/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5590290
make a series of cubes out of chicken wire, attached to a ball in the center (which is attached to a stick). When ready, twist the stick.

Enjoyment of science ensues.

>>5590294
>Enjoyment of science ensues
I came

>>5590294
>>5590298
So the curvature of space is /sci/'s porn?

>>5590290
>>5590294

Nice one but I would have basically imagined it as a "fog". Wherever gravitational field is higher, the fog is thicker. So basically close to the earth there is thick fog everywhere, and outside the solar system very thin fog, nealy impoerceptable.

>>5590312
in this case you'll need to find a way to shrink the ball the chicken wire is attached to.

>>5590290
its hard without having 1 dimension representing time.

It might look something like the first image that comes up when you google "3d spacetime curvature"

>>5590290
lol...

why dont you ask what a 3d object would look like on a 2d plane

USELESS!

So how does a black hole look, represented in a 3D wireframe?

>>5590398
but that's actually quite useful for beginning to understand the principles of dimension

>>5590290

you can't see curvature of space due to gravity only in 3 dimensions. You can only see it's projection.

The picture you have is the closest you're going to get in 3D, and it's still not right.

>>5590398
You can look at the intersection of a 3d object with the plane.

>>5590290
Like a clsuterfuck of lines and diferently sized cubes. We use the "curved paper" thing to amerilards understand.

>>5590398

>>5590578

that's different than what's being talked about here.

in your example, you have 2 functions of two parameters that are being looked at in a 3 space.

in the example of gravity, we have a 2 three paramteter functions in 4 space. no matter how you try to intersect or water it down, you can't see the actual structure of the gravity well because we can't see in 4D

>>5590601
5 dimensions isn't sufficient anyway. It works for certain highly symmetric curved spacetimes such as Robertson-Walker cosmology but for Schwarzschild you need something like 6 or 7, and for general spacetimes, you need many more. Imagining spacetime curvature as being due to extra dimensions isn't all that useful in general.

>>5590588
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT DEAR GOD I CANT BREATHE AND HAVE LOST ALL ABILITY TO USE PUNCTUATION

>>5590765
its a cube.

>>5590290
take a piece of paper. the face of the paper is 2d and flat. cut a V out of the piece of paper and fold it into a cone. draw a circle around the cone, and then draw arrows on that line all point in the same direction with the paper still in cone shape. then unfold the piece of paper. thats the representation in 2d, I'll leave you to consider the same effects applied to higher dimensions.

>>5590588
This is ultimately three-dimensional and useless towards your implied argument.

>>5590290
It would look like the attached image.

>>5590548
The same as image but ridiculously exaggerated with a ridiculously massive area of effect representing the event horizon.

>>5590778
again, this is not the same as what's being explained in GR. it's "good enough" but it doesn't really help you understand what's going on

>>5590858
that still doesn't answer his question

>>5590290
Damn OP. I was pretty sure I had an image like that. Sorry.

>>5590864
GR is about intrinsic curvature, and her post was an illustration of intrinsic curvature. It's not quite the same only in that she has the curvature concentrated at a point, and is working in 2D.

GR is awesome