Space - Time Warp. ???

[leee (Thomas)]

On animation - it shows --- the space magnetic ' grid ' being warped by earth, and that is what is keeping the moon in orbit around it. but it always shows it in a two dimensional graft. MY question is, if that warp is so -- why isn't it a total dimensional warp -- hence the moon would be revolving in multi orbits round us. and Us - around the Sun. etc.

[Ukastronomer (Jeremy)]

You mean this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

Don't forget that time is also affected by the force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH69B0Oc2Og

It is also very difficult to "show" in three/four dimensions

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by leee

On animation - it shows --- the space magnetic ' grid ' being warped by earth, and that is what is keeping the moon in orbit around it. but it always shows it in a two dimensional graft. MY question is, if that warp is so -- why isn't it a total dimensional warp -- hence the moon would be revolving in multi orbits round us. and Us - around the Sun. etc.

Hi Thomas welcome to Icenspace.

I think it would be useful if you post the animation that is giving you the impression that you outline. To answer your questions we really need to see what you are basing your questions upon...

It sounds like you are talking about the "space time grid" ...
The Moon does orbit the Earth in what I suppose one could call multiple orbits and the Earth and the Moon (system) orbits the Sun...and the Solar System orbits the central region of the Milky Way...past that the Milky Way is part of what is referred to as the Local Group of galaxy but I don't think the paths of galaxycies within the local group could be seen as orbital.

If it is indeed the "Space Time Grid" you contemplate I suppose the best way to explain it is to understand space time is a term used by the scientific model known as "General Relativity" and it is a co ordinant system that enables modling of how masses relate to each other which we call gravity. You may come across illustrations of a grid supposedly representing space time that is distorted but the grid is finally a geometric construct derived from the principles contained in the scientific model we call "General Relativity". As I said the model is a co ordinant system and the best I can put it is the distortions in the grid somewhat represent gravity or paths objects will follow when moving through space.
General Relativity does not treat gravity as a force which is hard to comprehend but perhaps one should remember that GR is a scientific model and simply via its approach has no need to regard gravity as a force.
Further I don't think GR sees gravity as either pushing or pulling..a result of not needing to treat gravity as a force.

I suppose the main message is that to understand GR one really needs to do a course and even then perhaps one will find it still just out of reach of full understanding.. As a layman one has little hope of understanding how professionals view it.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Further..
I personally dislike the bowling ball on a rubber sheet approach.
I better representation would be to have the ball under the rubber sheet and that the sheet is stretched towards it but that stretching is actually compacting the rubber��. And the other problem with the rubber sheet is that the rubber stretches around the ball whereas GR tells us the opposite is the case...the rubber sheet is useless to represent the grid and perhaps that approach could confuse folk...in my view.

GR is our best model of gravity however one must remember that Newton's Gravity (often out down by those telling us how wonderful GR is) is still used for all space travel. As far as I can tell GR is only needed to construct models of black holes and plot gravity waves...although both Special Relativity and General Relativity are used for GPS. The application of one tells us we "see" a satellite going slower and the other tells us we "see" a satellite going faster and it is by combining the two results that a picture is created that enables the complex geometry of GPS to work.

GR provides no mechanical explanation or perhaps what is going on at a quantum level...those involved in GR do not seem to like having that pointed out but as a layman speaking on matters that perhaps I should not I believe that at some level GR describes the result of countless particles creating in effect a pressure system...if nothing else it remains unknown how the message of gravity works...in my view there must be some particle that works to convey the information that enables mass to tell space how to bend...else we are left with a proposition that it all works by the magic of the equations of GR..some would have it so no doubt.
We do have a hypothetical particle under consideration which is at this point referred to as the graviton but it has yet to be identified via experiment.

I still think there is something to the LeSage approach that sees gravity as a predictable result of countless particles making up space. The idea is these particles travel everywhere and not slowed much by passing thru matter..so to explain gravity on the Earth one need imagine that the particles travelling thru the Earth present less force than the particles reaching us from directly above and the particles from above in effect win and push us to the ground. Gravity in this hypothesis can not been seen as a force of attraction of course...hence my statement with my head shot...gravity does not suck.��.
Alex

[leee (Thomas)]

The first video really helped. Thank you guys. I am a Microbiologist, and now in my later years, have ventured into 'realms' I am totally ignorant of.
But this helped.

[xelasnave]

Thomas I don't suppose you ever thought that you could attend lectures at Stanford University but thanks to the most wonderful YouTube one now can and indeed attend without paying any tutorial fees.

The link I post now is to one of many lectures given by Lenoard Suskin ...if you are really interested ...

https://youtu.be/JRZgW1YjCKk

Alex

[xelasnave]

Also check out his video on quantum mechanics and gravity..I don't have the link but it is certainly well worth watching..re quantum gravity.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Well here it is..I went to YouTube and it was still in the list.

The key with watching is not to throw ones hands up early and declare it's nonsense..but realise he is using simple examples to show a very complicated picture that has taken many years of research to develop...anyways we are very lucky to have access to this stuff as once you would only get this if enrolled in the appropriate degree course.

https://youtu.be/ruJgtjpSoPklex

Alex

[leee (Thomas)]

Wow. the "stuff" I don't know - or more appropriately, the stuff I will never comprehend.
I am so out of my level of understanding - I think I will 'stop' right here. Ponder a while, and maybe cone back when I feel more able to cope with all of this knowledge.
For now - its back to the world of Microbiology. I'm not ready for Stanford, hell I'm not ready for kindergarten.
Thanks all....

[xelasnave]

Now please don't be overwhelmed.
Einstein worked on his theories for at least ten years having the advantage of being able to talk to others in physics.
GR and SR is rather simple at a basic level and there are many more videos out there that give a simple explanation..perhaps the first thing to get your head around is the principle of equivalence... Which basically says gravity can be seen as acceleration and from there it uses some pretty basic formulae...still I find Suskin lectures the sort of thing I have to take quiet a while to take in..mainly cause I am not competent with math proceeded and terms and symbols.
So please don't give up as I bet Einstein would probably have found micro biology hard going.
And GR is rather the mportant as it underpins our current best cosmology model..that being the Big Bang Theory.
Good luck just remember it may take years but each time you read something about it you learn a little more.
I have been reading about it for a long time and even now am sure because of the limitation of a poor math background perhaps still way off comprehending much of it.
Alex