/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6876239

representing gravity in three dimensions is hard work

>>6876244
>>6876243
Sorry, I meant to ask if there was another reason other than to simplify it. If >>6876243
is correct, should the plane be warped towards the center of an object, instead of under it?

>>6876246
Yes

>>6876246
Sure, why would it be under it? Gravity is a central force, it can be considered to acts directly on the center of mass fpr any object at great distances, when there are no tidal forces. Also when one of the object is much smaller than the other. It acts through a line linking the 2 objects. But this is my newtons level of knowledge, if you want a relativity class, you will have to ask someone else here.

>>6876239
what you're seeing in your pic is the gravity potential plotted as a function of the distance from a massive body (in this case earth, which is also slapped square in the middle of the drawing for giggles)
the resulting figure is a surface who's gradient at any point represents gravitational acceleration

I still don't understand what's the point of spacetime. Why can't it just be space?

>>6876239
Because it's really fucking difficult to imagine 4 dimensions. Usually one space dimension is cut out and time is put in its place.

>>6876841
Because they're the same

>>6876246
>instead of under it?
What is under it?

Like if you have a sphere in space how do you define under?

>>6876243

I love this graphic

>>6876908

he's asking about representing spacetime visually.

the plane that is spacetime wouldn't just be under the mass in 3d

>>6876239
because albert was a lazy faggot and smoked weed he made up stupid things with thought experiments

>>6878593
underrated post

>>6876239
have you ever tried to draw empty space?