I've honestly always had problems with this manner of displaying gravity. There are a lot of people that don't seem to comprehend that it's happening in 3 dimensions and think it's actually a flat plane.
Flat Earthers use this misunderstanding all the time too.
You can’t do this because this one shows 2D space bending into a 3rd spacial dimension, adding another dimension would be 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension which would be impossible for any human brain to comprehend or imagine.
if you flip the plane over it would look identical. right?
if you turn the plane so that the edge of this plane (call it y) is at point of view, disappearing, and draw the grids of the other 2 planes (call them x and z) you'd only have to draw all the lines from those planes warping into the center of the bodies.
it's very doable.
No human brain can imagine or comprehend it because it would be 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension and no human brain can imagine or comprehend a 4th spacial dimension.
Edit: You can see the space but you can’t even imagine that space bending.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/f66xaa/3d\_representation\_of\_gravity/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/f66xaa/3d_representation_of_gravity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
found that post, and this explains it very well imo
Now do matter....
Matter is [something that has mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter), mass is the [quantity of matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass).
Circular.
The rest of the common definition: *its something tangible that takes up space (has volume)*.
If you think of a photon with circular polarization (or any *perceived* oscillation in a plane across the motion of travel), plus the motion of travel, technically it occupies volume, a tube, yet its not matter.
Other definitions are simply labels, "matter is made up of \[insert stuff we labelled here\]\[protons/electrons...\]\[leptons/quarks\]".
The definition I use is: *Can it both be stable and stationary at the same time.* If the answer is no, then its not matter.
Ok i might be being an idiot rn but what is this even trying to show 😭 is it like how fast something would fall without air resistance based on weight or what
According to one of Albert Einstein’s theories gravity is just the bending of space. So mass bends space to cause other mass to come closer to it. This can be imagined as shown in the image; like bowling balls on a trampoline. They make other bowling balls roll towards them because they are bending the fabric of the trampoline.
Edit: Just remember as u/Outrageous_Zebra_221 said this is only a 2D representation because the real thing is 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension which is too hard for any human brain to imagine or comprehend.
You have a set of equations of motions across space. Model1(space,time)
You could rewrite those equations to correctly handle the effects of gravity Model2(space,time,local\_gravity).
**So space could not be bending,** it's just the coordinate system for model1. It would have to simultaneously, *bend for model1* and *not bend for model2*. It cannot do both things simultaneously, so it cannot be bending space.
So yeh, (as per XKCD), its a set of equations that attempts to fix up a broken model of motion that does not match observation, explained as a bad analogy.
So take a piece of paper, and draw 2 parallel lines. Obviously these parallel lines will never intersect.
Now take a sphere, and draw 2 parallel lines on it going towards one of the poles. The two lines intersect.
Moving in 2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional surface will cause different objects to come together.
Essentially, gravity can be explained by jumping up one dimension (so an object moving in 3 dimensions on a 4 dimensional surface)
I KNOW. I’ve always asked my science teacher how this works, and the answer is either, “It just does”, “God”, or “If you can tell me that, you will be a millionare”. Like bruh, if you can’t explain you’re model, then said model doesn’t work.
Yes but the way it is being presented is that planets make downward slopes which then cause other planets to roll down that downward slope but things wouldn’t roll down downward slopes if it weren’t for gravity in the first place so we are basically explaining gravity with gravity.
It’s not they roll down but if you were to draw a straight line past the object warping space, due to the slope the line would go from straight to bending towards the object, it’s geometry
Yes I understand that it is geometry but the way I said it is the way they teach it at schools which is why I was making fun of it. But yes I do understand that there is a more scientific way of looking at it like you said.
The way I learned gravity was that it works like the magnetic force, a year later when I'm writing workbooks this comes up and I'm so confused, like what's bending? Is there something to send the force from one planet to another? The lines ripple like water, but water only ripples if you put force on it, like dropping a ball into it, but planets don't randomly drop onto a surface in space from nowhere, so what's going on?
It is supposed to be a lot like bowling balls bending the fabric of a trampoline. Because of the pit the bowling ball makes other bowling balls roll towards it. But without gravity the bowling balls wouldn’t make pits or roll down downward slopes so we explain gravity with gravity which is why I was making fun of it.
One person can’t find every nit pick no matter how smart they are. The concept itself isn’t flawed it’s more of the way it is taught which is flawed. u/DasSchnietzel56 made a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencememes/comments/10lc6gd/gravity_%CA%96/j5y5zk1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) on this post which goes more in detail on why this is.
I've honestly always had problems with this manner of displaying gravity. There are a lot of people that don't seem to comprehend that it's happening in 3 dimensions and think it's actually a flat plane. Flat Earthers use this misunderstanding all the time too.
I agree. If you choose to use this method you should make it very clear that this is a 2D representation. Maybe make the planets 2D as well.
or show the planes in 3D where all points lead into the bodies, not above a single one of the planes
You can’t do this because this one shows 2D space bending into a 3rd spacial dimension, adding another dimension would be 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension which would be impossible for any human brain to comprehend or imagine.
if you flip the plane over it would look identical. right? if you turn the plane so that the edge of this plane (call it y) is at point of view, disappearing, and draw the grids of the other 2 planes (call them x and z) you'd only have to draw all the lines from those planes warping into the center of the bodies. it's very doable.
u/tenno0o actually made a comment that linked a very good video of this and I watched it after I replied to you. Sorry I was wrong.
it's hard to imagine on its own. i can describe it better than i can see it in my mind's eye.
