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.
Also consant contraction of space-time would imply objects would fall inside eventually yet objects orbit around planets and stars and dont fall inside
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.
they do, though
look into hyperbolic geometry and go from there.
> non-Euclidean geometry
That's fantasy.
No, it's just not quantifiable.
>a magneto-optical effect is "gravity".
There's no "vacuum" period. If something is *in it* accelerating, it nullifies it being a "vacuum".
Name an "object at rest"
seems based
What are you trying to say OP? Photons are just regular particles with mass like everything else? Careful there....
>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
>noooo but what about muh double angle reflection??
Hmmm what if we apply the formula for kinetic energy to a photon? E = 1/2 mc^2
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.
Why when we throw a ball on earth it doesnt go in a straight line around the earth aswell?
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
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 homosexual)
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.
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.
Meant for
Because your a homosexual 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.
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?
All objects are moving through time. The curvature is in spacetime, not just space.
ok but why does moving through time implies movement at all? you are not explaining why without applying energy objects fall ti the ground
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."
>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.
Because we are in a non-inertial frame of reference, so that kind of autonomous acceleration can exist within our frame.
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.
anon look up the definition of geodesic to understand it
>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
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 Black person and I wish you harm.
explain it righ now i bet you know nothing, and dont go on wikipedia now homosexual
>constant force implies constant energy
So a spring under compression is constantly producing energy? (Spoiler: no.)
Go and learn some fricking 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 moronic.
a spring under compression does nothing
gravity is constantly attracting stuff
>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?
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.
there is literal photographic evidence you’re a brainlet