Gravity not Space

[MaxGain]

I've been toying around with this Idea. According to Nikola Tesla space has no properties.
The idea I am thinking is space can only be defined as a place , It is just the place where everything resides , Matter, energy , light ,us etcetera, if this is true then maybe it is gravity that can be warped , curved and bent.
I would think this idea has been explored before by someone.
Your thought's on this idea please.

[Roshi]

What is the connection between math and reality?
We have "sphere" as a math object, and lots of real (approximate) spheres made from various materials.

With the mathematical sphere we can do various math operations, that no real physical sphere can replicate. For example - we can scale the mathematical sphere. Maybe there is a mysterious material somewhere (far away), and a real sphere made from that material can become smaller or bigger at will! That's the only logical conclusion. We only need to locate that material, it's existence is certain.

Space as a mathematical object can stretch and bend. Surely "real space" can do the same...
If anybody would have bothered to define "real space" before replacing it with math space, and considering all math properties to be real. Because of course - nobody can see the "real space" and define it, so it's easy to just say: "it is in fact math space, with all it's properties!".

Just like all real spheres are in fact mathematical spheres, and accept all mathematical operations we can do on mathematical spheres. This theory is not accepted because we still trust our senses, but "space" (empty space) is harder to observe. That's why some people think it can "stretch", excluding of course the real objects contained in space. These do not stretch...

[MaxGain]

The mathematical explanation does not cut it for me.
You are missing the point .
Lets just go along the premise that space can only be defined as a place .
It has no properties, that being the main point .
It doesn't do anything but provide a place where everything else can exist.
So if you except that premise then wouldn't it be logical to say instead of curved space you can replace it with curved gravity.
A worm hole through gravity.
Gravity like every thing else resides in space .
Would it not be something to think about if space has no properties?
Nothing in the universe act's on or influences space and space does not act on or influence anything in the universe .
These are the lines I would like you to think along.
For get the mathematical explanation.

[Roshi]

Sorry, should have explained more clearly that I do not believe in the mathematical description of space. A big part of my previous post was written as sarcasm towards mainstream science that accepts this theory.

Thinking that mathematical operations apply to real objects is stupid.
The single math operation that can be applied to the real world is: "counting". We can count, or measure (this is also counting).

What about addition, subtraction, multiplication and so on?
These are so simple to apply in math, but we need physical actions and the laws of physics to apply them in reality.
Multiply 1 apple by 3? In math we get 3 apples. In reality - we need to bring 2 more apples from somewhere else.
Scale an object? Simple in math. Not so simple in reality.
Scaling of space (expansion) is a trick of the mainstream - they got away with it only because physical empty space cannot be easily seen and defined.

[crawler]

I've been toying around with this Idea. According to Nikola Tesla space has no properties.
The idea I am thinking is space can only be defined as a place , It is just the place where everything resides , Matter, energy , light ,us etcetera, if this is true then maybe it is gravity that can be warped , curved and bent.
I would think this idea has been explored before by someone.
Your thought's on this idea please.

Whether gravity can be warped etc depends firstly on what is gravity in your theory?? And what does warping mean?? Why should we care??

In my aether theory the gravity/mass of particles etc is due to the acceleration/change of the aetherwind flowing into the particle etc, or due to the accel/change of the aetherwind flowing throo the particle etc, & inertia is due to the acceleration of particles. In this theory gravity is never exactly straight. But i doubt that this gravity can be modified/warped etc, except obviously it can if mass is brought near or moved away etc. But why is that of interest?? Why should we care??

[Solar]

There are SEVERAL longstanding debates on a topic such as this and they are ongoing:

Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion

Theories of Space and Place

[MaxGain]

Roshi , Thanks for the clarification .
Do you think space has properties ?



crawler, Just thinking.
crawler , Do you think space has properties ?

[MaxGain]

Solar , What about you ?
Do you think space has properties ?

[Roshi]

To keep it simple: I think space has no properties.What Tesla said. Also, space is absolute.

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.” - Nikola Tesla

But, I do not know how to define "space". What wikipedia says:

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

[crawler]

crawler, Just thinking. crawler , Do you think space has properties ?

I reckon that space is never empty, in which case space has properties.

Firstly ignore any presence of particles (eg electrons) or quasi-particles (free photons) that make up the world that we can easily see & feel.
This then leaves the subquantum world, that we cant easily see or feel. The subquantum world is full of say non-compressible praether, the elementary essence. The excitation of praether makes (say non-compressible) aether. The excitation of aether makes free photons. The flow/acceleration of aether makes gravity & mass & inertia. Everything, except praether, is a process. A process can be created, & can be annihilated. Praether say cant be created or annihilated.

