My trusted precept is that any legit idea, no matter its complexity, CAN be explained simply enough for average brains to comprehend. When eggheads balk and say something cannot be translated to 100IQers, I usually find they are obscuring bullshit. But maybe not always....

So can you explain simply this idea that gravity is not a force propelling smaller massed objects to bigger massed objects, but a result of "spacetime" being "curved"?

Bc that certainly sounds like flame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398380)

It usually means they don't actually understand the topic you're asking them to explain.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398535)

i couldnt begin to explain what ST is or how its curved, and further how that moves the ball

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398429)

Now assume the heavy ball has infinite density, but zero volume, i.e., a black hole: The reason that the volume is zero rather than the mass is infinite is easy to see in an intuitive sense from the creation of a black hole. You might think of a volume of space with some mass which is compressed due to gravity. Normal matter is no longer compressible at a certain point due to Coulomb repulsion between atoms, but if the gravity is strong enough, you might get past that. You can continue compressing it infinitely (though you'll probably have to overcome some other force barriers along the way) - until it has zero volume. But it still contains mass! The mass can't just disappear through this process. The density is infinite, but the mass is still finite. That's why its gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it after crossing the event horizon. According to general relativity, this mass causes an extreme curvature in spacetime, a phenomenon that's often described as a "well" or a "sink" in the fabric of spacetime.

To continue the analogy, as the small ball is rolled in a straight line in the vicinity of a black hole, it would appear that time is moving slower.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398519)

so in order to explain ST we have to say, imagine its like this other thing that we can in fact experience / imagine / verify. as a skeptical layperson I react, "well why do i have to immediately analogize away the primary claim?"

so i guess i refine my problem - is spacetime explainable in itself as something beyond a theoretical conceit that smarts use to do further shit. do i have to pass obamacare to know whats in obamacare

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398552)

1. Special Relativistic Time Dilation: According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be seen to tick more slowly than a clock that is at rest with respect to that observer. Since the astronauts in the ISS are moving at a high speed relative to an observer on Earth, their clocks – including their biological 'clocks' – would tick more slowly.

2. Gravitational Time Dilation: According to the general theory of relativity, clocks that are closer to a massive object (like the Earth) will be seen to tick more slowly compared to clocks that are further away. Since the ISS is farther from the Earth's mass compared to observers on the ground, this would make the astronauts' clocks tick more quickly relative to those on Earth.

So, in the case of the ISS, these two effects work in opposite directions: the speed of the ISS makes time slow down, while the altitude of the ISS makes time speed up. As it turns out, for the altitudes and speeds involved with the ISS, the effect of the speed (special relativistic time dilation) is slightly stronger than the effect of the altitude (gravitational time dilation). As a result, astronauts on the ISS age slightly more slowly than people on Earth – about 0.01 seconds slower for every 12 months they spend on the ISS.

This is a very small effect, but it has been confirmed by precise experiments with atomic clocks on GPS satellites, which have to account for similar effects to provide accurate positioning data.

Let's extend this to black holes: If you're watching someone cross the event horizon of a black hole, you would never actually see them cross the event horizon. Instead, you would see them slow down and appear to freeze at the event horizon, due to the extreme form of time dilation. From your perspective, it would appear as if they stopped aging completely upon reaching the event horizon. This is an example of gravitational time dilation. The effects of special relativistic time dilation are negligible, however, due to the immense gravity of a black hole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398569)

In reality, what Einstein's General Theory of Relativity describes is not objects moving through a curved two-dimensional surface in three-dimensional space, but objects moving through a curved four-dimensional spacetime.

In this view, objects in free-fall (which includes objects moving under the influence of gravity) move along the straightest possible lines, or geodesics, in this curved spacetime. The presence of mass and energy causes spacetime to be curved, and this curvature, in turn, determines the paths of objects.

An object moving in the curved spacetime created by a massive object like Earth will move on a geodesic that appears curved to us in three-dimensional space, but from the object's own perspective, it's moving on the straightest possible line in the four-dimensional spacetime it inhabits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398606)

Now, consider gravity and spacetime curvature. In our three-dimensional world, we are like the Flatlanders, trying to comprehend a four-dimensional reality (three dimensions of space and one dimension of time).

Imagine a massive object in this 4D spacetime, like a star. This is analogous to the sphere in 3D space. The star would cause spacetime around it to curve, like the sphere appearing to distort the 2D plane of Flatland. But just as Flatlanders can only see a slice of the sphere, we can only directly perceive a "slice" of the 4D spacetime curvature, which we interpret as the force of gravity.

Just like the Flatlanders, we follow what appear to be curved paths in our 3D space due to the presence of mass — but in the higher-dimensional view of 4D spacetime, these paths are the straightest possible lines, called geodesics. So, a planet orbiting a star appears to us to be moving in a curved path, but according to general relativity, it's actually moving in a straight line in 4D spacetime.

In this way, the Flatland analogy helps us visualize how we might be experiencing a higher-dimensional reality (spacetime curvature due to mass-energy) in our lower-dimensional space.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398617)

I provided the simplest explanation possible from several perspectives, which I had ChatGPT flesh out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398671)

Photons and other quantum particles don't experience time and space in the same way that objects with mass do. Combining quantum mechanics with general relativity is an area of ongoing research and metaphysical circle jerks.

Now, critique the answers I provided ITT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398691)

(1) Gravitational Force: This is the force that the Earth exerts on you to keep you grounded. It's also the force that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth and the planets in orbit around the Sun.

(2) Electromagnetic Force: This is the force that causes electric and magnetic effects, such as the repulsion between like-charged particles or the attraction between unlike-charged particles. It also governs the behavior of photons and electromagnetic waves (like light), and it's responsible for holding electrons in atoms.

(3) Weak Nuclear Force: This force is responsible for certain kinds of radioactive decay, like beta decay. It's called "weak" because its strength is much less than that of the strong nuclear force, and its effects can only be seen at very short (subatomic) distances.

(4) Strong Nuclear Force: This is the force that holds protons and neutrons together in an atomic nucleus. It's also responsible for the force between quarks, the particles that make up protons and neutrons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398720)

Still, libs demand credit for "discovering" the Higgs boson decades later. They still want to claim credit for finding a particle that exists for a few nanoseconds and does nothing. They gave Nobel prizes to scientists who proved (maybe) that it exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398837)

If you're saying it's somehow more 'intuitive' to imagine that big objects "pull" little ones than that big objects deform spacetime and little objects travel in geodesics along that deformity, that's probably just because you were taught Goy Mechanics in your formative years long before you learned about GR. I know I know if schoolchildren were only exposed to Schoenberg...

As for wtf 'spacetime' is, it's just space and time. Jewish physicists like to say it that way to confuse goyim and because time and space appear to actually be interchangeable (in both special and general relativity)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46398945)

Other theories propose the idea of a trapped surface/frozen star at the center of a black hole instead of a singularity, but these approaches often involve considering the behavior of matter and spacetime at extremely high energy densities, where quantum effects become significant. Some theories suggest that quantum gravity could manifest as a repulsive force at extremely small scales, countering the gravitational collapse and preventing the singularity from forming. This would result in a highly compact object without a true singularity. But, the exact nature of how quantum gravitational effects could prevent the formation of a singularity in a black hole is not yet fully understood and a theory of quantum gravity that successfully unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics would be required.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351679&forum_id=2#46399110)