The old 2D paper describing 3D curvature is a little lame because it uses gravity to describe gravity. You know, the little ball circling the 2D psuedo-black hole, well remove gravity and the ball would fly off the 2D paper, you cant use gravity to describe gravity. It would be like saying 1=1 because 1=1. Proving your answer with the question.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

How else can you visualize shortened distances, even in 2D. Has anyone else been bothered by that before?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Does anybody have a better analogy of describing space-time curvature?

Loading...

Similar Threads for Does anybody better | Date |
---|---|

A When does the Minkowski metric get non-zero off-diagonals? | Monday at 8:49 AM |

I Why does bent space set objects in motion? | Apr 4, 2018 |

B Does the speed of light change? | Mar 30, 2018 |

B Does gravitational mass also change with velocity? | Mar 28, 2018 |

Can anybody suggest any books, journals, or webs on antigravity? | Nov 9, 2013 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**