Scientifically, physical objects (such as a clock) can undergo changes due to applied forces or relativistic effects.
However, abstract concepts—such as numbers, addition, dimensions, space, and time—are not physically alterable, as they are conceptual rather than material. This is a well-established scientific fact.
Despite this, the notion of curvature in spacetime has led to the misconception that spacetime itself is physical rather than abstract.
Since neither space nor time possesses physical properties, they cannot be subjects of direct experimentation. Instead, they serve as conceptual dimensions—a framework within which physical objects exist and can be measured.
Measurements in physics are always performed on physical entities, not on dimensions themselves. For example, in a coordinate system, dimensions such as x, y, z, and t are graphical representations—they do not measure space or time itself but rather the physical objects within them. Similarly, space and time, as dimensions, do not physically change—only objects within these dimensions undergo measurable transformations. These transformations are always physical (e.g., changes in material properties or energy states), whereas space and time remain conceptual constructs.
Thus, the idea of spacetime curvature is fundamentally flawed because only physical entities—such as electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields, or massive objects—can bend or curve. Space and time, being dimensions, do not possess length, height, or depth themselves; rather, they define the extent of objects that have these properties.
In mathematics and geometry, space and time are represented abstractly, but this does not imply they are physically capable of curvature.
If curvature exists, it must be a property of physical objects, such as mass-bearing structures or massless fields like electromagnetism or gravity—not of spacetime itself.
Do you acknowledge the key points I have stated above?
Mr. David Cowan,
Your response begins by rejecting the notion of spacetime curvature, seemingly aligning with my argument that space and time are abstract dimensions rather than physical entities. However, in the very next paragraph, you contradict this position by asserting that spacetime has a physical form, albeit one that is “physically immeasurable by currently available instruments.”
This assertion is self-defeating. A fundamental principle in science is that physical entities must be measurable, either directly or indirectly, through empirical evidence. If something is inherently unmeasurable, it falls outside the realm of physical science and into mere speculation. By insisting that spacetime has physical properties while simultaneously claiming it cannot be measured, you present an unfalsifiable premise—one that cannot be tested, verified, or falsified by any means.
Additionally, your claim that the planetary system's density distribution is evidence of spacetime’s physicality is not only irrelevant but also misleading. The arrangement of planetary densities follows from well-understood principles of mass distribution, accretion dynamics, and gravitational interactions. It has no bearing on whether spacetime itself possesses physical properties. This attempt to repurpose unrelated physical phenomena as evidence for spacetime's physicality completely disregards the core scientific distinction I outlined: measurements in physics are always performed on physical entities, not on dimensions themselves.
Your approach exemplifies a common but flawed rhetorical tactic—appearing to acknowledge an argument while subtly shifting the premise to reinforce your own position. I call such behavior the exhibition of intellectual dishonesty. Instead of engaging with the fundamental reasoning in my post, you presented an inconsistent stance that ultimately serves to reassert the very misconception my argument was dismantling.
If you genuinely wish to engage in a meaningful discussion, then the correct approach is to address the core argument directly: How can spacetime be considered physical when it lacks the fundamental characteristics required of a physical entity—measurability, tangible interaction, and empirical validation?
I look forward to a response that directly addresses this question without resorting to contradictions or unverifiable assumptions.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing