Rubber Sheet Analogy Fails To Explain Gravity

Spacetime can be thought as a thin rubber sheet.

Rubber sheet analogy fails to explain gravity.

The system has some qualitative features in common with gravity. In space it will follow a straight line and go over any hole on the surface. Two people are located side by side on the equator of this sphere. The right hand side of this pair of drawings is closer to real life but still not accurate.

Here we have 1 space like dimension and one time like dimension curved into 3d. When a massive object creates a big depression in the sheet the ant which must walk where the sheet takes it finds its path changed warped dramatically. Is there no gravity. Indeed physicists have known for ten years that a rubber sheet deformed by a central mass can never take on a shape that reproduces the gravitational effects of spacetime.

The rubber sheet analogy only works even for the orbits if you assume that the orbiting object tends to want to roll down hill in the dip made by the bowling ball. Explanation this comic refers to a common analogy used to explain how mass distorts space time a bowling ball resting on a sheet of rubber distorts the sheet due to its weight. Let me try the ant analogy in a bit more detail. The dented rubber sheet done in earth s gravity is a not too bad analogy for newtonian gravity.

Figure 24 8 three dimensional analogy for spacetime. But a ball rolls on a surface because gravity is pulling it down. They both begin walking parallel to each other northward toward the one of the poles. The ants walk forward.

The orange is curved space time. Imagine a 2d spherical shell embedded in 3d space. The analogy presented therein is somewhat similar to the rubber sheet one but does away with the weight in the center. Since i read cosmos long ago i see the same analogy about the balls rolling on a rubber sheet used to explain how gravity works.

On a flat rubber sheet a trained ant has no trouble walking in a straight line. The rubber sheet or trampoline analogy for gravity is flawed because it is not fully three dimensional as a real star and planets would be. All analogies are flawed that s why they are analogies and not scientific theories. It s often misused to show that mass warps spacetime 895.