Neither does Einstein. At no time does Einstein explain how the “root cause” of gravity works. Calling it “curved spacetime”, is just relabelling it, not explaining it.

Curved spacetime is not able to explain what caused the gravitational pull we observe. At least Newton was wise enough to say that he offers no explanation, unlike Einstein who claims to have it solved, but still actually does not explain how the effect works.

Yes, that's right, 'curved or warped' spacetime does not do a good job at all at explaining what things orbit and why things fall down, that does not mean relativity is wrong, but as I said earlier I do feel that the 3D geometrical treatment of relativity is not a good description, but it does make some progress.

With Newtonian gravity, gravity is a 'force' (or force like) thing or effect between two (or more) bodies of mass, however in relativity, gravity is considered a property of space.

There is a significant conceptional difference between the two, Newton thinks that matter effects matter, and Einstein thinks that matter changes space and whatever shares that space also reacts to that change in space.

Newton is matter to matter, Einstein is Matter to space and space to matter.

In relativity the way it is normally treated is that mass or matter changes the SHAPE of SPACE, giving us a curved or warped space.

But as you said that does not really explain why or HOW a rock falls when you pick it up and let it go.

The other problem with curved space, is that we do not observe that space is in fact curved.

There is also a problem when you consider this question:

"IF space is curved, what about it is actually curved?" when you plot space on a graph and you say that is curved space what value or property are you plotting (that makes a curved line)?

How does that curvature explain why the rock falls?

That is why I feel that the evidence and observations shows that relativity is correct, however, I am a 'flat space'er', I think that space is flat, (not geometrical in nature).

So if you consider that matter changes some property of space (but not its shape) you can start to come up with models using 'flat' space, that does describe a mechanism that explains why a rock falls when you let it go.

That is why I consider space to have a dimension like the dimensions of your room, that is space HAS A LENGTH, so in this case matter/mass give space this length property (instead of a curvature property), so with relativity the length of a 1 meter ruler might be different in different locations.

The ruler will be longer at the center of the earth that at the surface of the earth, (if measured from the other location, so relatively longer/shorter).

We know this is how it actually works because the speed of light is constant, so the length of space and the length of time are the same things, the length of space gives us the length of time. (that we call spacetime, time derived from the length of space).

Like a light year, that is the length of space traveled in the time of 1 year, the length of space is measured by the length of time and vice versa.

Any experiment is always involving interpreting the indirect effects of some invisible sub atomic particle that is moving at some calculated speed, and the final results involve measurement of impossibly tiny time periods, and impossibly tiny values.

There is just sooooo much room for alternative explanations that its not even funny.

That's just not true, no matter how many times you say it, results and data are not the same thing as interpretations.

The thing about time periods is that you can accumulate them OVER TIME, and even then the periods of time are not impossibly tiny and the atomic particles may be invisible but they still give up information (such as the passage of time).

The speed is measured not calculated, the time is measured not calculated or interpreted, those time differences have real world consequences, that is why GPS clocks have to be corrected for General and Special relativity effects. If you do not correct for that, the GPS system would simply not work.

If you designed the GPS system using Newtonian dynamics, there would be a multi-million dollar waste of money in space that does not work!

Sure, so give us some alternatives? Also, why do you need an alternative?

No, no we don’t know any such thing. Relativists ASSUME they understand, and choose to interpret all observations through Einstein coloured glasses, literally forcing all results to conform to their pre set minds.

You ASSUME that there must be massive objects that you can’t see… WHY? Because you assume that some visible objects are solid matter, are a certain distance away, are a certain size, and thus are moving at a certain speed. Then you ASSUME that you KNOW their Mass, and you ASSUME that Mass is definitely in a fixed relationship with gravity, so from there, you calculate that there should be something massive nearby, but you cant see it.

No, we do know such thing, we have observed massive objects (like Stars) orbiting what we see as empty space, astronomers observe that, that is not a theory, that is not a guess from Relativists, it's just an observation.

**We observe objects orbiting around apparently nothing, we know from 'science' that things orbit massive objects**, the earth orbits the sun, we see things orbiting something we cannot see.

All we assume then is that the things we see orbiting are orbiting a mass, but we do not see that object with that mass, but we can guess the mass of the objects orbiting it, and their distance from it, so we can derive the mass and position of the object we cannot see.

The MNO (or the black hole). But all we can really say about it (if we are honest) is that it is a Massive Non-luminous Object.

But sure, if you start talking about event horizons, or singularities or curved onto itself spacetime, and time stopping... then that is pure guess and speculation.. (click bait).

I would have thought that a real cosmologist would see the weird action, realize that his assumptions about distance, speed, gravity, mass do not account for the motion observed, so rather than hanging on like grim death to his previous ASSUMPTIONS, a real scientist should simply say, Well, WE DON’T KNOW, but clearly there is NO MASSIVE OBJECT THERE, no black holes, worm hole, or parallel universe.

The Astronomer, does not observe weird action, he sees objects in orbits, he/she sees that all the time, that is not at all weird, hell he sees the earth orbit the sun, the moon orbit the earth..

He does not make assumptions about distance, speed, gravity or mass, he/she makes observations and measurements, there are assumptions made but even so, that does not change the fact that massive (big) objects are orbiting around something they cannot see. That means the thing they cannot see needs to have LOTS of mass, (you need lots of mass to have full on suns orbiting you).

So a real scientist would say "This is just like what I see all the time, except I cannot actually see the object being orbited"

So a real scientist would say "This is a massive non-luminous Object" it has mass because I see things orbiting it, it is non-luminous because I see no light coming from it.

Not only that, but astronomers believe they have also seen an MNO (black hole) being born, or created.

We know then for a fact (as true as water is wet) that there are very massive objects in space, that things orbit around (even entire galaxies), that do not themselves emit light (at least visible light) that we can detect. You can agree that event horizons and singularaties may not exist, but its a fact that massive non-luminous objects certainly do exist, because we see the effect they have on objects around it.

You can't see the wind, but you can see the branches of the trees moving and things flying through the air and you can make a reasonable deduction (or is that induction?), that the wind is blowing.

But the quack Einstein scientist is not content to rest there, announcing that invisible things exist, (black holes) but going on to announce that because of all his prior ASSUMPTIONS, 93 % of the whole fu#king universe is MISSING, so Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is the ONLY solution.

Invisible things do exist, most if not all of nature is made up of things we cannot see or possibly see!

We cannot see many things directly, that does not mean they do not exist, also that does not mean we have no way of detecting their existence.

You can't see electricity, voltage or current, you can't see the wind, you can't see the hot or cold, you can't even see light (unless it interacts with matter).

Just because you can't see something does not mean it does not exist, the moon is still there even if no one is looking at it. (a relativity/quantum mechanics joke).

As for dark matter and dark energy, yes I think that is junk science as well, but Einstein had NOTHING to do with dark matter or dark energy, (or even the big bang, his calculations shows a static, eternal universe.

Dark matter is a great argument against modern cosmology, and the LCDM model, but that's not Einstein's thing. Don't blame him for that.

Well, as you have already discarded Quantum Physics and half of Cosmology, along with the whole reason why Einstein developed his Math for spacetime, you are now officially a Quack, and a Crank and cant be trusted about anything.

You are very angry, but I understand that a lot of cosmology has gone off the rails, with crazy idea's and even crazier models with dial in dark matter, energy, flow, variable light speed, variable expansion, big bang garbage.

I would put it as more than half of Cosmology, I would go as far as saying that Big Bang Cosmology is WRONG, that there was no big bang and trying to justify every observation in the context of explaining the Big Bang is **fundamentally flawed, if no big bang occurred**.

I think big bang cosmology is a case study in scientific confirmation bias, that is the reason why cosmology is in deep crisis, and also why people like yourself are so angry. (you have every right to be angry as well).

How much time and effort and money has be waisted in the past 50 to 100 years trying to squeeze a big bang model into all those years of observations?

Why has cosmology fundamentally abandoned the scientific method?

Quantum Mechanics fairs no better either, it's a one trick pony, it was able to model the rotation of an electron in a magnetic field... THE END!!

That is it!!! ONE THING.

For the past 50 years quantum mechanics has been trying to crack THE PROTON!!! WOW, and they can't work it out! So yes, I discard quantum physics, and most if not all of big bang cosmology.

However, in regards to relativity, as far as I am concerned, space has a relative property, we know that to be a FACT, we measure that, it is real.

(again, I do not agree with the geometrical treatment of relativity, or that it is curved or warped, for me that curve is flat, but relativity is correct).

Science is not about trusting a person, or a name (even if it is Einstein) science is about facts, information and logic and reasoning to try to understand and explain simply what we observe about nature.

You can get angry at people but that does not help you in any way, you have to evaluate the evidence you then draw your own conclusions or accept others conclusions as to the explanation as to why we observe what we do.

You anger directed to me is misplace anger, it does not help anything.

So there is no way you can still possibly KNOW that Relativity is right, when you discard the hypothesis that created it. Did Einstein just accidently invent the equations by sheer random scribble of his blackboard?

I do know that relativity is right, because I know for a fact that clocks tick at different rates at different places, and also from velocity, we measure that, we also see things like Shapiro delay (we measure it), and gravitation lensing, and gravitational shifting of light.

This are all effects that show that time and space is relative, I ACCEPT the hypothesis that space and time are RELATIVE, we measure that, we have to take that into account in engineering, it is a fact.

However, you confusion is in that I do not agree that the 3D geometrical analysis is the correct minimal analysis method, the only thing I differ about is that instead of curved space, I consider space as **just longer**, so the length difference is not from curved space but just longer (flat) space.

**Stretched space as opposed to curved space:** That's the only difference, relativity is still correct, space is relative, I just thing 3D space plus time is a bit of a nod to Newtonian dynamics, with forces and directions. Relativity is correct. (but can be analyzed in a simpler and more intuitive way, that for me explains how gravity works in a far more clear way. But space and time ARE RELATIVE. (regardless of any theory explaining it).

