The Red Shift without Expansion

Krumple wrote:

But you are not far off from my explanation of light not being bent by gravity, instead space is bent and light travels in a straight line following the bend in space. So from the light's (photon) perspective it always travels in straight lines but if space is bent in the presence of matter then the light appears to curve.

Well, that sounds like GR's explanation too. If you define a "straight line" as "the shortest distance between two points," then the nature of a "straight line" will depend on the nature of the "surface" you're working on.

Al had to abandon Euclidean plane geometry in favor of a "Reimannian" geometry where parallel lines WILL meet, etc. A "straight line" will be curved on the surface of a globe, like earth, for example.

I know very little about General Relativity, and certainly don't pretend to understand it. I'm told it is a theory of gravity (not a theory of motion, like SR).

I'm told that the "curvature" of space supposedly caused by the earth's gravity is less than 1 inch in the entire (25,000 mile) circumference of the earth.

How would that degree of "curvature" cause cannonballs to go falling to earth at such ever-increasing speed when dropped off of skyscrapers?

Actually, it's said, it's not a curvature of "space" but of "spacetime." Supposedly it is the "time" element that causes the vast majority of gravitational phenomena on earth.

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

layman wrote:

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

Because the closer you get to the center of mass the stronger the "force".

Its like a hill except this hill is steeper near the bottom than the top.

In other words the closer you get to the ground (surface) the more influence the field has on an object as it falls.

The strength of the field is directly proportionate to the square of the distance from the center of mass.

Its why our moon can affect the water of Earth's oceans. I think the sun and the moon as affect the Earths core. The Earth is constantly tugged back and forth which I believe generates heat. I don't think the Earths core will ever cool down unless we lost the moon.

Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

Because the closer you get to the center of mass the stronger the "force".

Its like a hill except this hill is steeper near the bottom than the top.

In other words the closer you get to the ground (surface) the more influence the field has on an object as it falls.

The strength of the field is directly proportionate to the square of the distance from the center of mass.

Its why our moon can affect the water of Earth's oceans. I think the sun and the moon as affect the Earths core. The Earth is constantly tugged back and forth which I believe generates heat. I don't think the Earths core will ever cool down unless we lost the moon.

Well, Krumps, you seem to be describing Newtonian gravity here, not GR. In GR, gravity is NOT a force, they say.

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

layman wrote:

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

I've seen analogies made which involve "moving through time," but I can't make sense of them. Since when were abstract concepts like "time" something you can "move through," like a forest, or something? Reification, anybody? How about a little dose of hypostatization, maybe?

Yeah, I was out driving down Time Highway the other day when it suddenly made a sharp left turn that I didn't see coming. I went clean off the road, and, suddenly I became weightless. I had lost contact with gravity.

Time aint something that just "passes," I guess. Ya gotta muster up some energy to plow through that ****.

layman wrote:

layman wrote:

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

I've seen analogies made which involve "moving through time," but I can't make sense of them. Since when were abstract concepts like "time" something you can "move through," like a forest, or something? Reification, anybody? How about a little dose of hypostatization, maybe?

Yeah, I was out driving down Time Highway the other day when it suddenly made a sharp left turn that I didn't see coming. I went clean off the road, and, suddenly I became weightless. I had lost contact with gravity.

Time aint something that just "passes," I guess. Ya gotta muster up some energy to plow through that ****.

I know you have objections to it. But I like to look at it another way.

In this view time is consistent and constant in all frames if reference. But first let me suggest why I am doing this.

If the universe was once all contained in a singularity and time did not exist, my premise is that time could never begin to exist from a point of nonexistence without time itself first existing. Time is required for change to occur.

With that said, time is universal, consistent and constant. The difference is space. If space changes shape the distance within that space changes. We know matter impacts space. I'll continue this later..

Its a curved line bent in the direction of the mass. So an object follows thus curve naturally. No gravity needed.

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

Furthermore, his graphs show a gradual, steady downward path, but the line should go virtually straight down, with a whole lot of distance covered in very little time.

On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth's mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth's surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second.

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

Quote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

There are places where the tides rise and fall, twice a day, by more than the height of a 4-story building. That one-inch "curve" cause that, ya figure?

I don't get why you don't grasp things and I believe it to be an act

layman wrote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

The curve caused by the Earth extends out past the moon. The sun's space curve extends out past the Kuiper belt. The galactic curve extends over 50k light-years.

How does "time" cause gravity?