Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar  Hi John,
Good for me I do not need reading glasses as yet. As I grow older, I probably would. I am slightly saddened by your abandoning the idea of space moving into time. This idea kind of solves two problems
1) Why is gravity a weak force? Probably because it is not a force and it is only a reaction.
2) Why cant we move into time? Because till space moves forward, we would not be able to do so. Like if you are travelling in an aeroplane, unless the plane moves forward, you do not move forward and second because the plane is moving forward, you cannot move back at will. I considered space to be our aeroplane that is moving into time.... |
Hi Dipayankar:
The idea that it is creating space also has its direction. I posted some of this to the forums on yahoo over the past few days to see if there was any differing thoughts on this issue. I got a response that simply said. Of course it is the 4th dimension and yes it is obviously creating space and time at this point. That is all it said except for an invitation to join a group of string theorists. So maybe that is the natural progression of this thought.
Yes I agree, the idea of space moving into time would have its value as a possible cause of gravity. However it does not change the perception of seeing gravity as a reaction to something else. Possibly even a reaction to a reaction. This is the same problem that is encountered whenever one tries to determine the cause of any apparent force. It is always more likely to be a reaction that we experience than a direct action. The reason for this is because there is only one direct action and EVERYTHING that follows is a reaction to a reaction. If you look at the laws of probability relative to that thought then it is the most likely possibility that gravity is a reaction rather than a direct action as there are more reactions possible as compared to the initial action. We could think that when space is created that the space warps at the point where matter exists as a reaction to the creation of space. This is what I see as the most likely. But it still is less obvious because of our lack of knowledge of and the ability to determine the characteristics of creation.
Maybe some sharp character might find some math that relates to this that will help to enlighten us. I can not see anything beyond this thought that I can do except to keep looking at this phenomena until something dawns in somebody’s mind. That all there is in mine for the time being.
STOP!
I just had a thought! There would be no gravity without mass the two words are each relative to each other.
Just had a thought of where it might be worth looking. It is always a reaction to mass. What makes mass reluctant to change / movement?
This relates to the amount of energy that is required to move it. The more mass the more energy is required to move it. Looking from the other vantage point of mass. (E=mc2) not only does mass relate to the amount of energy required to move it, it also relates to the amount of energy that it REPRESENTS. This might be a good place for some calculations to show a relativity between the amount of energy that it represents as compared to the amount of energy that is required to move it. How does E relate to the E that is required to move it. This should truly define gravity. It may show it as the weak force that it is.
The relative number that results might relate to other numbers that indicate still more enlightening relativity. I hope that I give you another route to get to where you want to be.
John EMM