How does general relativity explain why objects fall toward Earth?

[aachenmann]

1. How would a general relativist explain why an object falls towards the earth?

2. Is it correct to say that it is not the apple that falls towards the Earth but it is the Earth that accelerates towards the apple? Why is this ok to say?

 

[pervect]

The apple follows a geodesic path through space-time. One way o describing the mathematical characteristics of this path is to say that it satisfies the principle of extremal aging.

see for instance http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/extrem.aging.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf

and look for past PF posts with this keyword.

2) The question is really irrelevant in GR - it doesn't matter which viewpoint you use.

 

[A.T.]

Why are you asking the same questions again and again?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=219282

 

[pmb_phy]

1. How would a general relativist explain why an object falls towards the earth?

Science does not explain, it describes. To say that it explains leads one into a logical circle.

2. Is it correct to say that it is not the apple that falls towards the Earth but it is the Earth that accelerates towards the apple? Why is this ok to say?

What accelerates is actually doing the acceleration is a coordinate dependent statement. Once you choose a coordinate system you can state whose coordinates in that system represents an accelerating object. Here I speak of 3-acceleration since the 4-acceleration of each object, i.e. Earth and apple, is zero.

Pete

 

[cristo]

Since the OP is no longer with us, there seems no point in keeping this thread open.