N
neolistic
Guest
Now, id like to clear something up about curved space if i may. Now the theory of curved space states that space is curved in proportion to the object displacing the space. Now if this is true, shouldn't curved space best be compared to water. Say if you place a ball that would be, say the sun into the water, it would displace the water around it, but not curve the water around it. The displacement of the water will be apparent but it wont effect things around it. Say if you place other round objects to represent planets. The pressure of the water could account for gravity, but it doesn't explain why the planets stay in orbit. Why is the theory of curved space best compared to a trampoline net, since a trampoline net is only half of the big picture. That doesn't account for the upper half of space above, and around the object 360 degrees around. Like i mean space is not flat, why compare it to a flat surface, and not a 360 degree substance that displaces itself relative to the object. If you did a experiment under water you would see that the gravity pushing down on the objects is much like einstein predicted (force of the water pushing down on ball). But the reason for the objects to orbit the object in the middle isn't apparent.<br /><br />This reason for objects to orbit around a trampoline net is apparent, because of the curve a trampoline net makes. but not for a 360 degree force all around. If anything this curvature only adjusts for itself in space.<br /><br />Discuss..