Why doesn’t anyone question the theory that gravity is the curvature of space time?

Home Forums Science & tech Why doesn’t anyone question the theory that gravity is the curvature of space time?

Viewing 19 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #167363
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why doesn’t anyone question the theory that gravity is the curvature of space time? It’s pretty silly if you think about it. Space curves around an object but what is it that moves other objects towards it? The gravity? It is circular reasoning.
      Also, think the curving of the space-time would only bring objects closer together once. Space does not curve indefinitely towards the object of greater mass, but only once. However, objects are CONSTANTLY attracted to it. Which implies a constant energy. Where does that constant energy come from? Relativity doesn’t explain it.

    • #167364
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Also consant contraction of space-time would imply objects would fall inside eventually yet objects orbit around planets and stars and dont fall inside

      • #167375
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://i.imgur.com/BmzEi3P.gif

        Objects fall and crash into each other all the time. Overtime, as a star system stabilizes, only those objects that are on stable orbits remain.

      • #167386
        Anonymous
        Guest

        they do, though

    • #167365
      Anonymous
      Guest

      look into hyperbolic geometry and go from there.

    • #167366
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What are you trying to say OP? Photons are just regular particles with mass like everything else? Careful there….

      • #167391
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >What are you trying to say OP? Photons are just regular particles with mass like everything else? Careful there….
        do this one neat trick.
        assume light might have a mass m
        calculate force of gravity
        put into Newtons 2nd law
        use light mass again for ma
        take the limit as m goes to zero.
        see it’s the same damn thing as GR

    • #167367
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s questioned all the time. It just happens to have passed every test.

      >Space curves around an object but what is it that moves other objects towards it?
      Moving normally along a curved surface will bring you towards the object it’s curved around. What is it that makes things move in a straight line on a flat surface?

      >Space does not curve indefinitely towards the object of greater mass, but only once. However, objects are CONSTANTLY attracted to it.
      The attraction is proportional to the distance, which is exactly what we would expect if the curvature is proportional to distance. Far away, the object’s path will only bend towards it a little bit but closer to it it will bend more. The path will either collide with the source of curvature, pass by it while bending towards it, or orbit around it.

      >Which implies a constant energy.
      Nope, just objects moving along "straight" lines, which requires no energy.

      • #167369
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why when we throw a ball on earth it doesnt go in a straight line around the earth aswell?

        • #167387
          Anonymous
          Guest

          if you throw it fast enough it does. it would fall around the earth given that there is no atmosphere to make it burn up from friction. in space its easier. give an object enough horizontal velocity and it will endlessly fall around the earth. its what we do since the 50s with satellites

        • #167389
          Anonymous
          Guest

          In practice it doesn’t. In principle it does. The reason you don’t know this is the same you don’t understand general relativity – lack of knowledge. Now, I mean what I just said in the most friendly way possible.

          You’re curious and show critical thinking Anon, these is very valuable traits.

          When you ask these specific questions about summarized concepts you will get answers that are a mix of superficial generalizations that provide no useful information, thorough answers backed by facts that you don’t have the prerequisite knowledge to understand and traditional /sci answers(IE; variations of calling you a stupid scrote)

          What you need to do is instead ask for information on how best to develop your understanding of a given subject to the point that you can understand what you’re asking about. /Sci are uncharacteristically helpful when someone ask about good books or lectures in fact. You will get a more positive response to your threads this way.

          I hope this helps Anon. Our existence is weird and confusing and the curiosity that drives us to find out is what makes us human. Good luck.

        • #167428
          Anonymous
          Guest

          We tried doing that once. It burnt up in the atmosphere before any real data could be collected.

    • #167370
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It goes in a "straight" line relative to the strong spacetime curvature near the Earth’s surface. If you "threw" it hard enough from the right position you could indeed get it into orbit, if that’s what you’re asking.

    • #167372
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because your a scrote who doesn’t understand how intrinsic curvature works and are using a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be two dots on a sphere, both starting a quarter circumference away on the equator and moving on a circle path towards the north pole. The dots get closer together by simply moving on the spherical equivalent of a "straight line". Spacetime isn’t a 2d fabric its a 4d object where because of curvature, straight lines can move closer together unlike in non curved euclidian space.

      • #167373
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ok but that only explains why objects that are already moving get closer to the object thta curves the space time
        what about when we just drop something here on earth and it falls down?

        • #167376
          Anonymous
          Guest

          All objects are moving through time. The curvature is in spacetime, not just space.

          • #167378
            Anonymous
            Guest

            ok but why does moving through time implies movement at all? you are not explaining why without applying energy objects fall ti the ground

            • #167381
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Because there is a relationship between moving through space and moving through time. They are not separate.

