What definition of space are these cosmologists using when they use this term space?
You say that the fabric of space-time is a mathematical object, which means that it is a concept and not an actual real physical object. So space and time are not physical. Look around you, use your experiences from life and tell me what perceptions of space or time make you think that they are real physical objects. Why do you think space and time are real physical things? Have you been told so, or have you perceived these things to be physical. Space and time are either real things or imagined (concepts). What scientific evidence can you show that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that space and time are real physical things?
So you're effectively arguing that because space and time are not tangible, physical objects, that they cannot be used to describe natural phenomena? What are your emotions then? What are your feelings? What are your memories? What are your sensations? A thing need not be tangible to exist and affect things around it. Space is simply that, the medium in which matter exists, and time, although still a question among scientists and philosophers, is generally agreed on as the passage of events. One can describe space and time being linked because mathematically, they are. Just as the magnetic and electric fields in an EM wave are linked, so are space and time. Without space, there is no time, and without time, there is no frame of reference from which to deduce space. Just because space and time are not physical, it does not mean that they do not exist or cannot be a part of our universe.
Why would the matter follow a path down into the curve? The top of the warp is higher than the bottom. For matter to follow this path from one position and change course to follow another it must be acted upon by an outside force. Something has to motivate the mass from the top to the bottom.
Newtons first law of motion: Unless acted upon by an unbalanced force, a body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will continue moving at the same speed and in the same straight line.
Newtonian physics are valid only within our physical universe. When the fabric of space-time is curved, our actual physical universe is curved, and Newton's laws work
within that curvature. Newton's laws will not force an object to continue along a straight path unless that path is part of our universe, within which our physics make sense. Therefore, an object traveling along space-time will not require energy to follow a bend in it, because the bend is the only part of the universe that the object can travel upon.
When you say that a mathmatical model explains all that we SEE, what you are saying is that a concept explains all physical objects and phenomenon.
No. When I say that a model explains what we see, you know as well as I do that what I mean is that a model explains the observable phenomena for which that model is created. The model of space-time explains the laws of physics and why they hold in our universe, and how Gravity works. However, our knowledge of Gravity is not complete, and there might need to be made some changes in our model to account for new information. You however, seem to have no idea what in the hell the model actually states, and yet are insistent on debunking it.
You say time and space are not man made concepts, so if they are not man made then they must be naturally occurring, right? You are telling me that time and space are just things that have always existed, existed like all the other things in this universe. Everything that exists, exists in some form of energy. So if these things existed on their own, before man, then some time in the past someone would have discovered one of these objects and gave it a name. You see man gives names to two types of things, those things that he perceives existing in the world around him and those things that exist in his head, (ideas, concepts, dreams, thoughts.) So time and space were given a name by man either because he came across these objects or by way of describing a concept. If time and space are real objects, like you say, then there would have been someone in the past who encountered one of these physical things and gave it a name. You see an object exists and then man gives it a name. So if time or space is an object who was the first to discover one of these objects? Where and when were these things discovered? If these things are physical they will occupy a location.
Jeezus Christ. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Time and space have existed since the Big Bang, and perhaps before. Just because we came up with terms for them later does not mean that they came into existence the moment we thought up what to call them. Surely, you can see what a ridiculous position you are implying. I never said that time and space are real objects, only that they exist and that our current theories about space-time and the 4 fundamental forces of the universe predict and explain their existence. What are you getting on about? You seem to think that I believe that time and space are objects like a ball and some wooden cube that one can just pick up and play around with. Where in the hell did your reasoning go so wrong that you've come to think this? Again, I will emphasize that you understand this topic before you try and argue against it. As it stands, none of your questions have been insightful, rooted in any modern cosmological theory, or even made sense. You seem to be coming at the topic of cosmology from a philosopher's point of view without realizing that it is philosophy, not time or space that is a man made concept.
You have only made statements that are the standard answers to this topic given by those that believe that space and time are real physical things. I am asking you to define your terms, find out what the words time and space mean. Then tell me how these things could be real physical things.
Unless you want to take a 400 level cosmology course at a university, you will never understand what scientists are talking about, because, frankly, it seems that the mathematics are far above your head. And also frankly, I don't have the patience to sit here and teach you what the past 200 years of scientific theory has taught the world. In fact, the burden to educate lies upon your own shoulders, not mine, and you need to do some serious research into cosmology and quantum and field mechanics before you can have a hope of making any sort of logical arguments against this concept. The audacity and the sheer arrogance you show by trying to prove to me and others on this website that cosmology is fundamentally flawed when you don't even understand the basics is apalling, and before you start considering yourself a wise or learned person, try and ask yourself what the hell it is exactly that you think you know.
I think this quote was meant for you.
This just made me laugh, and die a little inside. The only thing worse that your complete lack of knowledge in the science behind cosmology is your apparent and arrogant belief that you do, in fact, know what you're talking about.
™ Version 4.2