Q: Under relativistic (not Newtonian) gravitational theory, does everything still suck?
Newtonian (Classical) physics is really a subset of Einsteinian (Relativistic) physics, but there is some difference in the theory. Newton simply described what happened, but did not really explain how it happened. From Relativity comes the idea that matter bends or warps space-time. It has even been said that the idea of empty space is nonsense as without any matter in it, space is undefined. In a sense, matter creates space.
The result is that matter does not itself suck, but it creates a warped space-time that makes it seem like it does. The difference hardly matters as the effect is the same: gravity works.
no subject
Date: 31 Jan 2006 19:11 (UTC)I have never heard it put that way. Makes sense. The greatest cosmological mystery for me has always been space itself. It is a place where something MIGHT be. If you go far enough out, it is a place where something probably isn't.
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2006 06:43 (UTC)Sorry if this is a bit "heavy" for some of you.
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2006 15:24 (UTC)Are you sure it's gravity there? At that scale, I'd expect it to be the electric force at work keeping atoms from slipping through each other.
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2006 18:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 6 Feb 2006 16:15 (UTC)no subject
Date: 6 Feb 2006 16:49 (UTC)There's always space for time. Or is it, there's always time for space? Or was it something about Jell-o?