Therefore the relativity you speak of here cannot be Einstein’s relativity but Galileo’s relativity, which alone is observer independent.

Einstein’s relativity claims that Physics remains the same in all inertial frames, but then immediately destroys that claim by saying that Time, Length and Mass DO NOT remain the same in the very same inertial frames. But change according to a remote observer.

You are somewhat confusing yourself and getting lost in terminology, physics does not change, the laws of physics are the same everywhere, but the properties of things (or space itself) can change. (but that does not mean physics changes).

That idea that you can only see these effects as a 'remote observer' is because relativity means that the properties of space and time (it's length) are different in different locations. To see relative effects you need to look at places with a relative difference, (ie, not in your own reference frame). But observed or not the difference is still there.

Science is now not even trying anymore to explain what we observe, which was the original science, the “Natural Sciences”.

These days, (since the late 1800’s) explaining Observations has been relegated to the trash bin, to be replaced by Mathematicians deciding what exists, then going out and trying to force any experiment, whoever fantastic) to find some tiny measure of support for the math discovery, and that’s sufficient for a Nobel Prize.

I pretty much agree with you on this one, math and 'models', accepting as 'ok' infinities, and being allowed to apply 'correction factors' like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and 'magic', and lots of 'mathtabation'. Sabine Hossenfelder has written a good book on 'the math problem' where 'pretty math' is taking over for real, valid and evidence based science.

That if you can make nice looking equations, that describe something, simply by virtue of the mathematical beauty if MUST be correct. (it's often not correct). So yes, I am with you on that one. (so life long buddies now??? )

Several times now the Nobel prize for Physics has gone to just simple minded Mathematicians.

Yes, that is true. You won't get an argument from me on that one.. see above.

The biggest LIE of Science is the claim that is not just big business, and also that Math is the all important gold standard.

Math is critical for one thing, Mathematics.

True, again, see above.

But yes, science IS BIG BUSINESS, and it is loaded with dogma, and it is also very math centric,

Things like CERN have been a huge disappointment, and expense. The LHC was supposed to explain all sorts of things and confirm once and for all, all manner of pretty mathematical models. BUT NO, we got this Higgs from CERN, and we expected that, but apart from that NOTHING came from the huge cost of the LHC.

It's huge business, and very dependent on models and mathematical beauty, which have turned out to be a poor foundation to start on..

Math is a good language to describe things, but it's a language, it can describe garbage just as well as it can describe reality. Like any language.

Physics can live without it.

Physics is supposed to EXPLAIN WHAT and HOW things do what we OBSERVE them doing. WHAT and HOW explanations don't need Math.

You need a language to explain things, but you are right that math alone is not a complete language, everything about nature should be able to be described and explain in simple, practical language. 'this does that because this does that and the other thing'.

Rocks fall because space is longer 'down' and shorter 'up', down is a lower energy state, and any velocity is a higher velocity in longer space, applying what looks like a pulling and pushing force from shorter space into longer space, making the object accelerate, in the direction of 'down'.

If you are going at 10 meters per second, into space where the length of 1 meter is longer (down), then you will appear to go faster (accelerate), but you will feel no acceleration because you are still only going at 10 meters per second.

The voltage drop across a resistor, is proportional to the current through the resistor and the value of resistance of the resistor. V=IR.

But if I put zero ohms across 1 volt I will get infinite current, does that mean that Ohms law is wrong? No, it means how the math is applied is wrong.

If I put matter into zero volume I get infinite mass density, time stopped and a singularity, is that correct or just math badly applied under incorrect (not possible) conditions.

This is basic truth but has been lost from Science.

But at least you admitted that I got a few things right.

I agree with you on many points, there is good reason for annoyance and anger about science especially cosmology, and theoretical physics for many of the reasons you laid out.

But I will always stick to what WE DO KNOW, and try to get to a place that makes what we do know to be true to make sense.

We know clocks tick at different rates (identical clocks), we know the speed of light is constant, we know stars orbit things that we cannot see. (that we can only 'see' because stars orbit them).

We know Einstein shift is real, we know Shapiro Delay is real. So we have to accept them as facts, they are fundamental principles.

Some relative property of space itself does explain those things, the things we now routinely observe. Some say that relative property is space curvature and a different 'path' through space, and other (well probably only me) think that it is not curved, and the extra path length is just LONGER space (flat, not curved, but stretched).

The end result is the same even if the way to get there is conceptionally different, but all the observations and evidence supports a flat stretched space as opposed to a curved or warped space. But either way, the effects of that difference is relative and its real.

I hope you are less angry, and more willing to follow the science and attack the science (that is what science does), but not the scientists.

Einstein and Newton are just normal people with normal (within bell curve) intelligence, they are not gods, their words are not final, they in fact don't carry any more weight than anyone else. (well maybe a bit more!!)..

Have a good day/night buddy..