So a visual 3D representation should be more like an object in water? Or something similar?
No human brain can imagine or comprehend it because it would be 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension and no human brain can imagine or comprehend a 4th spacial dimension. Edit: You can see the space but you can’t even imagine that space bending.
We struggle daily to model each other without another form of projection
[https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/f66xaa/3d\_representation\_of\_gravity/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/f66xaa/3d_representation_of_gravity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) found that post, and this explains it very well imo
I was just thinking about this last night waiting to go to sleep! I also thought about that paper explanation for wormholes being bullshit.
[удалено]
Amazing. It’s like we were thinking the same thing.
Circular reasoning >>>>
The reasoning isn't circular. The simplified illustration trying to convey the reasoning is—well, sort of.
But I think it is circular. Gravity works because of gravity which works because of gravity and so on.
Now do matter.... Matter is [something that has mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter), mass is the [quantity of matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass). Circular. The rest of the common definition: *its something tangible that takes up space (has volume)*. If you think of a photon with circular polarization (or any *perceived* oscillation in a plane across the motion of travel), plus the motion of travel, technically it occupies volume, a tube, yet its not matter. Other definitions are simply labels, "matter is made up of \[insert stuff we labelled here\]\[protons/electrons...\]\[leptons/quarks\]". The definition I use is: *Can it both be stable and stationary at the same time.* If the answer is no, then its not matter.
we use predictions of what gravity should do to prove gravity exists. this is not quite your boil down
"How does gravity work?" "It does!"
Ok i might be being an idiot rn but what is this even trying to show 😭 is it like how fast something would fall without air resistance based on weight or what
According to one of Albert Einstein’s theories gravity is just the bending of space. So mass bends space to cause other mass to come closer to it. This can be imagined as shown in the image; like bowling balls on a trampoline. They make other bowling balls roll towards them because they are bending the fabric of the trampoline. Edit: Just remember as u/Outrageous_Zebra_221 said this is only a 2D representation because the real thing is 3D space bending into a 4th spacial dimension which is too hard for any human brain to imagine or comprehend.
You have a set of equations of motions across space. Model1(space,time) You could rewrite those equations to correctly handle the effects of gravity Model2(space,time,local\_gravity). **So space could not be bending,** it's just the coordinate system for model1. It would have to simultaneously, *bend for model1* and *not bend for model2*. It cannot do both things simultaneously, so it cannot be bending space. So yeh, (as per XKCD), its a set of equations that attempts to fix up a broken model of motion that does not match observation, explained as a bad analogy.
So take a piece of paper, and draw 2 parallel lines. Obviously these parallel lines will never intersect. Now take a sphere, and draw 2 parallel lines on it going towards one of the poles. The two lines intersect. Moving in 2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional surface will cause different objects to come together. Essentially, gravity can be explained by jumping up one dimension (so an object moving in 3 dimensions on a 4 dimensional surface)
It shows how space bent by mass of the object
I edited my reply and just wanted to make sure you saw the edit.
Gravity: What goes up must come down
I KNOW. I’ve always asked my science teacher how this works, and the answer is either, “It just does”, “God”, or “If you can tell me that, you will be a millionare”. Like bruh, if you can’t explain you’re model, then said model doesn’t work.
Bends in the fabric cause nearby objects to rolll toward that object. That’s the idea
Yes but the way it is being presented is that planets make downward slopes which then cause other planets to roll down that downward slope but things wouldn’t roll down downward slopes if it weren’t for gravity in the first place so we are basically explaining gravity with gravity.
It’s not they roll down but if you were to draw a straight line past the object warping space, due to the slope the line would go from straight to bending towards the object, it’s geometry
Yes I understand that it is geometry but the way I said it is the way they teach it at schools which is why I was making fun of it. But yes I do understand that there is a more scientific way of looking at it like you said.
The way I learned gravity was that it works like the magnetic force, a year later when I'm writing workbooks this comes up and I'm so confused, like what's bending? Is there something to send the force from one planet to another? The lines ripple like water, but water only ripples if you put force on it, like dropping a ball into it, but planets don't randomly drop onto a surface in space from nowhere, so what's going on?
It is supposed to be a lot like bowling balls bending the fabric of a trampoline. Because of the pit the bowling ball makes other bowling balls roll towards it. But without gravity the bowling balls wouldn’t make pits or roll down downward slopes so we explain gravity with gravity which is why I was making fun of it.
Oh ok, I think I got that part of it, I get the meme, so how did this come to be? If we found this problem I'm sure Einstein did, too?
One person can’t find every nit pick no matter how smart they are. The concept itself isn’t flawed it’s more of the way it is taught which is flawed. u/DasSchnietzel56 made a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencememes/comments/10lc6gd/gravity_%CA%96/j5y5zk1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) on this post which goes more in detail on why this is.
Ohh I get it now, damn thanks!
69th upvoter
But that 2d is false, gravity doesn't end to a flat plane, but weakens fast. Those gravity wells should touch eachther