Einstein's theory of gravity is so fake dude

[Owner No.12515407]

Oh but things fall in the space-time geometry.

WHY THE FUCK DOEST IT FALL? THE QUESTION IS THE SAME OF THE BEGINNING, WHY DO THINGS FALL?

Oh hur durr if falls because of geometry.

Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.12515412]

>>12515407
Nothing falls you fucking brainlet. It's a 2 dimensional analogy. Objects travel along geodesics.

[Owner No.12515419]

>>12515412

WHY DOEST IT TRAVEL? WHY DOES IT MOVE YOU FUCKING CATTLE? FUCKING SHEEP

[Anonymous No.12515446]

>>12515419
Go read a book, you fucking rube!

[Anonymous No.12515452]

>>12515419
science doesn't tell you why something happens, it only describes how things happen. so we can describe the 4 fundamental forces perfectly well using fundamental particles, but we can't say "why" the fundamental particles exist. the point of science isn't to eliminate the "why" but to simply move the "why" further away

[Anonymous No.12515453]

>>12515419
>>12515446
To expand on that, science doesn't ask "why", it asks "how". We create predictive and descriptive models based upon observation and experimentation. "Why" is the domain of humanities, like philosophy, because it is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.12515457]

Plato's realm.

[Anonymous No.12515460]

>>12515407
how can gravity be so weak, yet its influence extend so far?

[Anonymous No.12515462]

>>12515460
There is a lot of mass.

[Anonymous No.12515469]

>>12515407
The best way to understand curved space-time is Einstein's way in 1907. Imagine all of space is filled with clocks which are held in place, but they need tick at different rates in order to stay simultaneous with each other. Near a massive object, the clocks tick slowly, away from masses, they tick faster.

Particles travel through space so that they locally take the path of maximum time between fixed endpoints, so that between endpoints which are close to a massive object, their path curves out a little, meaning that they are bent toward the massive object.

This is a statement of the Einstein 1907 theory of gravity, which he knew then would be the weak field, slow velocity approximation to Genera Relativity. It is counterintuitive for a few reasons:

1. In geometry, straight line paths are minimum distance. In relativity the path is a local maximum. This is a consequence of the minus sign in the Pythagorean theorem in relativity. In relativity, unlike in geometry, the sum of the length of two legs of a triangle (when these are not imaginary) is always less than the third, so that straight lines maximize proper time.
2. There is only one function which describes the curving of space time, and this is the clock rate. The curvature is determined by this clock rate, but it is purely a time curvature. Space is not curved at all.
3. The geodesic motion is not trivial to see from the clock-rate description. You might naively think that to maximize the proper time you need to move away from massive objects, because time ticks slower near them. But the maximization is holding the endpoints fixed. To give an equation of motion without the concept of maximum proper time, you can just say that objects feel a force of attraction towards regions of slower clock-tick, and leave it at that. But this doesn't look like a geometrical condition (although it is).

I don't believe that there are two pictures of a phenomenon, one for laymen and a separate one for physicists.

[Anonymous No.12515470]

>>12515469
[math] \mathbf{Two~dimensional~relativistic~gravity} [/math]
For the two dimensional gravity, with point masses, there is a nice description which can be understood immediately. Two dimensional point masses are parallel strings moving perpendicular to the direction of motion in 3d plus time, but these strings are like pencils of light, not stationary line-masses, they are relativistic along their direction of motion. You need to have a relativistic momentum density on the strings for them to reduce to the simple limit of 2+1 gravity.

In this limit, the strings are described by 2+1 graity. The point masses in 2+1 gravity are described by cutting out a wedge from a two dimensional paper representing space-time, and gluing it back to form a cone. This description is exact - this is what the space-time around a relativistic cosmic strings looks like. The space is called locally flat, because if you draw a least distance line it will be straight after unrolling the paper, so that the only curvature is that which can be seen from outside, not to a flat fellow living inside the paper. There is only intrinsic curvature at the tip of the cone, proportional to the deficit angle, the angular size of the wedge. This is is the mass of the string.

[Anonymous No.12515472]

>>12515470
If you imagine a particle coming in from infinity, it travels in a straight line along the cone, but it comes out deflected in a certain way. This is easiest to see by taking two parallel lines coming in on opposite sides of the cone point - they will intersect each other.

If you make a double-cone by cutting out two wedges, to make a slushie-shape after gluing. The paper is still locally flat, but if you draw two straight lines, the line passing between the cones will intersect the other lines. A collection of n stationary cone points describes an equilibrium stationary configuration of 2d gravity.

If you set the cone points in motion, and add some points with negative curvature which evolve in a specific way (their curvature in the 3d sense is still zero) you get t'Hooft's description of 2+1 gravity, which is an active research subject today.

[Anonymous No.12515496]

>>12515469
>>12515470
>>12515472
How does one attain such an exquisite knowledge and understanding of physics? Follow t'Hooft's curriculum?
>https://www.goodtheorist.science

[Anonymous No.12515505]

>>12515419
>FUCKING CATTLE? FUCKING SHEEP

[Anonymous No.12515513]

>>12515505
I think he's trying to describe "herd mentality", or "swarm behavior", but doing a shit job of it.

[Anonymous No.12517753]

>>12515419
When standing on a planet, time passes at a faster rate above your head then it does below your feet.. or slower below your feet then it does above your head.. depending on how you think about it.

If you stepped off a high place , your lower parts are anchored in 'thicker' time and everything takes longer the thicker time gets.
So every subatomic particle that exists over time slows down just a tiny bit as it takes longer to 'move' in spacetime with higher gravity (thicker time), this includes all the momentum of the particls.

Momentum in the direction away from the stronger gravity has more time to travel through the object and bounce back when it reaches an edge like a reflecting wave. Momentum traveling towards the stronger gravity gets trapped longer.
By the time the momentum reflects again off the bottom end the object has moved toward the stronger gravity into even thicker time due to having more momentum in that direction.
This effect compounds over time and you keep accelerating.

Best way I can think of explaining it...

[Anonymous No.12519015]

>>12515496
that's a good one

[Anonymous No.12519390]

>>12515407
General relativity says time goes slower closer to massive objects. So if an object moves through a gravity field the closer bits go slower than the farther bits, so it turns inwards.

[Anonymous No.12519397]

>>12515407
I have a suggestion: finish high school, go to college, find it out yourself.

[Anonymous No.12519398]

>>12515469
>>12515470
>>12515472
i didn't understand any of this

[Anonymous No.12519448]

>>12517753
Damn bro i really like your wording. Made me think stuff about gravity and electromagnetism and thier relationship in a way i hadn't thunk before.