              >you are not explaining why without applying energy objects fall ti the ground
              I did: it takes no energy for objects to move along "straight lines."

            • #167383
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >you are not explaining why without applying energy objects fall ti the ground
              There is no friction in a vacuum, dumbshit.

              If you accelerate something in space in keeps going at that speed forever until another force stops it. Things stop moving down here on Earth because of friction.

            • #167429
              Anonymous
              Guest

              There’s a reason why it’s called relativity, scrotebrain. Everything in spacetime is RELATIVE to one another, there is no universal coordinate system or special medium that everything is moving through, it’s simply due to differences in particular frames of reference and how they’re measured. You’re thinking too much in terms of Newtonian physics, which is great for generalizing the laws of physics in our frame of reference, but doesn’t take into account other frames of reference. Gravity is a pseudo-force that doesn’t require energy to accelerate objects, because objects aren’t really accelerating they’re only following the straightest possible path that they can take through spacetime which happens to be curved due to gravity.

              • #167431
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I can undestand gravity making objects go around an orbit because they try to follow the straightest possible path and space-time is curved.
                But that doesn’t explain why an apple falls to the ground.
                You can move through time without moving through space. So an object doesn’t need to take any path through space as time passes unless it was already moving.
                And if the rotation of earth is what makes things move but then their trayjectory is redirected downguards due to gravity, then shouldn’t objects move at least a little horizontaly before falling down?

                • #167432
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >you can move through time without moving through space
                  Again, you’re thinking in terms of Newtonian physics. Space and time are not separate things, they are one thing, spacetime. Moving through time means moving through space and vice versa.
                  >And if the rotation of earth is what makes things move but then their trayjectory is redirected downguards due to gravity, then shouldn’t objects move at least a little horizontaly before falling down?
                  No because they’re in our frame of reference, the apple, us, and the earth are all moving in the same frame of reference, hence when you drop an apple it appears to be falling straight, but it would appear to move horizontally with the direct that the earth was spinning in another reference frame.

                  • #167434
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    How does time passing make things move through space?

                    • #167435
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Things move through spacetime, because they’re relative to one another.

                      • #167436
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What are you saying, that between the apple and the ground the spacetime shrinks or something like that? Otherwise idk what you guys mean when you say things move cus relativity.

        • #167379
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Because we are in a non-inertial frame of reference, so that kind of autonomous acceleration can exist within our frame.

          • #167380
            Anonymous
            Guest
            • #167384
              Anonymous
              Guest

              An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion only holds in certain frames of reference. If I myself am driving and start accelerating, from my POV objects seem to autonomously accelerate in the direction opposite to me – this happens because the frame where I am accelerating is not an inertial frame. A similar concept applies in general relativity with the special feature that for curved spacetimes there are no inertial frames period.

      • #167413
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Spacetime is curved*
        Since objecs on a spacetime manifold will move forward among a timelike geodesic unless acted on by an externall force, if the spacetime manifold is flat, there won’t be an acceleration between the two objects.
        But say instead that spacetime is curved, objects will "accelerate" (with respect to eachother) without any force acting on them.
        The sphere analogy given earlier by is pretty good

    • #167374
      Anonymous
      Guest

      anon look up the definition of geodesic to understand it

    • #167377
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >However, objects are CONSTANTLY attracted to it. Which implies a constant energy.
      please be bait. in case it isn’t i have two words that describe gravity both in newton and relativity. INVERSE SQUARE

    • #167382
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because it’s a model and not a divine truth injected into a perfect mind.

      All models are wrong, some models are useful.

      You are a dumb scrote and I wish you harm.

      • #167395
        Anonymous
        Guest

        explain it righ now i bet you know nothing, and dont go on wikipedia now scrote

    • #167385
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >constant force implies constant energy
      So a spring under compression is constantly producing energy? (Spoiler: no.)
      Go and learn some freaking BASIC physics before you come here spouting nonsense criticism of theories you don’t understand. I genuinely wish you the best of luck in learning physics, just please stop being scrotebrained.

      • #167394
        Anonymous
        Guest

        a spring under compression does nothing
        gravity is constantly attracting stuff

        • #167396
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >a spring under compression does nothing
          >gravity is constantly attracting stuff
          anon can you tell me what is force and what is energy? what do you think gravity is?

          • #167397
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Seems to me like its a way for scientists to cope and not admit that infinite energy exists.
            To apply a force, an amount of energy is required and gravity is constantly working therefore its constantly extracting energy form somewhere to keep it up.

            • #167400
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >the absolute state of american education
              we literally learned this in primary school here.

