Spacetime and gravity: question about how they work together

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between spacetime and gravity, particularly in the context of orbital mechanics involving the Earth, Moon, and Sun. The initial poster questions how the "tilted ripple" of spacetime caused by the Earth affects the Moon's orbit, suggesting potential instability in its trajectory. Respondents clarify that the rubber sheet analogy, often used to visualize gravity, is a flawed representation of spacetime and does not accurately depict the dynamics of gravitational interactions. They emphasize that both the Earth and Moon orbit around their common center of mass, with the Moon's orbit being stable due to its velocity. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of understanding gravity and spacetime beyond simplistic models.
byrdawg
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have had this lingering curiosity for a while. I read through https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5732" thread a second ago and would like to kind of take it a step further on a tangent.

I have only read about gravity effects and space-time as such they are "fabric-like", and seen many picture as http://images.google.com/imgres?img...rg.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&start=42&um=1". Which to me is very easy to understand, but I have never seen this model with a secondary satellite.

Imagine our sun in the center and the Earth being the satellite in orbit, then the "ripple" in space-time that the Earth generates would be "inclined" or "tilted" as to that of the Suns "ripple". Now I am curious how this model encompasses the Moon. When the moon rounds the Earth towards the Sun the inertia and "downhill" momentum from the "tilted ripple" is not going to be the same as when the moon rounds the Earth away from the Sun ("uphill"). This would cause the Moon to rather trail into the Sun or Crash into the Earth.

I know the above is not correct, and that space-time is not actually an entity. Can someone set me straight on how the spacetime model woul encompass the moon orbiting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
byrdawg said:
I have only read about gravity effects and space-time as such they are "fabric-like", and seen many picture as http://images.google.com/imgres?img...rg.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&start=42&um=1". Which to me is very easy to understand,
This picture might be easy to understand but has little to do with the mass attraction model of General Relativity. The curved grid doesn't represent spacetime, just space. There is no time dimension shown there. See links in this post for better pictures:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2046692
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't take the stretchy fabric model very seriously. It is a weak and flawed analogy that is barely even suitable for pop-sci documentaries.
 
I think one thing people forget is that, In the Earth moon scenario, they are orbiting each other.
It's just that one party is significantly more massive than the other, so it doesn't get deflected as much.
Both the Earth and the moon orbit around their common center of gravity.

To see an example of this tie two masses together and throw them.
Similar masses like two tennis balls will swing around the center of the connecting string. If you make one a baseball, the center point of the spinning will be closer to the baseball. If you make the baseball a bowling ball, the center point will be inside the bowling ball, but not at the center of the bowling ball.

The rubber sheet analogy is usefull in that it demonstrates how a vector is changed by a mass. The closer you get to a mass the more you are affected by its 'funnel'. The moon is actually falling to earth, but because it is moving at a rate perpendicular to the surface of the Earth at a speed similar to how fast it is falling, it never hits the earth.

Take a cannon ball.
If you drop it it falls at a certain speed.
If you fire it out of a cannon perpendicular to the ground, it will fall at the same speed, but will hit the Earth a distance away because of the sideways acceleration.
If you fire the cannon ball fast enough, the rate it will travel far enough around the Earth that the curve of the Earth will drop as fast as the cannon ball does.
If you fire it faster than that the Earth will drop away faster than the cannon ball does, and you have achieved escape velocity.
(all the above assuming no drag from air friction and not obsticals in the way)

The moon is just a larger cannon ball..
 
rplatter said:
The rubber sheet analogy is usefull in that it demonstrates how a vector is changed by a mass.
That is so general, it could be an analogy for anything.

The rubber sheet analogy has nothing to do with the gravity model of GR, which is geodesics in curved spacetime. It contains neither spacetime nor geodesics.

rplatter said:
Take a cannon ball.
If you drop it it falls at a certain speed.....
That is all very nice but irrelevant to visualizing curved spacetime. You can use the rubber sheet analogy to visualize the Newtonian gravitational potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well#Gravity_wells_and_general_relativity
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top