>Mass bends space-timeWhy? I don't ask how mass bends space-time by the way. I ask why mass bends space-time, so another mass follows that 'curved' path.
Because it does.At a certain point physics doesn't have a deeper conceptual explanation - you eventually get to a point where shit just works the way that it does.Why does every action have an equal and opposite reaction? Because it just fucking does, bruh.
>>16828225>I ask why"Why" is metaphysics. Physics is "how".
>>16828289Then I say that space-time is the most fundamental building blocks of the universe and is like a network. What we call matter is these building blocks that have condensed and come together. Because these building blocks are connected to each other, the condensed building blocks that come together create a distortion, just like in the picture. A perfect metaphysical theory. Where is my nobel prize?
>atheists: its like that just because it is OK!?!? theres no explanation, its just like that, trust me!!! no i don't believe that lying is a mortal sin and there is nothing compelling me to ever tell the truth, but trust me anyway even though i clearly have no idea whats going on because i can't explain why its happening. another example of how atheists aren't capable of rational thought
>>16828296>i want a prize for making shit up
>>16828299If you haven't got an answer to my question, GTFO here you pleb.WHY MASS BENDS SPACE-TIME?
>>16828225>Why?A working theory of quantum gravity would possibly answer that question (and introduce 100 more meaningless questions akin to it in the process). GR doesn't. All GR tells you is that the stress-energy tensor (not just mass) is the inhomogeneous part of EFEs, something that we usually intuitively think about as "sourcing" the homogeneous term (and for a good reason if you've ever done PDEs).
>>16828301"Why is reality like this?" isn't really a scientific question, especially when you rule out descriptions of what reality is like as a basis.
test
>>16828225How to observe? It would be invisible because the inbound bend is inverse to the outbound. In order to see it you must be inside the bending area. Be proud to read this here first.
>>16828225>WhyYwnbap
>>16828225It's like when you put a bowling ball on your mattress
>>16828435No that's a horrible analogy
>>16828442It's a perfect analogy.
>>16828296You didn't explain shit. You just said "it just does"
>>16828435Stick the bowling ball up your ass. GTFO here with your retarded analogy.>>16828736If you can't explain that why mass creates a distortion in space-time (which is nothing but a coordinate system according to GR) stfu.
>>16828225 (OP)Mass differences cause time differences.Time differences cause curved space.if you traverse a path tangentially by a body of mass, the underside of you closest to that mass experiences less time than the upperside of you thats away from that body of mass.Because the time on your underside is slowed, your body is rotated toward the mass (ground) to allow more time to be experienced by the top part of your body.Downward is curved toward the mass..
>>16828852>Mass differences cause time differences.>Time differences cause curved space.Why?
>>16828906>Time differences cause curved space.that was explained.in post.>Mass differences cause time differences.that was not.
>>16828225Mass doesnt bend space time, space time bending is mass
>>16828942>space time bending is massthen, what causes spacetime-bending?
>>16828947see >>16828435
>>16828947overlapMore overlap = more mass/energy = more bending
>>16828950what is overlap?
>>16828225because of Einstein's equations
>>16828950how does mass/energy cause bending?
>>16828225Why is not answered by science. Science is a bunch of models that happen to work well.
>>16828225damn I really need to start tripping again and think this shit over
>>16829041>Why objects fall? >Gravity.>Why gravity exists?>Because mass/energy bends space-time.>Why mass/energy bends space-time?>B-b-because... Uh? Science cannot answer 'why'. Fuck off. >>16828956They will never answer to your question anon. Science community are just bunch of cultists who never seek answers but copes.
>>16829050Why do objects fall?>Because of gravityWhat the fuck is a "gravity"?>A force that masses exert on each otherWhat's a force?>mass x accelerationSo... uh... why do objects fall, again?>Because they accelerate downwardsWord thinkers are easy to trick with non-answers.
>>16829066Why they accelerate downwards instead upwards?
>>16829069Masses accelerate towards each other in this model. There is no 'why'.
>>16828225>>Mass bends space-timeBecause the gravitational model does such a completely shit job at modeling the "solar system" that they had to invent dark matter and gravitational lensing to explain why what we observe does not match the calculations.>Because it does. At a certain point physics doesn't have a deeper conceptual explanationThere is a deeper explanation. Jesuit physicists, in their hunger for power over the world, decided that the world should be a globe. The purpose of the elaborate mathematical theories of physics is to prove that the earth is a globe. The earth is actually flat tho. Every step of cosmological physics is a cope trying to justify that the earth is a globe.
