I have been reading a book on hyperspace and again the author has gone back over EINSTEIN,s space gravity thing. And i have this problem that reoccur,s everytime this happens which is many times over many years and its this. All the authors seem to be saying that when a planet gets to the dip or slope in the sheet(this is the cannon ball in the miidle of a sheet thing)and goes over the edge it has done this becuase its following warped space .Now it is the "it has done it because" that i am unsure. Which one they are suggesting it is. 1. It is really following a track like scalextric track that is in space or a force that again is in or is space. 2. Now this is the one i think they are trying to say is whats happening but i dont buy it.It is that the planet is some how just rolling over the edge and starts to roll down "because (and this is the bit that gets me)" thats what happens on earth now thats the way it would happen if you rolled a ball across a sheet with a dip in it.this would be using our pre exsiting ideas of what gravity is to illustrate Einsteins gravity. this is surely wrong. Also in the idea "planets are following a track which is in space or is space" ,i still have a thing i dislike we have gotten rid of gravitons with Einsteins gravity but have replaced it with something else that has to be found. the tracks or force of what is changing the direction of the planet. And when you think that the gravitons where controlled by the mass .Now what do we find "space" is CONTROLLED BY MASS but really when we say space we mean the tracks or whatever it is .If you notice these 2 ideas tracks in space and gravitons both controlled by mass one is seperate from space the other is space.they become almost the same thing.Its ok, but with these books the authors seem to suggest we have got rid of the need for a force and the geometery of space deals with it.I dont see it.Can someone set me straight.