    • #167388
      Anonymous
      Guest

      there is literal photographic evidence you’re a brainlet

      • #167430
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >evidence
        I know a hollowed out Dyson sphere when I see one. How could a Dyson sphere even exist if gravity were a real thing. Don’t be so stupid.

    • #167398
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why do things orbit?
      >cos they follow a straight line curved by space-time

      why do stuff fall to earth here on earth then?
      >cos gravity is a continuous pull

      wait didn’t you say it was just a space-tiem curvature? now you say its a continuos pull? which one is it?
      >I, uuuh… hahaha lmao

      They have taken us for fools.

      • #167399
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Glad to see there are more and more people who realize scientists don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.
        Everything they say is full of contradictions and holes.

      • #167402
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >why do stuff fall to earth here on earth then?
        cos they follow a straight line curved by space-time

        • #167404
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You scrotes said that they only follow a straight line if they were already moving

          • #167405
            Anonymous
            Guest

            every object is "already moving". it’s moving through space-time.

            • #167406
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Like how our solar system is moving around the galaxy?

              • #167407
                Anonymous
                Guest

                everything. a stationary object is also moving through the 4-dimensional spacetime, it just means that its trajectory is orthogonal to the 3-dimensional slice that you perceive as "the present".

            • #167414
              Anonymous
              Guest

              but why would it have to move in space just because it’s moving in the time dimension? Things in euclidean space can be stationary, why can’t things be stationary even in the curved space?

              • #167415
                Anonymous
                Guest

                every object is moving through spacetime, whether this object is stationary or not in "space" depends on the observer. this true already in classical mechanics, driver of a car perceives the moving car as stationary.

              • #167416
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Because time is also curved, think of a sphere where the latitude represents time and the longitude represents space, objects will natrually get closer as time increases.

                • #167418
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Not the guy you’ve been talking to but this analogy finally helped me get it. Thank you.
                  I think part of the difficulty in conveying this topic is things like OPs image inherently make people think “3D space” without time involved to the degree that it is.

                • #167422
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Because time is also curved,
                  >What is entropy

    • #167401
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I hate this board

    • #167403
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Where does that constant energy come from?
      Neither gravity nor electromagnetism have the answer to where do they come from, it’s unknown.

    • #167408
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Space does not curve indefinitely towards the object of greater mass, but only once.

      • #167409
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >objects in space suck space-time indefinetely
        >but space is limited

        Well, which one is it söyence fan?

        • #167410
          Anonymous
          Guest

          He’s right, your statements make no sense at all. Go take some physics classes.

          • #167411
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >didn’t answer

            • #167412
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >>sjhefkjshfekjes
              >>bykjscbjdlawd
              >well, which one is it?
              how to answer this type of question?

              • #167417
                Anonymous
                Guest

                It’s literally what other people here have told me.
                It seems like you guys can’t even come to an agreement among yourselves.

            • #167426
              Anonymous
              Guest

              she’s literally me

    • #167419
      Anonymous
      Guest

      ok non scrotebrained question here. how tf is space time quantized and smoothly curved at the same time??????

      • #167420
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >space time quantized
        another non scrotebrain question: what does it even mean for spacetime to be quantized? here is what does it "mean" for spacetime to be smoothly curved: spacetime is a 4-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold with a non-zero curvature tensor. what does it "mean" to be quantized?

        • #167421
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >another non scrotebrain question: what does it even mean for spacetime to be quantized

          The model "spacetime" is the quantification. For what…they can’t even explain because it assume "time" and "space" are a dimension/have properties to be measured.

          >here is what does it "mean" for spacetime to be smoothly curved: spacetime is a 4-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold with a non-zero curvature tensor. what does it "mean" to be quantized?

          Basically from what I’ve gathered when they speak of it, it’s geomancy of "geometry" itself. Which is funny because geometry can’t even be accurately described with math in the first place…and yet somehow it’s "quantized".

        • #167423
          Anonymous
          Guest

          quantized means all sizes of spacetime are integer times smallest quantity possible. in other words discrete rather than continuous. smoothly curved means it’s continuous and differentiable everywhere.

    • #167424
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s a theory, anon. Not a fact. We know what theos in theory means. Either belive it blindly or don’t belive it at all.

    • #167425
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I know youre a schizo so you wont actually read this. You are moving through time, gravity warps space time to turn part of that temporal velocity into spatial velocity but its magnitude is still the same.

      • #167427
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >gravity warps space time
        Wrong, please get off and go back to /pol if you cant understand all the nuances

    • #167433
      Anonymous
      Guest
Viewing 19 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.