>Einstein showed that gravity was not actually a force but

>>8767734
>curvature in spacetime

gravity causes gravity, wow brilliant

>>8767747
mass causes curvature which causes "gravity"

>>8767753
>which causes "gravity"
>which IS "gravity"

>>8767759
same difference

so if gravity isnt a force then how can it make things move? If i put in object on a not-flat table then it will move because of gravity. Curvature itself doesnt cause something to gain momentum.

>>8767763
the same way an accelerating space shuttle applies a force on the astronauts when in motion

>>8767734
>"hurry durr you are dumb because you think of gravity as a force and because you don't think outside the norm like muh Einstein"

You tell yourself that when you're carrying out calculations in your undergrad and high school courses. Try to design a rocket without the use of forces.

Let's see how well you can describe the motion of a falling object using spacetime curvature.

The curvature conjecture is just for theoretical physicists (people who work with imaginary things) to try to understand something they don't see. It's just a metaphor. The human mind will never be able to imagine a 4D space.

The force conjecture is widely used by physicists and scientists because it is what has real life applications.

Engineering master race.

>>8767734
Came across this a few months ago. Should answer your question.
https://www.quora.com/If-gravity-is-caused-by-curved-spacetime-how-do-gravitons-fit-in

>>8767760
Not really. A => statement is not the same as a <=> statement.

>>8767778
>The human mind will never be able to understand a 4D space.
Just because you can't doesn't mean everyone else lacks imagination.

>>8767763
It can't make things move.

>>8767734
>he fell for the force meme

>>8767734
>static
Not all solutions of the EFEs are static. In fact non-static solutions are required for gravitational waves.

>not actually a force
Nice meme. But seriously fictitious forces are just as real as any other force, just because it's an artifact of the coordinate system doesn't change that.

>modern physicists still call gravity a force
Because it is.

>and are looking for a force carrying particle
Yes, all other field theories have a quantum analog, there's no reason to suspect that gravity wouldn't.

Read less pop-sci, read more physics.

>>8767849
i like to keep an open mind but common till now we don't have understand what another dimension would be like.

>>8767778
kys.

>>8767734
>theorems
>proven to be correct
>then why theorem?

>>8767734
>>Einstein showed that gravity was not actually a force
> was not actually a force
nice try einstein

you are all just arguing over the english. the 'force' of gravity is a tensor. if you multiply this tensor by the basis vector, you get 'curved space'. mathematically they are equivalent.
the real reason this myth sticks around is because gravity affects photons, which are massless particles. and we have no idea why.

>>8767734
Because particle physicists are a bunch of dumb cunts who've arbitrarily decided that everything *obviously* must function that way.


>>8767763
Equivalence - there's no physical difference between 'gravitation' and 'acceleration'.

What we think of as a gravitational force is just the pseudoforce resulting from being in a non-inertial reference frame.

>>8767734
>>Einstein showed that gravity was not actually a force but merely a result of curvature in spacetime caused by objects with mass
How?

>>8767794
You're a dick. You obviously understand what he means, so why do you feel the need to point out his semantical errors and ignore his question?
You pretty much sum up the essence op 90% of /sci/

>>8768611
A tensor is a mathematical concept. Using it in this discussion is like saying Newtons power your car. Maybe technically correct, but cnceptually useless.

>>8767778
Treating gravity as a force for applied calculations is fine, but we're talking about physics, not engineering.

>>8767778
>dude who cares about scientific truth look at these sick applications of this questionably correct approach!

>>8768780
Treating gravity as a curvature is a unprovable belief.

If gravity is due curved space, how come it also affects standstill objects?

>>8768775
No, that's the essence of 100% of the internet as a whole

>>8768850
The propensity for an object to travel along a geodesic still affects objects which are being kept from moving by some force.

>>8768850
>>8768874
To clarify, your question is like asking how gravity can be affecting objects which are standing still, since gravity means the objects must move towards mass.

