Ok, your messing around now. I suppose this is some sort of joke. Well it's just immature. I asked for nature, and you give me some drawings of lines, like they actually exist. Plus I already said don't show me some imaginary lines
How am I being immature by explaining that the general relativity description of gravity is geometry based, that it curves space and time such that the normal rules of Euclidean geometry no longer apply.
If you weren't so mind boggling ignorant you might have bothered to.... oh I don't know perhaps read a book or go to Wikipedia and read about the current status of physics. I know its obviously a totally alien concept to you but you won't actually learn anything if you don't expose yourself to information.
Non-euclidean geometry is a well developed (200+ years since it was first conceived) area of mathematics which has found massive appplications within physics via relativity.
The path of light is not an 'imaginary line'. Pencil thin laser beams sent through space near a massive object would be deflected, they'd not move in a straight line. This is an
experimental fact known about for mroe than 90 years now.
How do you possibly think you have any grasp on physics when you don't know how the universe behaves?
I am honestly surprised you've got a job. I wouldn't have said you seem coherently rational to be able to function well enough in normal society to hold down employment.
And as for the other question, I have posted about 30 proofs already, and each time you ask for another one.
I think you need to look up what 'proof' means in a dictionary. All you've ever given is utterly unjustified proclamations which have no evidence or reasoning other than "Because I say so".
You tell me about it. Like this... The lines are the tension of the bubbles, trapped between mass, enclosed in a spherical membrane.
The problem is science is more than just a few short sentences using words even someone as ignorant as you could understand. It's about details. For instance :
The space-time interval $$ds^{2}$$ is defined in terms of the metric $$g_{ab}$$ as $$ds^{2} = g_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}$$ and has signature (-+++). The Einstein Hilbert Action is $$S = \int_{M}\sqrt{g}R d^{4}x$$ where M is the space-time manifold, g is the determinant of the metric and R is the Ricci scalar which satisfies $$R = R^{ab}g_{ab}$$ where $$R_{ab}$$ is the Ricci tensor. The energy-momomentum tensor follows from the action by the definition $$T_{ab} =\frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{ab}}$$. Doing such a variation on the Lagrangian density of the E-H action and doing a little tidying up you get the equations of motion for the metric components as $$G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$, the Einstein Field Equations, which also obey the conservation equation $$G^{ab}_{\phantom{ab};b}=0$$. The $$\Lambda g_{ab}$$ is an integration constant.
If M is Einstein then $$R_{ab} = K g_{ab}$$ so $$R = D K$$ where D is the number of space-time dimensions (ie trace(g)) and the EFE reduce to $$T_{ab} = K g_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}DK g_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab}$$. In the absence of matter you get $$T_{ab} =0$$ and so $$K-\frac{1}{2}DK + \Lambda = 0$$ and so $$\Lambda = (\frac{D}{2}-1)K$$
Assuming D>2, if K=0 then you have flat space-time and the angles of triangles add up to 180. If you have K<0 then you have AdS space and angles add up to more than 180. If you have K>0 then you has dS space and angles add up to less than 180.
If I were to provide you with the definition of $$R_{ab}$$ in terms of $$g_{ab}$$ then in principle you would have all the equations required to construct working, accurate models of the solar system, pulsars, black holes, cosmological inflation/redshifting/expansion and the GPS network. It's all there in $$G_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$.$$$$
