Yes, I was referring to dark matter and dark energy... Don't be so modest, there aren't many people that I can talk to about this.
It's not false modesty. My knowledge of the concept of dark matter is the same as any other layman - whatever can be picked up with a quick google search. It would be foolish of me to pretend otherwise. As I said, a proper understanding of such concepts and all of the long train of evidence and reasoning that lead to their being deemed to be useful is the subject of very advanced physics. Way beyond mere undergraduate level. I think one of the most important steps in trying to make sense of what the specialists in any given subject are saying is a recognition of what we don't know. There is a strong tendency in human nature to say: "I don't fully understand what the specialist in subject X is saying, therefore the specialist is talking nonsense. Probably with some kind of ulterior motive."
No, not exactly. We make our empirical observations using all the tools at our disposal. That allows us to accurately describe our physical reality as we perceive it. GR offers accurate calculations (without which we wouldn't have GPS) that is confirmed by ALL observations, yet I will not be wrong in saying that there is no spacetime. If we change they way we describe gravity, there is no need for the concept of spacetime.
In those last two sentences you said two distinct things. You said "there is no spacetime" and then you said "there is no need
for the concept of spacetime." I think those are two distinct propositions and it is my view that the first one is irrelevant and possibly doesn't mean much. What do you mean by "there is no spacetime"? I think the only question that makes any sense is whether the concept of spacetime (or any other concept) is useful
. So I can accept that your last sentence might be true, but to demonstrate its truth you'd have to come up with a theory that does everything GR does, and more, in terms of successfully describing/predicting observations and which, in special cases, does not contradict other successful theories, but which doesn't need the concept of spacetime.
-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:00 am to add the following --
Sorry, I said "dark matter" there when I meant "dark energy". See, I even get the terms mixed up!
-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:21 am to add the following --
Ranvier: When I have time, later today, I'll address the rest of your post. The only way I'll be able to do that is to break it down into small pieces and address the pieces individually. So I'll start with the sentence:
"Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency."
and go on from there. Sorry if you think that's too reductionist an approach. (Some people do.) But it's the only way I can think of to try to make sense of propositions such as the one I've quoted here.
-- Updated Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:20 pm to add the following --
OK. Here we go.
Not quite, light is a constant acceleration even though we describe light in terms of velocity of specific wavelength and frequency.
I don't know what you mean by "light is a constant acceleration". Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Light is a phenomenon that has been described in various different terms over the years as various observations of its apparent properties have been made. Among them are the classical laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations). In this classical description it's an interaction between varying electric and magnetic fields. And then you move forward through history and see it described in terms of packets of these interactions called photons, and start usefully thinking of them as massless particles. And so on. I don't really understand how that can be summarised by saying that "light is a constant acceleration". How is that expression useful for describing any of the observations that are attributed to EM waves? In what sense is light a constant "rate of change of velocity"?
This gives us a sphere of surface area of distance where photon can be expressed within the radius of speed of light but that is NOT space.
The grammar of this sentence makes it very difficult for me to follow. I don't know what you mean by "a sphere of surface area of distance" or "where photon can be expressed within the radius of speed of light". What does it mean to "express" a photon? Circles and spheres have radii. The speed of light is a numerical quantity. How can that have a radius?
Are you trying to say that light emitted from a point radiates isotropically (in all directions equally) and that the wavefront therefore forms a sphere whose radius increases at the speed of light? Are you then saying that the volume enclosed by that sphere cannot usefully be labelled with the word "space"?
Space is given by extra dimension of convergent acceleration of light with anisodensity (gravity).
Sorry, I don't understand any of the grammar in this sentence either! "Extra dimension of convergent acceleration"? I don't know what that term could mean.
You can think of this in terms of seeing our plant[planet?] as blurred image that spans each second a radius of speed of light but this image becomes more focused as you get closer to the gravitational center that accelerates inward with speed of light.
Again, very difficult to understand, but it sounds like you're saying that it's useful to think of the Earth as travelling at the speed of light ("spans each second a radius of speed of light" - is that what you mean by this?). I don't know what you mean by "getting closer to the gravitational centre". Centre of what?
In other words our planet travels at that speed of light but due to anisodensity we perceive only 9.81 m/s^s at the surface.
is (approximately) the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth. It's the rate of change of velocity of an object in free fall close to the Earth's surface. I don't see how you are relating that to the Earth travelling.
OK. I'll leave it there for now.