--
*Mar*This is a very good question. Let us examine it carefully and calmly.
First, yes — in *Three Roads to Quantum Gravity*, Lee Smolin explains that
gravity in general relativity is not a force in the Newtonian sense but
curvature of space-time. Because electromagnetic waves (light) travel along
the geometry of space-time, when space-time is curved near a massive object
(like a planet or star), light appears to bend. This is gravitational
lensing — confirmed experimentally during solar eclipses.
So far, completely correct.
Now to your question:
If curvature means electromagnetic waves curve near heavy objects, can we
not surmise a nano-curvature near a spaceship?
Short answer: *Yes — but it would be unimaginably tiny.*
Let us unpack why.
------------------------------
1. What Causes Curvature?
In general relativity (Einstein’s field equations), curvature is determined
by the *stress-energy tensor* — essentially mass-energy density.
More mass → more curvature.
The Sun curves space-time significantly.
The Earth curves it measurably.
A mountain curves it minutely.
A human body curves it almost negligibly.
A spaceship also curves space-time — but extremely slightly.
------------------------------
2. Order of Magnitude
Curvature strength roughly scales with:
[
\frac{GM}{rc^2}
]
Where:
-
G = gravitational constant
-
M = mass
-
r = distance
-
c = speed of light
For Earth, this ratio is already very small (~10⁻⁹).
For a 100,000 kg spaceship, it becomes astronomically smaller.
So yes — *a spaceship produces curvature*, but:
-
It is not zero.
-
It is physically real.
-
It is far too small to measure with current instruments.
-
It has no cosmological consequence.
This is not a philosophical dismissal — just scale physics.
------------------------------
3. Important Clarification
When Smolin says curvature bends electromagnetic waves, he means:
Light follows geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in curved
space-time.
The waves themselves are not “being slowed into space-time.”
Rather:
-
Space-time geometry changes.
-
Light follows that geometry.
So the curvature is not something happening *to* electromagnetic waves
independently — it is the geometry in which they propagate.
------------------------------
4. Where the Leap Becomes Problematic
You previously suggested:
-
Slowing electromagnetic waves into space-time.
-
Rockets potentially disturbing vacuum structure.
-
Technology polluting cosmic systems.
Here is the critical distinction:
Local curvature from a spaceship = mathematically real but negligible.
Cosmic structural disturbance = requires extreme mass-energy (black holes,
neutron stars, early universe densities).
A spaceship does not meaningfully alter global vacuum structure.
------------------------------
5. Where Your Intuition Is Still Interesting
Now let me step beyond strict physics.
Your deeper intuition seems to be:
“If everything curves space-time, then nothing is ontologically isolated.”
That intuition is correct.
Every mass-energy distribution affects the geometry of the universe —
however minutely.
In that sense:
-
The universe is relational.
-
Nothing is perfectly independent.
-
Even small objects participate in cosmic structure.
That is philosophically profound — and compatible with relativity.
------------------------------
6. Why Nano-Curvature Does Not Scale Up
General relativity is nonlinear, yes. But:
-
Small perturbations do not cascade into Big Bangs.
-
The vacuum is stable under small disturbances.
-
Space-time does not “trap” electromagnetic waves into new cosmic phases
from tiny local curvature.
Otherwise, walking across a room would destabilize the universe.
The equations prevent that.
------------------------------
7. Final Evaluation of Your Reasoning
Your reasoning is:
1.
Curvature bends EM waves (correct).
2.
A spaceship has mass (correct).
3.
Therefore it produces curvature (correct).
4.
Therefore it may affect electromagnetic structure (correct but
negligible).
5.
Therefore it may cosmically disturb vacuum (not supported by GR).
So the logic is valid up to step 4.
The jump at step 5 is where physics does not support the extrapolation.
------------------------------
8. My Comment
Your thinking is not irrational. It is scaling-sensitive.
Physics is brutally governed by magnitude.
In philosophy, small causes can have large symbolic implications.
In general relativity, small masses produce proportionally small curvature.
The universe is remarkably stable.
But your broader metaphysical intuition — that nothing is isolated and
every presence slightly reshapes the whole — is entirely compatible with
relativity.
It just does not operate catastrophically at small scales.
If you like, I can next:
-
Show quantitatively how small the curvature from a 100-ton spacecraft
would be,
-
Or discuss whether quantum gravity theories modify this picture in
extreme regimes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLgy9-cGsMcN4FcEutgCPSO6%2Baf0%2Bkn3XWkfCO_bPAbcw%40mail.gmail.com.
