Einstein showed that massive objects warp the geometry of space-time, and the metaphorical leap was immediate: if things can warp, they must be sitting on a kind of cosmic trampoline. Cue endless animations of bowling balls denting rubber sheets.
The Metaphor Problem
-
Fabric suggests a material thing — woven threads, textures, surfaces that can stretch and tear.
-
This invites pictures of planets “sitting on” space, as though the Earth were lounging on an intergalactic hammock.
-
The trouble is: there is no “underneath” the fabric. The rubber-sheet picture quietly imports gravity from outside the model to hold the planet down on the sheet — a perfect case of metaphor cannibalising itself.
Why This Is Misleading
By picturing space-time as fabric, we:
-
Materialise what is relational — geometry becomes a substance.
-
Confuse models with mechanisms — warping isn’t a process happening in something, it is the relation itself.
-
Sneak in Newton — the bowling ball metaphor only makes sense if you assume gravity is already pulling things down.
So the metaphor that was supposed to explain gravity ends up smuggling it back in by the back door.
Relational Ontology Footnote
From a relational ontology perspective, space-time is not fabric at all. It is the alignment of relations actualising as geometry. Gravity isn’t a thing tugging on objects, nor a ball denting a sheet, but the construal of potentiality in a way that shapes motion. The “fabric” metaphor hides this reflexive relationality under a material disguise.
Closing Joke (Because Parody)
If space-time really were fabric, physicists would have solved the mystery years ago by hiring better tailors. Black holes would be “holes in the sweater,” and cosmic expansion just a case of your trousers shrinking in the wash.
No comments:
Post a Comment