# How GR curved space time works?

I stated "if" i.e. we appear to observe it expanding but according to your given definition, expansion alone is not to be "elastic".

So when we take thin soap film turn it into a 3D bubble that also does not fit the definition of being "elastic".

As a child-- grade school ---we could take 2D like planar piece of paper and infold in such a way that it became a complex polyhedral with a 3D volumetric aspects that we think could manipulate with our fingers have out fold one direction then infold closed then out fold in another direction with little notes on various faces that could be seen then hidden.

As adult some one showed me how to take 2D like planar piece of paper fold in such way and, then poke a hole in the corner, then put it too my mouth an blow into like a blowing into balloon and it would expand into a cube.

Orgami does lots of complex infolding and outfolding manipulations.

Once you can understand some of these common everyday pheomena then you perhaps you can begin to ponder if gravitational spacetime or any other fermions or bosons can have elasticity via infolding and outfolding processes.

Once you actually had a hands on experience with some of this, including the OS-Jitterbug--- aka the operating system of Univere ---then perhaps you will begin to understand infolding and outfolding better because of the hand held experience.

The OS-jitterbug folds into more exotic spaces-- and a few common spaces -- than any other hand held toy on Earth that I'm aware of, as well as performing the six fundamental motions of Universe. Again, until you have personal experience of these hand-held infoldgin outfolding experiences they will appear alien or foreign to you.

Also, once youve experienced them first hand their seemingly mysterious complexity will not seem as complex as the non-experienced mind presumes them to be. At least some of them. Some origami is quite complex.

What about the Hoberman sphere, it expands and contracts so it must have "elasticity", even tho it is composed of rigid parts, and that too is same for the OS-jitterbug.

r6

Have you heard of gobbledygook?

What problems are those?

There are no problems, if you cant understand the problems I've alluded to. Googling on the fly cant help you with this thread, you've actually got to think for yourself.

We sent Voyager 1 and 2 to rendezvous with no less then 4 planets...Not a bad understanding of gravity!

Im not disputing that relativity models and produces the correct results (it does) or that we dont understand the effects of gravity, we understand the effects of gravity very well. Im disputing that its not whats physically happening from the classical mechanics POV "the cause of gravity". Im saying that curved space time cant be responsible for the cause of gravity as many believe it is. It can also just be my understanding, which none have corrected.

There are no problems, if you cant understand the problems I've alluded to. Googling on the fly cant help you with this thread, you've actually got to think for yourself.

Gravity is modeled quite adequately excpet of course for the quantum/Planck level.

Im not disputing that relativity models and produces the correct results (it does) or that we dont understand the effects of gravity, we understand the effects of gravity very well. Im disputing that its not whats physically happening from the classical mechanics POV "the cause of gravity". Im saying that curved space time cant be responsible for the cause of gravity as many believe it is. It can also just be my understanding, which none have corrected.

GP-B has further supporetd our GR picture of gravity.'
But yes, there is further room for a better understanding........a validated QGT would do the trick.

Have you heard of gobbledygook?

Start with the first Englsih word, and get your self a dictionary. If you still cannot figure it our I can try to assist you.

"If" is the 'I' section of the dictionary.

r6

1) a muscle man is seen pulling a locomotive or the box car with his nipples or his teeth and needs the Earth as his fulcrum/leverage point to pull the train towards himself.
2) We never see a muscle man pushing as train becuase that is harder than pulling i.e. pulling-IN is the path of least resistance, while pushing-OUT away is more energy intensiver ergo hard to do.

In the above two scenarios the Earth and feet are the fulcrum-like leverage point.

If we live in a finite Universe, then there is no fulcrum-like leverage point, outside of/beyond the finite Universe, to allow any push-IN and maintain the consistency of the 2nd law of thermodynamics i.e. naught can be lost or become disingetrated from our finite whole Universe.

However, with a pulling-IN force, perhaps gravity, which is itself the outside membrane that embraces and contains Universe, it also permeates all of Universe's fermionic and bosonic particle parts, so, it may be that gravity can use the parts of Universe, on whole, as its fulcrum-like leverage point, to pull-IN the Universe as integral whole.

