Is the Earth just a mass within a vast, curved space-time fabric?

doey
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I have no idea about it,

as my understanding,that Mr.Einstein depicted that what actually happening in space are above on a plane and flat Space-time fabric.Is this telling us that the Earth around is nothing ?What i trying to say is the surrounding of a mass might not exist only a plane of space-time fabric but is totally covered the Earth itself .just like a ball inside a box,and the volume of box is infinite as space(space and time) mean we are not living on a flat space but contented in whole of it. would it be?:bugeye:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I find it difficult to understand your questions.

In general relativity there is a distinction between vacuum solutions, which represent spacetime where there is no matter, but this spacetime may be curved by the presence of matter elsewhere.
 
Mentz114 said:
I find it difficult to understand your questions.

In general relativity there is a distinction between vacuum solutions, which represent spacetime where there is no matter, but this spacetime may be curved by the presence of matter elsewhere.

ya,i was talking abt this ,by the way what was illustrate as u can watching on youtube are in flat and plane.

what i was stated that the bent of the spacetime should like this
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top