>>16829050No, ideologic student. The question is wrong in the first place.>why objects fall?>we dont know. But we have such and such models that work well in such and such circumstances
>>16829050Yes and no. There are a few scientists who have the integrity to simply admit "We dont know". Which is the honest answer to OP's question. That is true science. We concoct models that give what happens to be the most accurate answer for the time, but at the end of the day a good scientist knows they are temporary models, which can be overridden by new ideas and discoveries in the future. Sometimes there is nothing which really provides a satisfactory answer. Good scientists admit that.However they are few and far between. There are many people, including many scientists, who let their personal ego and their arrogance stand in front of scientific integrity and honesty. Often they learn material and repeat it verbatim with the blind arrogance of religious zealots. Sometimes they are so convinced of their own intellectual power their minds are closed to their own limitations.Why do so many of them exist? I am not sure, but it seems to be a modern phenomena. Perhaps its been the trend in recent time by academic institutes to pump out as many degrees as possible, resulting in a flood of mediocre academics who in previous times would never have risen above the role of a technician. Where I work we have a name for this type of educated idiot, we call them "lawn mower mechanics." They know how to fix it, they do a great job of it, but they dont know how to build a new and better one, or even comprehend that there might even be a better way to manage lawn care. But that doesn't stop them proclaiming they are an expert on the matter or stating point blank opinions as if that were the end of the matter.
What you're asking is beyond the state of scientific art. As such it's technically off topic in /sci/, but in practice this board is mostly full of nonsense anyway, so have at it. Newton wrote "hypotheses non fingo" in response to criticism of early versions of his Principia. The phrase and it's accompanying text have some astute though behind them>>16828297You're confusing smart people and atheists again. There might be some overlap, but they are two different categories. You also might have to work on your understanding of the concept of rationality
How do you know mass is bending spacetime and that mass isn’t just naturally falling into the divots that are already there for some other reason? Water can flow through a channel because it made the channel itself over time, or it can flow that way because it just already happened to be the path of least resistance. Usually it’s a little of both. Usually it starts going a certain way because it’s ultimately the path of least resistance, but then over time the act of it flowing that way turns it into the path of no resistance. And maybe even further down the line it becomes so absolutely intuitive that we just see it as a law by the time we’re able to get a good look at it.
>>16828296There are no building blocks. At the most basic level everything is one thing balanced with its own absence in a way that kind of resembles a standing wave. When this wave of everything creates interference with itself, more complex patterns emerge. The first interference pattern we can see seems to be dimensionality. Once that pattern is stable enough then you can have patterns within that one like the strong and weak forces that hold atomic nuclei together and allow for protons and neutrons, then you can have electrons that can allow things to clump, which allows things to get big enough for gravity to exist in a relevant way, which allows stars and planets to form eventually leading to matter becoming aware of its surroundings, and finally matter that’s aware of itself. You are here.
>>16829307>There might be some overlapthere is none
>>16828852indeed.. The velocity of light is Constant, regardless of the relativistic frame it is in.Time dilation gradient affected space must contract to maintain the constant light speed propagation velocity of photons traversing it.
Roger Penrose has a theory that can explain gravity in a way that it's compatible with both general relativity and quantum field theory. I think he talks about it in his book Road to Reality, I forget the pet name he gave it so I'm not sure what to tell you to look up on YouTube exactly. If you find it though, I highly recommend watching it. It's an intuitive solution to the problem of gravity and it's coming from the guy who came up with the hawking-penrose theorem, which predicted the existence of what are now called black holes, long before they were proven to be real, and he won a Nobel prize in physics for it, so... he's pretty smart I guess.
>>16830266This theory has been abandoned and was called Twistor theory. Penrose wrote a 2 parter series on Twistor theory published by CambridgeThough Twistors can be mathematically used in String theory and alike
>>16828225Why do you believe that something as heavy as stars or planets would not have any effect on its surrounding area? Things don't just float in space like magic.
>>16830282Damn, I'm way behind then, and yeah, that was the name of his theory (twistor theory) that I couldn't remember, thanks anon.
>>16828297>believe in fairy tales some sand nigger just made up a few thousand years ago>feel superiorvery rational compared to admitting lack of knowledge
>>16829548>Jew-mindslave christcuckerynobody talks this way and nobody is spreading these forced memes except other shills who already agree with you. stop polluting the internet with your botspeak
>>16828225Science is never about explaining data. it is not like metaphysics, which aims to explain all sort of phenomena by a single, unifying principle. It's more about which model would be the best in terms of providing tools and necessary predictive models that would help scientists predict & rationalize results and reproduce same patterns in a given condition
>>16828225all objects have gravity, the more objects you have (mass) the larger the gravitational field and its strength, the gravitational field can be described in terms of field equations which form the space-time metric. so mass "bends" space-time because space-time is a model that was invented to mathematically explain the bendy parts, it's like asking why 1+1 apples turns into 3 apples when you add another +1 apple in there