To simplify the whole Universe scenario above, we can go back to just two particles, wherein gravity embraces each geodesically and attracts the two towards each other. Can we see how the two particles are used as fulcrum leverage point to and have a resulatant mass-attraction IN.

A(o>IN<o )B

In this scenario, my intention is to envision gravity A using partilce B as its fulcrum leverage point to pull itself( A ) ergo the particle that A embraces, toward particle that is embraced by gravity B and vice versa.

If we can find any validity to that scenario, then it is possible to transpose it to our finite Universe on whole.

I believe gravity is a force phenomena ergo the potential for gravitons to exist within the proper set of circumstances.

If we think of great circle geodesic, as the central axis trajectory for great torus, then we may begin to understand how gravitons can exist yet still be contigous constant.

Ex take a bicycle inner tube, put some air into it. Now we can place a clamp every so few inches to pinch it off. Now we have undulation-like pattern of expanded few inches then with a graduated contraction as we approach clamp at each end of the expanded part. This would be graviton.

If were to do this with the mininal geometric topology that encloses space we could say, that, we have a subdivided 2D triangle, that has the central nodal vertexial event. If we move the central nodal vertex even forward on geodesic great circle pathway/trajectory, and along with the three perimeter nodal vertexes, we define an Euclidean triangle great tube.

If we have the outer three vertexes as the outer triangle spin as it moves forward defining this geodesic trajectory, then we define a spiral tube with a central axis trajectory--- I like to think of as a spinal chord ----. So now, if the outer three nodal vertexial events were to attract inward towards the central axis and then repel backoutward and then attract back inware etc...

We define my above given bicycle tube undulation pattern, wherein we have contigous gravitons that are seperate from each other, only by the pinching off at each end of the graviton section.

Actually, there is way to envision this above scenario so that one end of the graviton is beginning to expand from its pinched-OFF/closed-OFF phase while the other end is just approaching its closed-OFF/piched-OFF phase/condition.

This is just a simple approach to understanding gravities mechanism and the above can be envisoned with some alterations to make it more complicated, but it is a relatively simple scenario for beginners. imho

r6

rr6;A contractive force results with a pushing-OUT the baby from the womb and/or of photons emitted from the sun.
The sun ergo the photons are resultant of gravity ergo some, most if not all pushing-OUT forces are a resultant of contractive pulling-IN forces.
I believe your are intending to reference a fulcrum aka leverage point. and that is true for both a pulling-IN or OUT phenomena or a pushing-IN or OUT phenomena.

As I said in post [2] although we can describe gravity quite adequately, we really do not as yet know the exact mechanism....Although space/time curvature in the presence of mass/energy gives the most realistic picture.
The results of GP-B have fully supported GR and that same scenario.

The GR space-time curved geometry wont work without there still being a gravitational force to force the objects down the space-time curves. Without there being a gravitational force the object would just sit on the curve and not move.

I just dont understand GR gravity, probably because of something Im misunderstanding... where am I going wrong?

You have been confused by the flawed ball-on-rubber-sheet analogy. A surface formed like this rubber-sheet doesn't represent curved space-time, just curved space (the time dimension is not shown). And you are absolutely right, that the spatial curvature shown in this analogy, doesn't affect objects which are initially at rest in space. So it cannot make them start moving.

To understand how initially resting objects start moving in GR, you have to include the time dimension:

Four ABCD Points of Consideration--16 > 8 > 4 > 2

Obivously, when we push on A from B an vice versa our pulling-IN is countered by our feet pushing-OUT, so, where does that leave us for understanding the mechanism for gravity's mass-attractive/contractive force/phenomena.

One thought that comes to mind, is that if we have four points of consideration. A, B, C and D then if A and B are the points of fulcrum/leverage, that are moved outward, then the the C and D are pulled-IN-ward.

This above got me to thinking about the cosmic entropic heat death of our finite occupied space Universe.