>>8768881
But space shrinks only once and that impulce applied to all objects inside that space only once.

>>8768611
Bla Bla.. In EFEs you multiply the stress energy tensor with a constant (8piG) not the basis vectors. And as an anon before me wrote, tensors are just useful mathematical objects for working in general relativity. It's like saying gravity is an equation.

>>8767763
>the very fabric of reality is curved around and inside me, the source of which lies somewhere beneath my feet
>why do things fall down???

>>8767734
The other fundamental forces can be seen as a "connection" along with gravity. In this way they are both forces.

>>8768874
The geodesic should be that point. It shouldnt move. You are all wrong. You dont know GR, popsci fags

>>8768611
>the real reason this myth sticks around is because gravity affects photons, which are massless particles. and we have no idea why.
Seems kind of obvious to me. Spacetime's curvature affects photons the same way a leaning road makes a car curve. One would only assume mass is exclusive in effect if you treat gravity as a force rather than just curvature of space. Forces interact with other forces, gravity just bends anything.

>>8767763
It can't make things move. The table made it move.

>>8767734
how does spacetime get curved?

Objects and fields interact through carrier particles, so it's not stupid to look for a carrier in the case of gravity.

>>8767763
If you could visualize spacetime curvature, the only "movement" you would see is from the table altering the path of the ball, which just wants to fall into the center of the earth if no forces were to act upon it, but either the table or the ground would probably stop it with electromagnetism unless the ball was sufficiently dense.

>>8770863

The canonical force carrier for gravitation (predicted by the standard model) can not exist mathematically as proven by some two guys in some paper that I forgot. If it did exist, it would be way different than anyone can think of right now.

>>8767734
It's a "force" in equations, as it requires a vector to account for its effects. Like centrifugal "force." It's only a "force" in nomenclature.

>>8770800
Can you explain?

I thought the current hypothesis being thrown around is that it is like a particle (only extremely hard to detect). If it were wouldn't that suggest an attraction between it and objects with a lot of mass (normal particles) ? Does the table really have a choice of moving?

>>8771793
nothing has a choice, idiot

Because Einstein was a jew

It's all electricity

>>8767734
>merely a result of curvature in spacetime caused by objects with mass
The way I think of it is that the space between any two objects with mass always wants to contract infinitely. Why? Damned if I know.

>>8771797
I was using the example anon provided brainlet. Take your autism/asperger's somewhere else.

>>8768775
when you do something at a high level, small semantic errors can really mess everything up. you wouldn't say the higgs field IS mass but you would say that it causes mass

>>8768611
>gravity affects photons
The photons are not interacting at all. They move in straight line, thats their MO. The straight line they travel is still straight, the space is warped.

>>8767734
>>Einstein showed that gravity can be usefully modeled as curved spacetime, as opposed to thinking about it as a "force."

ftfy

>>8768828
Nothing is really provable

>muh particles
Lel

>>8768611

>photons are massless

Wrong

What i don't understand is let say I'm a 250 lb American. I don't like burgers much but that isn't my point.

Now as I increase in speed close to the speed of light my mass increases. Now let us say I'm still under the speed of light but my mass is the same as the planet Earth. Let us call this X speed.

Now at X speed my curvature of space time is the same as the planet Earth. Which makes sense because we understand small black holes and very dense matter can have more mass even if smaller than a planet.

So Einstein said Mass and energy is the same. So the resting mass of Earth has the same potential energy as my kinetic energy at X speed.

And I lost my point. Sorry.

I'm gonna talk out of my ass but Einstein didn't have all the answers. We assume that Einstein is partially correct because of our locale events relating to gravity, But we really have no idea how it works on scales larger then our own solar system. That's the whole reason we have proposals for dark matter/energy is that fundamentally if what Einstein said relating to gravity and space time are true, Then a lot of phenomena in present day wouldn't make sense.

