3 ms·
I think the balls on sheet is an OK compromise. The reason for me is, it's tough (but not impossible as you point out) to visualize functions over 3D space. You
by the__alchemist 2y ago
I think the balls on sheet is an OK compromise. The reason for me is, it's tough (but not impossible as you point out) to visualize functions over 3D space. Your sponge does that and I like it! (You could also use color-coding, vector-gradients etc) The ball and sheet uses a spacial dimension as the function value, and that's the dimension the needs gravity to work acts on. So, if you accept that as a compromise, it's OK; we are saying that dimension is a convenience.
- IgorPartola 2y agoI like to explain it all as graph paper where the squares get bigger or smaller depending on what’s near them.
- xscott 2y agoThat helps explain curvature of space, but it doesn't explain any of the motion. When you see those stretched rubber sheets, they rarely/never show the grid lines moving. So let's say you place a small *stationary* object at a specific grid point (coordinate), and there's a large object that deforms the grid itself. Nothing about that visual provides any new intuition about why the small object would leave it's current grid position and move towards the larger one. The visual tries to explain gravity by appealing to your existing notion of gravity.