O|O

Left-A and rigt-B geodesics pull-IN-ward on each other and the flat photon-C and D is expanded-OUT as low frequency thin plane.

Somehow, the left-A and right-B geodesics are using the photon( mass of Universe --- as their fulcrum point(s) to pull themselves toward each other ergo the photon-C and D is pushed-OUT ward in two directions( C adn D ) and A and B come together.

h,mmm. r6

In the above two scenarios the Earth and feet are the fulcrum-like leverage point.
If we live in a finite Universe, then there is no fulcrum-like leverage point, outside of/beyond the finite Universe, to allow any push-IN and maintain the consistency of the 2nd law of thermodynamics i.e. naught can be lost or become disingetrated from our finite whole Universe.
In this scenario, my intention is to envision gravity A using partilce B as its fulcrum leverage point to pull itself( A ) ergo the particle that A embraces, toward particle that is embraced by gravity B and vice versa.
If we can find any validity to that scenario, then it is possible to transpose it to our finite Universe on whole.

Obivously, when we push on A from B an vice versa our pulling-IN is countered by our feet pushing-OUT, so, where does that leave us for understanding the mechanism for gravity's mass-attractive/contractive force/phenomena.

One thought that comes to mind, is that if we have four points of consideration. A, B, C and D then if A and B are the points of fulcrum/leverage, that are moved outward, then the the C and D are pulled-IN-ward.

This above got me to thinking about the cosmic entropic heat death of our finite occupied space Universe.

O|O

Left-A and rigt-B geodesics pull-IN-ward on each other and the flat photon-C and D is expanded-OUT as low frequency thin plane.

Somehow, the left-A and right-B geodesics are using the photon( mass of Universe --- as their fulcrum point(s) to pull themselves toward each other ergo the photon-C and D is pushed-OUT ward in two directions( C adn D ) and A and B come together.

h,mmm. r6

Actually, it's more a case of the angle of the dangle, equaling the heat of the meat, and the rise and the fall, of the left hand ball.

Another Viewpoint >V<

arrow-of-time ->->->-Past >< Future >->-> arrow-of-time

If we live in a finite 3D volumetric Universe, then we can imagine a finite 2D planar polygonal or circle cross section of the volumetric, finite Universe-- ex | ----of NOW that exists between Past >|< Future

This 2D has only X and Y or Y and Z or Z and Z dimensions i.e. 2D has no volumetric area only 2D area. How is this possible?

We say that is not possible, so we say that, time does not exist, or that time is an illusion of our physical/energy Universe of occupied space is an illusion. However, it is a dammed good illusion! Ha ha

We have the remmenents of past in the now, and the now exists over time eternally. Our finite 2D illusion appears to be moving and changing location of its many parts( frequency/vibration/oscillations ) over time, eternally.

Fuller states it as lag rates of cognition in that we our brains cannot match the speed-of-radiations 700,000,000 miles per hour ergo we have to deal with afterimages of what happen previously in other locations in past times.

So what if could bend spacetime, then perhaps we could have the following texticonic representation of time;

->->-> Past > (O)< Future ->->->

Now we still have a 2D surface, but it is warped surface.

If a spherical surface then it has positive curvature.

If saddle-shaped--- ex torus/toroidal ---then negative curvature.

I see a possibility of negative shaped outer torus surface, that defines within, a positive shaped 2D surface-- ex circle or high frequency set of polygonal cross sections. However, we have ultra-high number of these cross-sectioned circle-like planes that define a 3D volumetric if not spherical, Universe that we live in.

There is only the one-> arrow-of-time -> but a ultra-high set of 2D cross sections that integrate as one wholistic 3D volume, surrounded by the negative curvature, that I refer to as gravity.

r6

Im disputing that its not whats physically happening from the classical mechanics POV "the cause of gravity". Im saying that curved space time cant be responsible for the cause of gravity as many believe it is. It can also just be my understanding, which none have corrected.
Whoever believes such a thing is doing so incorrectly since that is a very old, but very common, misconception of general relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington pointed this out at least as far back as 1918 in Gravitation and The Principle of Relativity by. A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36 as follows
The purpose of Einstein’s new theory has often been misunderstood, and it has been criticized as an attempt to explain gravitation. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies quite outside its scope, and it does not even hint at a possible mechanism.

