken as fact, then it can be assumed that there is expansion. So we have an assumption based on an assumption. Now, if expansion is real, then it can be assumed that this expansion can be reversed conceptually it must lead to a point.So we have an assumption based on an assumption that is based on an asssumption. How, if the beginning is assumed to be a point, it can be assumed that this point expanded in a big bang. So the Big Bang is an assumption based on an assumptin that is based on an assumption that is based on the first assumption. An assumjotion that Hubble did not agree with.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
That space expanded is an assumption.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It's an assumption which is a priori false as <i>space</i> is not a physical object and has no <i>size</i> property. Hence the concept of expansion can not be applied to the notion of <i>space</i>.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

We know from experiment that what might be regarded as "space" is non-local. Indeed non-locality is a property that has no size property. Because it is proposed to be a single entity, there is no here and there Inside space. When it leaves it arrives because there is no other place to go to, The big bang theory, Inflation in particular, assumes a Inflationary time period far faster than the speed of light, and not quite as fast as instantanously. A non-local space would not have a duration. Non-local space has no need for expansion.
We know that Space is non-local from experiments. I do not know of any experiments which (directly) show expansion.

Matter expansion is too slow, space expansion is not fast enough.

Tommy you are right.

But! Space and matter go hand in hand.

Space therfore contains the properties of matter and gravity in its varies forms.

When we talk of curved space we know we are talking about the properties and not sapce itself.

Harry

Go to the science forums on hypography.com and check out the book that was recommended Einsteins Legacy something timewarps I plan to read it.

ryan Henningsgaard