>>8767778
You idiot, people do calculations using GR every single day. The GPS in your phone wouldn't work without the corrections GR provides.

The calculations engineers do to make global positioning work are of Riemannian geometry. It's impossible to even formulate the Einstein field equation or its solutions without understanding that spacetime is curved! How do you even get a non-Euclidian metric without an associated curvature tensor or affine connection? The reason Einstein could even predict the perihelion shift of Mercury is because he had a full-fledged theory built on a geometric foundation, you lizard brained simpleton.

It's no good expecting people to imagine gravity as the result of spacetime curvature when no one offers an explanation as to why that curvature results in apparent force.
That's the problem with modern physics, if you want to understand it, you either have to find someone who isn't garbage at explaining things, or you have to do years of study in the relevant fields.

Einstein was right in that you're a fucking idiot if you can't explain your theory to a child, explaining things in a way most people can understand is completely underrated.
It's selfish to be good at learning but bad at teaching, it means you easily become the most knowledgable but make it harder for others to learn due to whatever you type/say being useless clutter obscuring better learning material.
Being good at teaching is something that can be learned, and if you don't yet have the ability to teach anything you know to basically anyone, learn to do it.

>>8772760
This.
So gravity is caused by mass curving spacetime. What does that mean? And why does it do that?

>>8767734
>Einstein showed that gravity was not actually a force but merely a result of curvature in spacetime caused by objects with mass
The question is how exactly that curvature is communicated. Nobody can be sure that there aren't more fundamental mechanics at work.

>modern physicists still call gravity a force ad are looking for a force carrying particle for gravity expecting it to somehow play along with the other forces
That's a very naive idea of research you have there mate. It's not like people are actively looking for gravitons and are blind to everything else why doing that. People have calculated the idea that gravitations might be yet another force in the context of QFT, but found out that it can't work like that. So I can assure you, physicists are very aware of the problems arising from the idea of gravitons, much more then you are.

>modern physicists still ascertain that time is somehow temporal and not an illusion
Lorentz symmetry is literally part of every single modern theory (that actually works).

>>8772719
>hurr durr my GPS meme
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm

>>8767849
Explain it, then

ITT: brainlets think they're smarter than Einstein

>>8767734
>modern physicist still call gravity a force
The reason for this is because modern physics standard model has been proven time/time. Standard model works, this is proven. Standard model is missing gravity, yes gravity is a thing in GR. Why is it missing? Too low of an energy. Particle accelerators can't find it because its trillionth of a trillionth times weaker than weak force on quantum scale.

Einstein's equations work fine for describing the celestial bodies. No one is disputing this. However on quantum scale, gravity's play is not yet explained due to limits of technology.

In any case, gravity plays through a quanta called graviton. There are few explanations on how to resolve this, one is to add tiny pocket dimensions, this is what superstring theory does. This works mathematically, superstring theory works in conjunction with standard model as well as GR. However testing it is a bit of pain, so it still remains in the realm of theoretical aspect.

>>8773733
>www.alternativephysics.org

>>8774151
the site name is fishy, but the explanation makes sense

>>8773974
Not the guy you replied to, but when I took lectures on GR the spacetime was illustrated as a 3D space with one spatial dimension suppressed, this makes it pretty intuitive

>>8774170
Yeah, I've seen the latex sheet analogy too

>>8773733
>>8774161
The explanation only makes sense in that it disproves the strawman of GPS the author made up. He completely ignores the relativistic corrections of the receiver.

>>8774186
I don't mean that

I'm talking about the standart way the causal past/future cone is illustrated in SR. One time axis and two spatial axis. For example particle falling into a black hole can be illustrated this way very well.

>>8774161
This one also makes sense

https://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

>>8774211
So spacetime diagrams?

>>8774231
Yep, that's as far as my intuition gets me
Not sure how you go about imagining Christoffels or Riemann/Ricci/Einstein tensors