What is praether?? Does it fill empty space?? Or is praether itself like a particle, with dimensions?? In which case is there empty space between praether particles?? Is there empty space inside praether particles??

The situation is actually fairly simple, if the universe is eternal & infinite.
But bigbangers/Einsteinists must have problems with space. They have to deal with say 4 kinds. Space inside the BB universe. Space outside the BB universe. Space before the BB universe. Space after the BB universe.

Actually, Einsteinists probably have bigger problems than that. They have spacetime or something. Does their space include something called time?? Does their time include something called space?? Or is spacetime a math construct, sitting inside ordinary 3D space??

One question that comes to my mind is what is absolute. Does praether form a fixed 3D lattice??
If so then the lattice would define the universal absolute.
Or does praether move & swirl etc?? In which case the absolute would be local not universal??

The next question is what roll does aether play in the absolute??
If praether forms a fixed universal lattice then it is possible that aether is fixed, & shares that universal absolute.
Or, it is possible that aether is not fixed, & that it is moves & swirls throo the fixed praether.

Or both praether & aether both move & swirl, either together, or independently.
In which case we have more than one possible level/class of local absolute.

[Solar]

Solar , What about you ?
Do you think space has properties ?

Yes, of course it does. The properties that induce Motion (aka "Forces") in 'physical' objects are aspects of the 'substantive' qualities of "Space" having undergone phase- transitions. Electric Fields and Gravity, for example, are not "physical" objects. They are differentiated aspects of the phase-transitions that Space may undergo before becoming "matter" (in the physical sense of the term "matter").

Astrophysics is already aware of this as a principle and thus they have the "Vacuum". In other words there is already conception that there are at least two other forms of "matter" and "energy" that are not necessarily "in" what is called "Space"; instead they actually constitute what what is called "Space". What is called "matter" are 'precipitations' from the activities of these pre-matter phases. This is from whence all Grand Unified Theories come. They perceive of One primal 'essence' from which all other subsequents are differentiations. There are, and have been, a great many names given to the understanding of this relationship throughout history.

It is estimated that some 100 trillion neutrinos pass through the human body every second. They exist as their own "phase-space" but are yet simultaneously superimposed atop many other "phases" of energy and matter. Before neutrinos were discovered they were an undetectable integrated property of what is called "Space". Likewise with the electron, the atom, or any other "particle". What makes the mind think that somehow all phase-states have been discovered and how the differentiations occur is just some form of arrogant hubris. LOL!

[MaxGain]

Thanks everyone for your replies.
I have to take a minute to digest all of your answers.
After talking with friends I have decided that my gravity idea is not a good one . LOL

[MaxGain]

New question.
If a Black hole is more likely a Plasmoid would the gravity of the Plasmoid be the same as the so called Black hole ?

[MaxGain]

Yes , space can only be defined as a place .


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2020/1 ... a-thing-2/

[webolife]

Hey friends, I have been distracted with other busy-ness these past months, but finally got a chance to dip back into the forum.
Some thoughts on SPACE... Tesla, and some above posters, say space has no properties, it's just a place.
Perhaps there is an inherent function missing from the conversation here. Let's start with the non-controversial(?) maxim that space describes the locus of "stuff", matter if you please. As a locus, it therefore must have volume, yes there's that pesky mathematical function. In order to be phenomenal stuff/matter must be finite in extent (ie. neither infinitesmal or infinite) In other words we can say without losing the logic of the original premise that space "has" or contains matter. Now without answering exactly how it does so (it's just self obvious?), let's ask if that constitutes a physical function. Does space contain matter? If it didn't, there would be no definition or use for mass... besides, matter has two fundamental attributes, mass and space. Mass is the amount of matter in a space, and reciprocally, matter "occupies" space and "has" mass. Now there is something to be said for space that is so busy containing the stuff of reality, so we call it a field. A field is action taking place (pun strictly intended) in a specified space. It is clear that at any order or hierarchy, atomic to astronomic, space is busy containing stuff. Again, without departing from the logic of the original premise (ie. space is the locus of stuff), the "field property" of containment implied thereby is simply a synonym for gravitation. Put differently, Matter has Mass and occupies Space, both attributes infer stuff is being held together. Gravitation.
Now here at Thunderbolts, we attribute this graviational function to charge, EMF... electricity... but isn't this simply using different tinted glasses to view the universe, the EU, as a pervasively CONTAINED phenomenon? The implications of this electric view are far-reaching, in that one is led toward a unifying understanding of physics: It's electricity throughout, not just electric at the atomic and micro scales and gravitation at the macro and astronomic scales.
As those familiar with my peculiar viewpoint will recognize, I see "gravitation" not as a thing unto itself, simply an action, a verb in a manner of speaking.