B But how does something start moving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Line_112
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of motion and the curvature of space in the context of general relativity (GTR). One viewpoint argues that curvature is merely geometry and does not exert force, suggesting that a body at rest remains so unless acted upon by an external force. The distinction between space and spacetime is emphasized, noting that all objects are in constant motion through time. An example illustrates how an object can move downward due to spacetime curvature, countering the initial claim. The thread concludes by highlighting that misunderstandings of established scientific concepts often stem from overlooking critical aspects, such as the time component in spacetime.
Line_112
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
In my opinion, the curvature of space is geometry, not force. Geometry determines the path along which a body will move, regardless of its speed. It is no coincidence that the theory of relativity speaks of the geometry of space. That is, if we proceed from the general theory of relativity, then a body caught in the curvature of space will simply change its trajectory of motion, regardless of how fast it moves. And if it is initially motionless, then it will remain so. In reality, bodies begin to move vertically downwards, even if we do not push them. Their trajectory is calculated based on the fact that this is a force directed vertically downwards. The curvature of space itself cannot push a body, let alone vertically downwards. Therefore, it seems to me that GTR is devoid of logical meaning and contradicts basic concepts.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy, Dale, Motore and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
Line_112 said:
In my opinion, the curvature of space is geometry, not force. Geometry determines the path along which a body will move, regardless of its speed. It is no coincidence that the theory of relativity speaks of the geometry of space. That is, if we proceed from the general theory of relativity, then a body caught in the curvature of space will simply change its trajectory of motion, regardless of how fast it moves. And if it is initially motionless, then it will remain so. In reality, bodies begin to move vertically downwards, even if we do not push them. Their trajectory is calculated based on the fact that this is a force directed vertically downwards. The curvature of space itself cannot push a body, let alone vertically downwards. Therefore, it seems to me that GTR is devoid of logical meaning and contradicts basic concepts.
In general relativity it is not space but spacetime that is curved. The distinction is crucial because is nothing is motionless in spacetime; we are always moving forward in time at the rate of one second per second.

An excellent illustration of how an object (in this case, an apple) that is motionless in space will start moving vertically downwards as a result of spacetime curvature is(credit to our member @A.T.)

As this thread is based on a misconception about the theory, it is closed.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes L Drago and DaveC426913
Line_112 said:
it seems to me that GTR is devoid of logical meaning and contradicts basic concepts
Just a word of advice. Any time you think something like this of an established scientific discipline, you can immediately know that you are missing something.

In this case you were missing the time part of spacetime. But the point is that scientists are not idiots. We can be wrong, but the ways that we are wrong are much more subtle than this type of criticism.
 
  • Like
Likes L Drago, haushofer, ersmith and 6 others
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
130
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K