drew this up. this is basically how gravity works yeah?

Duh? Did you just want to hear the reverbs in your echo chamber?

>>8479521
Gravity is caused by all energy, not just matter

>>8479542
yes

Idiot here. Never really got this, is it time and space their own later of fabric. Or are they considered as one?

>>8479913
Space time is actually the time necessary to process one reactor volume of a fluid, given a particular set of entrance conditions. You use a set of design equations to relate space time to fractional conversion and the other properties of the reactor. Different design equations have been derived for different types of the reactor and depending on the reactor the equation more or less resemble that describing the average residence time. Often design equations are used to minimize the reactor volume or volumetric flow rate required to operate a reactor. You can use a Batch Reactor, a PFR, or CSTRs.

-exhales weed-

That would be 2D my friend. What with having an X and a Y axis and all.

yep, now post it to facebook to get those coveted "likes"

>>8479542
I had a professor use a link to an image someone from /sci/ drew up on Warosu as reference material once. Maybe someone will use this anon's image as reference material.

>>8479521
Yeah, just in more than two dimensions. But it's a good way to wrap your head around it I guess.

plz help a retard understand, why do you start at the top of y-axis and not the bottom? wouldn't it just be zero until matter intervened with it?

>>8480058
So he could draw it better, it's just a shitty sketch too, not a real graph with units.

And the position of the y-axis doesn't need to be at 0, it's just more convenient to put it there most of the time.

>>8480208
x-axis*

>>8479521

its wrong.

why would it spiral in? where's the energy going?

>>8479521
Yeah except the black hole isn't small at the bottom of its hole, it's really big. So big that the fabric folds into itself at a point. That point is the black hole.whats on the other side of a black hole is just the item and probably a little bit of space.

>>8479521
Why are the dents for star, neutron star and black hole different sizes? They should all be the same.

>>8479521

>caught by gravity

And thus you've demonstrated that you have no fucking clue what GR is.

Nothing is caught by anything. Masses (and any form of energy for that matter, see gravitational lensing or just fucking look at what the stress-energy-momentum tensor is actually describing) move in perfectly straight lines, just as Newton's first law says. The only difference is that the definition of what a "straight line" is depends entirely on the metric and curvature of your spacetime manifold.

>>8479521
>Matter tells space-time how to curve
>Space-time tells matter how to move
You can't just repeat what other people say verbatim and think you've suddenly magically understood something, you do realize that right?

>>8480786
I can however take the quoted phrases and attempt to visually represent what they mean to the best of my understanding.

>>8480782
I'll need to look into this. I've always heard the term "caught in gravity." I should brush up on newtonian laws and general relativity. I'm a science hobbiest more than anything, no professor to be certain. I understand that two objects orbiting each other are affected each other's space and time and have a "center axis" they both orbit around, I.E. a binary star system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star

>>8480427
A neutron star/black hole is a large amount of matter compressed into a tiny area, therefore their gravity is enormous. https://youtu.be/RrMvUL8HFlM?t=3m32s

>>8480216
Elaborate? I'm picturing an object spiraling towards a large gravitational pull before crashing into it. But looking at extreme elliptical orbits, I feel like I have missed something.

>>8479926
Space and time are only on the horizontal axis of the graph (1D) smartass.

I get that the picture is rough but FWIW, I don't see any attempt to explain how gravity works.

>>8481005
>are affected each other's space and time
What exactly do you think you mean by this?

>A neutron star/black hole is a large amount of matter compressed into a tiny area, therefore their gravity is enormous.

I'm not sure where you see mass density coming into play here - it's total mass that counts. Anon was pointing out things which are denser are by no means necessarily more massive.

>an object spiraling towards a large gravitational pull before crashing into it.
If we're talking gravity here then it's a conservative force -- the reason things spiral out of orbit is non-conservative forces, such as drag forces. Gravity won't make you spiral in.

>>8481005
>matter compressed into a tiny area, therefore their gravity is enormous
Like >>8481032 says: density does not affect gravity at all. A black hole will have the exact same mass and gravity as the star it used to be.
For example if our sun would (and could) collapse into one, the planets and everything else wouldnt be affected by it (save for the energy released during the process of collapsing) and would stay in their orbits.

If anything the dents in your graph should be steeper for neutron star and black hole, but the same depth as the star.

>>8481027
And we live in a (x,y,z) world, friendo

>>8481416
(-,+,+,+) Friendo

>>8481423
Get that disgusting looking inverted Minkowski metric out of my sight.