Whoever believes such a thing is doing so incorrectly since that is a very old, but very common, misconception of general relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington pointed this out at least as far back as 1918 in Gravitation and The Principle of Relativity by. A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36 as follows

While realising we do not know the exact mechanism of gravity, we do know that matter/energy tend to warp/curve/twist space/time.
When this happens, we feel gravity.

Gravity, is a means by which all mass/energy tend to attract each other.
GR provides a description of gravity as a geometric property of space/time. In other words, when it is curved by mass/energy.

Didn't GP-B validate this description of gravity and the Lense-Thirring effect [twisting of space/time by Earth's spinning mass]

Maybe not an exact mechanism, but certainly a hint and good description and means of gravity.......

While realising we do not know the exact mechanism of gravity, we do know that matter/energy tend to warp/curve/twist space/time.
When this happens, we feel gravity.
When that happens we feel tidal gradients, not gravity. Our experience of gravity is when things which have no other force acting on it accelerates in our frame of reference and the force causing that acceleration is then called an inertial force. Einstein realized that inertial forces and gravitational forces have the same nature of accelerating al bodies independent of their construction. So what we used to refer to as a pseudo-force, Einstein came along and reinterpreted them as gravitational forces. That’s how the equivalence principle was born, i.e.
A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.
When the spacetime is flat then such a field can be completely transformed away. When tidal forces are present such fields cannot be completely transformed away and for that reason are referred to as permanent gravitational fields.

Gravity, is a means by which all mass/energy tend to attract each other.
Not necessarily. In the absence of matter in large reasons of spacetime one can “produce” a gravitational field merely by changing your frame of reference.

GR provides a description of gravity as a geometric property of space/time. In other words, when it is curved by mass/energy.
That’s not the way Einstein viewed it. In a letter to Lincoln Barnett dated June 19, 1948 Einstein wrote
I do not agree with the idea that the general theory of relativity is geometerizing physics or the gravitational field. The concepts of physics have always been geometrical concepts and I cannot see why the g_ik field should be called more geometrical than f.i. the electro-magnetic field or the distance of bodies in Newtonian mechanics. The notion comes probably from the fact that the mathematical origin of the g_ik field is the Gaussian theory of the metrical continuum which we are wont to look at as part of geometry. I am convinced, however, that the distinction between geometrical and other kinds of fields is not logically founded.

All the proof of what I just said above including references can be found in the article I wrote on the subject called Einstein's gravitational field and can be found at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044. The abstract reads
There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with.

When that happens we feel tidal gradients, not gravity. Our experience of gravity is when things which have no other force acting on it accelerates in our frame of reference and the force causing that acceleration is then called an inertial force. Einstein realized that inertial forces and gravitational forces have the same nature of accelerating al bodies independent of their construction. So what we used to refer to as a pseudo-force, Einstein came along and reinterpreted them as gravitational forces. That’s how the equivalence principle was born, i.e.

When the spacetime is flat then such a field can be completely transformed away. When tidal forces are present such fields cannot be completely transformed away and for that reason are referred to as permanent gravitational fields.

Not necessarily. In the absence of matter in large reasons of spacetime one can “produce” a gravitational field merely by changing your frame of reference.

That’s not the way Einstein viewed it. In a letter to Lincoln Barnett dated June 19, 1948 Einstein wrote

All the proof of what I just said above including references can be found in the article I wrote on the subject called Einstein's gravitational field and can be found at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044. The abstract reads

....Thanks for that. My mind is still boggling!....
But let me digest and if I have any questions, I'll be back.

ps: What part do you see the property of non-linearity playing with our notion of gravity/space/time?

Question number [2]
From what I have read and heard, the GP-B results [of which I have mentioned a lot] confirmed the GR model to a high degree of tolerence....Am I reading too much into it?