Re: on bending of space time


"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmimek$rhm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:iPRif.2090$4o7.1886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> fuzzlogic wrote:
>> > I find all the textbooks showing spacetime as a 2D plane and the heavy
>> > objects bending it.
>>
>> That is a mere ANALOGY. For instance, it cannot possibly "explain"
>> gravitation, because it requires gravity to make the heavy objects bend
>> the "rubber ***".
>>
>>
>> > but how does this be interpreted in the real 3D world?
>>
>> It needs to be applied in 4D spaceTIME. The word "curvature" is really a
>> metaphor, or rather, a technical word with a specific meaning not
>> applicable to our everyday lives (unless you are a physicist (:-)).
>>
>> The justification for using this term is that mathematically what is
>> called "curvature" in N-dimensional manifolds has a direct relationship
>> to the local radius of curvature for a 2d surface.
>>
>> To understand this requires some modest amount of study. I suggest:
>>
>> Geroch, _General_Relativity_from_A_to_B_. This is a
>> non-mathematical introduction to the concepts of GR.
>>
>> Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Curvature of space is not a metaphor. It is a correct description of
> reality. But space time is a metaphor. It is a wrong explanation.
>

Since it is fully in accord with all experimental evidence your claim lacks
any foundation.

Bill

>
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
>
>


.