Something I’ve never fully understood is whether these theories are actually just analogies to help describe the effects of gravity, or actual descriptions of what happens in our universe.
I can see the gravity “well” or bowl shape being a good analogy to explain what is happening – but I have a harder time believing that gravity curves space.
I know that some people point to gravitational lensing as an example of curved space – but it could just as easily be an example of the gravitational source attracting the particles of light as they pass.
I get the idea that a man in a closed room would not be able to distinguish whether his room was on planet earth or in a spaceship experiencing a constant 1g acceleration – this is an apt analogy – but does it mean, necessarily that the person on the planet is actually in an accelerated frame?
I’m not asking for a full explanation of relativity (there’s books for this) but rather, I am asking if someone can distinguish for me the analogy (story used to describe or explain what is happening) from the actual effect sought to be described.
*It’s always seemed to me that all the talk of trains and elevators and rockets was merely a tool to describe something to laypeople, and my concern is whether the 'curved space' analogy has supplanted the reality.