This article is not really coherent. It seems like a bunch of random statements about physics, strung together without explanation. This paragraph for instance is a bunch of true-ish sentences but overall is gibberish:
> The metric tensor of spacetime tells us how lengths determine in spacetime. The metric tensor also thus determines the curvature properties of spacetime. Curvature is what we feel as "force." In addition, energy and curvature relate to each other through the Einstein field equations. Test particles follow what are called geodesics—the shortest paths in the spacetime.
> This paragraph for instance is a bunch of true-ish sentences but overall is gibberish:
>> The metric tensor of spacetime tells us how lengths determine in spacetime. The metric tensor also thus determines the curvature properties of spacetime. Curvature is what we feel as "force." In addition, energy and curvature relate to each other through the Einstein field equations. Test particles follow what are called geodesics—the shortest paths in the spacetime.
Could you elaborate on why you think this is gibberish? I mean, I agree that the article is giving off a pseudo science vibe and the authors should work on their style. (Instead of presenting their results in a matter-of-fact manner, they should rather dedicate more time to explaining their assumptions and their reasoning in a step-by-step manner.) But the paragraph you quoted seems perfectly fine.
All of the sentences in the paragraph are real sentences from physics but they're strong together like they were generated by GPT-3 or something. For instance what does "how lengths determine in spacetime" mean? Why is it saying that curvature is what we feel as force? Why is it suddenly talking about test particles without introducing the term? Why does it jump to talking about geodesics in the last sentence? etc. it just feels like it was strung together by an algorithm.
> they're strong together like they were generated by GPT-3 or something
I agree, the article is not very coherent. However, neither of the authors is an English native speaker, so maybe that is playing a role here?
OTOH, the website where the article is being hosted does look somewhat sketchy, so maybe you're right and the article was not written by the paper's authors but indeed strung together by an algorithm.
It should be "how lengths are determined in spacetime" which I assume is just a mundane english second language issue.
In the view of GR, all objects follow straight lines absent acceleration, and the force of gravity is actually a result of curvature of spacetime. That and the rest of your points that follow are more an issue of not being familiar with GR. I agree the article could have done a better job of elaborating these to a wider audience, but if you've read about GR a bit these concepts will be quite familiar.
There’s a paper with equations linked at the bottom. I suspect it sounds like gibberish because its describing a mathematical proof with common language. The paper assumes you have a lot of knowledge as well.
“metric tensor of spacetime”… When I hear a series of words that I feel sound like bullshit I Google them. And, like you I felt this paragraph felt like a healthy bit of BS but was surprised that this paragraph is pretty much the Wiki definition of the phrase “metric tensor of spacetime”. I still dont understand it however.
Oh, yes, that's a real phrase that's ubiquitous in physics. It's the weird progression of sentences, wandering through ideas with no explanation or implication, that makes it sound like gibberish.
> The metric tensor of spacetime tells us how lengths determine in spacetime. The metric tensor also thus determines the curvature properties of spacetime. Curvature is what we feel as "force." In addition, energy and curvature relate to each other through the Einstein field equations. Test particles follow what are called geodesics—the shortest paths in the spacetime.