Falling In Love Vs Falling In Spacetime

Falling in love is not at all the most stupid thing that people do, but gravitation cannot be held responsible for it. 

- Albert Einstein 

What if I say that you can never stand still? I guess not many would agree to me on that. At least, while we're dead in our coffins or graves, people would argue that we're gonna be still. But what does standing still mean? Without movement? How can movement be explained? Are you not moving in a moving car?

For a kid flying for the first time, the kid most probably can't get the difference between sitting in a room and flying on an aero-plane right? It's because, as we see, relative to the surroundings around us, it seems to us that we are not moving, but the surroundings that we are in is itself in motion, as in the example of a kid in an aero-plane. So what if we all are moving. Us, our houses, our roads, our earth, the universe and everything we know. What if everything is constantly moving? I guess you can never be so sure about standing still right?

We all know about dimensions right? 1D (1 dimension) can be compared to a line. 2D to a plane. 3D we usually compare it to space around us, or we can use a cube to explain it. In 1D we just have the x-axis, 2D's got x and y axes and 3D's got x, y and z axes. Can you imagine something that can be related to a 4 dimensional structure? Able to visualize it? No? Don't worry, me neither, its normal not being able to visualize things that are superior to 3D, because we humans haven't yet been able to explain it visually. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist right?

For 2 ants (1D beings) that are moving away from each other on a line, they're pretty sure that they never hit each other. What if the line's wrapped around a cylindrical pipe? But for the ants, they just know they are following the straight line apart from each other, but after some time, they do meet.

Similar is the case when 2 ants (2D beings) starts from a point, move away from each other and then both take a sharp turn north, and move parallel to each other. They are pretty sure they took the turn north, but after a point they meet. Even though they started parallel to each other, and never turned a bit, yet they met. Yeah, probably you know why, simply because they were moving on a sphere like structure. From a point on the equator, they move away and then move north. Thus at the top-most point of the sphere, they are going to meet each other and wonder how. For them they started 180 degrees apart, 1 took a right 90 degrees and another took a left 90 degrees. So according to them, 2D understanding, they should never meet, but they met. Because the 3rd dimension, came into play.

We humans are superior beings, or at least we consider so. We understand things. Our cognitive skills are so good that we have things to measure our path. So we decide to consider all our measuring tools are start on a journey in space. We start from a point. Move in a direction for some time. Then takes a sharp upward turn, and that turn is supposed to be perpendicular. Now again we move in that direction for some time. Now we decide to take a left turn, perpendicular again, and move for some time. If you were clearly visualizing this part, you know that we can clearly calculate the distance at our end point and start point. But the problem is, the calculations were all wrong and we ended up at the same spot from where we started it all. Why did that happen? Can that happen?

There may be too many explanations coming to your mind if you understood the start and end being the same issue we faced at space. Maybe, our measuring tools went wrong, and the perpendicular turns erred. Maybe, we lost track of our start point and we did not really end up at the start point in the end. But keep aside all those tricky excuses and explanations you have in mind. This could simply happen due to curvature in space-time.

The Euclidean concepts of physics that we've learnt from school is all wrong. First and foremost we need to understand that. The concept of 2 objects moving in parallel paths still intersecting each other is non-Euclidean. Gravity is not a force that acts upon us, it is just a convenient explanation for textbooks. Space-time tells any objects how to traverse through it, but objects define how to curve space-time. An object traversing through space-time with and without a huge massed object besides it acts differently. According to our text books, what is happening is, the large object when present besides us has a gravitational pull which makes the moving object deviate from the straight line path it should've gone, right?

Einstein's happiest thought was of a man free falling down along with a ball. Relative to the free falling man, the ball is stationary because both of them are falling down at constant velocity. The man feels no weight. The state of the man is somewhat similar to what we feel if we are in space, far away from any large objects (stars or planets). Both the scenarios are the same. So, when we think we are standing still on earth, are we actually standing still? Think about it...

- Thoughts and views inspired from videos related to gravity