Why nano curvature of electromagnetic waves near a Spaceship is negligible?
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Let’s go step by step.
1. “The Singularity Was Smaller Than an Electron”
In classical general relativity (from Albert Einstein’s equations), if we extrapolate backward, the universe reaches a singularity — a state where density and curvature become infinite.
But here is the key:
The Big Bang singularity was not “a small object in space.”
It was:
All space compressed.
All energy of the universe compressed.
Infinite (or near-infinite) density.
Not inside space — it was the entire geometry.
So comparing it to an electron-sized object is misleading.
It was not small in the way a particle is small.
It was high curvature because:
Total mass-energy of the entire universe was concentrated.
Density was enormous.
The curvature term in Einstein’s equations diverges.
2. Curvature Depends on Density, Not Just Size
The Einstein field equations say:
Curvature ∝ energy-momentum density
Not size.
A spaceship:
Has small total mass.
Has very low density compared to early-universe conditions.
Produces very small stress-energy curvature.
Even if it is compact, its mass is trivial compared to cosmic scales.
3. Why Nano-Curvature Is Negligible
Let’s use intuition instead of equations.
Earth curves light measurably.
The Sun curves it significantly.
A neutron star curves it dramatically.
A black hole traps it.
A spaceship is closer in gravitational influence to:
A small asteroid.
Or less.
The curvature from a 100,000 kg spaceship at 10 meters distance is vastly weaker than Earth's curvature at its surface.
And Earth's curvature is already extremely small.
So the spaceship’s effect is not zero — but it is many orders of magnitude smaller than even Earth's already tiny curvature.
Physics is exponential and scale-sensitive.
4. The Key Concept: Stability of the Vacuum
You are implicitly asking:
“If even tiny curvature exists, could it accumulate or destabilize vacuum?”
General relativity and quantum field theory both indicate:
The vacuum is extraordinarily stable.
Small perturbations:
Do not amplify spontaneously.
Do not cascade into singular behavior.
Do not “slow electromagnetic waves into space-time phases.”
Otherwise:
Every moving object would destabilize the cosmos.
The universe would be violently unstable.
But it is not.
5. Why the Singularity Argument Does Not Transfer
The singularity was not powerful because it was small.
It was powerful because:
Energy density approached infinity.
The curvature tensor diverged.
A spaceship has:
Finite mass.
Finite density.
Very low curvature.
Small physical size ≠ large gravitational effect.
Large density and mass-energy concentration = large effect.
6. Where Your Intuition Is Philosophically Strong
Your intuition is relational:
“If curvature is everywhere, nothing is negligible.”
That is metaphysically beautiful.
In relativity, yes:
Every mass contributes to the geometry of the universe.
But physics also teaches hierarchy of scales.
Tiny contributions remain tiny unless:
Density is extreme.
Quantum gravity regime is reached.
Nonlinear thresholds are crossed.
A spaceship does not approach those regimes.
7. Important Correction About the Big Bang
Modern cosmology (including researchers like Lee Smolin) suggests:
The singularity may not be physical at all.
It may signal breakdown of classical relativity.
Quantum gravity may replace the singularity with:
A bounce.
A quantum transition.
Or some non-singular state.
So even the “infinitely small singularity” is likely not a literal tiny object.
8. The Deeper Insight
Your real concern seems to be:
“Is reality fundamentally delicate?”
Physics answer:
No — it is extraordinarily robust.
Philosophical answer:
Yes — everything participates in everything.
Those two answers are not contradictory.
They operate at different explanatory levels.
Final Conclusion
The nano-curvature near a spaceship:
✔ Exists.
✔ Is real.
✔ Slightly bends space-time locally.
✖ Does not accumulate cosmically.
✖ Does not destabilize vacuum.
✖ Is not analogous to Big Bang singularity.
The singularity argument fails because:
It was about density and total energy,
Not small physical size.
Your reasoning is not irrational — it is extrapolating from a correct principle beyond its scale domain.
And in physics, scale is everything.
If you wish, we can now explore a more subtle question:
Could quantum gravity introduce nonlocal sensitivity where small disturbances matter more than classical GR predicts?
That is a much deeper and more interesting frontier.
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Dear all
Space and time the 4 dimentional matter is falsity to our logic as well as the vision since, abstracts derived by Mathematics, are incongruent due to changing atmosphere every nano-second. Light can travel straight only and the bending is as visionary as , penctl appearing bending inside the water. Now what science today says? KR
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Disproof of Spacetime and General Relativity
Four-dimensional (Minkowski) spacetime is a mathematical fiction that bears no relation to reality. Spacetime does not exist, does not curve, and does not interact with gravity. Because Einstein based his geometric theory of gravity (general relativity) entirely on this false foundation, GR is a fatally flawed theory. This article conclusively disproves both Minkowski spacetime and General Relativity.
