A What Does Space Gives Moving Orders Mean for Gravity in Einstein's Universe?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Boballoo
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on an astronomer's statement regarding gravity, suggesting that objects receive their "moving orders" from the local space rather than distant Earth. This aligns with the general theory of relativity, which posits that mass influences the curvature of spacetime, and that this curvature in turn dictates the motion of mass. The gravitational field exists independently of the objects, influencing their movement even before they are dropped. Additionally, the conversation touches on the relationship between mass and spacetime curvature, indicating that both aspects are interdependent as described by Einstein's field equations. The insights reflect the understanding of gravity and spacetime from the 1970s, emphasizing the local effects of gravity.
Boballoo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Old documentary says something odd about gravity that I don't understand.
I was watching an old documentary called "Einstein's Universe" from the seventies with Peter Ustinov. They were at a large observatory, outside by the railing, one story above ground, testing Galileo's theory of gravity using two weights of 1 KG and .25 KG of the same shape so air does not affect either one significantly. Dropping them, they both landed at the same time as expected, but one of the astronomers there, the one who dropped the weights, said the following:

“The reason those things all move at the same rate is that objects get their moving orders​
from the same piece of space. It’s not the distant Earth, it’s the space right where they are.”​

I have never heard gravity being described like this. What exactly is meant by this statement? Is he correct? Can someone explain what is meant here in the context of physics knowledge available in the seventies?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Quote "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move." John Wheeler.
That is a brief description of the general theory of relativity.

The astronomer is referencing the second part of the quote.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, Nik_2213, russ_watters and 2 others
Boballoo said:
What exactly is meant by this statement? Is he correct?
He is talking about the fact that a gravitational field exists there whether the objects are there or not. That is, the gravitational attraction does not come into existence when the objects are dropped, it was right there all along and influences the objects whether they are released or not.
 
Boballoo said:
“The reason those things all move at the same rate is that objects get their moving orders​
from the same piece of space. It’s not the distant Earth, it’s the space right where they are.”​
He could have added that "the spacetime where they are gets its shaping orders from the distant Earth".

Note that it's the shape of spacetime (not just space) that matters.
 
256bits said:
Quote "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move." John Wheeler.
That is a brief description of the general theory of relativity.

The astronomer is referencing the second part of the quote.
I am not an expert in this field(!) but I seem to remember reading, maybe from Eddington, that it is a curvature of space-time that defines a mass, and not the opposite way round.
 
tech99 said:
I am not an expert in this field(!) but I seem to remember reading, maybe from Eddington, that it is a curvature of space-time that defines a mass, and not the opposite way round.
Mass (more generally the stress-energy tensor) and the curvature tensor are related by the Einstein field equations. In a sense, therefore, they both define each other.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top