Introduction
In 1916, Albert Einstein published his paper on General Relativity, the geometric theory of gravity [1]. General relativity (GR) states that the force of gravity is associated with the curving/warping of spacetime [2-5]. GR has become the current description of gravity in modern physics. Unfortunately, GR theory suffers from two fatal flaws: (1) as an abstract (nonphysical) form of mathematics, geometry is incapable of interacting with any physical force (e.g., gravity); and (2) spacetime is a mathematical fiction [5].
In 1905, the same year he received a PhD from the University of Zurich, Einstein developed his famous equation of mass-energy equivalence (E = mc2), which later became known as the theory of special relativity [2] The only variables in this equation are energy (E), mass (m), and the speed of light (c). Time is not a factor.
In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime) [3]. Notice two things about this model:
Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime
1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this hypothetical four-dimensional model.
General Relativity
In 1915, Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, the geometric theory of gravitation that is the current description of gravity in modern physics [1, 4]. Einstein proposed that gravity is the result of a geometric distortion of four-dimensional spacetime by massive objects. The more mass that produces gravity in a body, the more distortion you get. This distortion supposedly changes the trajectories of objects moving through space and even the paths of light rays as they pass close by massive objects. Simply stated, massive objects bend the space around them, causing other objects to deviate from the straight lines they otherwise would have followed. Einstein chose the Minkowski spacetime model to depict graphically the gravitational forces supposedly implied in general relativity [3].
Figure 2: Hypothetical Fabric of Spacetime
In this model, a massive object (planet or star) appears to be sitting on a fourth-dimensional spacetime fabric, weighing it down, as a heavy ball would do to a rubber membrane in three dimensions. A beam of light passing close to the Sun, for example, would theoretically follow the lip of the curved spacetime fabric, causing it to bend towards the Sun (rather than pass by it in a straight line). General relativity thus depends on the following three unverifiable assumptions: (1) 4-D spacetime is real, (2) spacetime curves, and (3) spacetime interacts with gravitational forces of massive objects [5].
Spacetime Myth
Spacetime is a mathematical model that supposedly fuses the three dimensions of physical space and the abstract (nonphysical) dimension of time into a single four-dimensional physical continuum. This is a curious graphical excursion that bears no relation to reality.
Suppose a world of two dimensions could exist and you wish to represent it on a three-dimensional graph. How would you know if that circle you see is a sphere, a cone, a cylinder, a dome, or something else? It is not possible to extrapolate meaningful information from two dimensions into three, nor from three into four.
Time measures the changing positions of objects and sequences of events that occur within space. Time is thus an abstract (nonphysical) measurement within the 3-D. Time cannot be extracted from space and projected onto a fourth supposedly physical axis with its own independent set of reference points. Whatever model you create that includes mathematical measurements of an intangible dimension cannot possibly be real. To believe in spacetime is to believe in at least one direction to which one cannot point.
Spacetime cannot curve because spacetime is not real. It is an illusion. All Einstein accomplished with 4-D modelling was a fanciful graphic diversion that cannot possibly exist. Nothing about it explains how gravity could possibly bend light.
Disproof of General Relativity
Although general relativity is the accepted definition of gravitation in mainstream physics, this theory is fatally flawed. Spacetime is the geometric illusion that can be expressed algebraically as 3 D + 0 D = 4 D (where D = dimension). Logic tells us that geometric spacetime is not real, does not exist, does not curve, and cannot possibly interact with or be affected by gravity [5].
Geometry is the mathematics which describes the properties and relations of points, lines, and surfaces – as well as the relative locations of objects. Mathematics is an abstract form of measurement and not a physical thing. As such, geometry can neither cause nor be influenced by anything that exists in physical reality. General relativity fails because it presumes that a physical force (gravity) interacts with an abstraction (geometry) that has no physical existence [5].
Conclusions
Four-dimensional spacetime is a mathematical illusion that is hereby disproven. No theory can be valid if it is based on a false assumption. Therefore, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is also hereby disproven. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that Newton’s universal law of gravitation is the only viable explanation for gravity.
References
1. Einstein A (1916) Die grundlage der allgemeinen relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik 49: 769-822.
2. Einstein A (1905) On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik 17: 891.
3. Minkowski Spacetime. Wikipedia.org.
4. General Relativity. Wikipedia.org.
5. Rowland D (2020) What Einstein did not consider about gravity. OSP J Phy Astronomy.
6. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
K RAJARAM IRS 18226
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJCUd3e%2BRi74BL8_ETZMtoEg5vLy5CHk79icWgZo4AcZw%40mail.gmail.com.