[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> But I differentiate between natural dimensions and cultural dimensions. Natural dimensions are those like space 3d and time. But cultural dimensiosn are those that arrised from our history: logic is a dimensions, as something can be logical or illogical, but not out of the dimension. Also love, someone can love a lot or little or nothing or everything, but is always in the dimension of love. etz, etz... The probelm if space-time is continuous, what is it, a wave, a field, or simply ios it what matter occupies, in that there is no space-time if there is no matter in a place? I got introduced to it with Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. A series of documentaries were done and are available on the internet for free 8they are very good, just search on google there is a web with all of them). He has also written The Fabric Of The Cosmos. Another good physicist writing is Michio Kaku. However, I don't believe in string theory (totally: some aprts are very correct).

Well I can tell u my beliefs. I say space time is what matter occupies. Well as per the Quantum theory there is no vaccum. It is the matter which arranges itself. With the fact of entropy in hand i think we can explain the space time the way matter arranges itself to form the space time. Do you still argue.

By the way thank you for book recommendations. I will see to it that i will buy them(After the exams).

[dleviwing]

Again I'm impressed by another young mind. Mohan and Guillermo; you two are exceptions to the norm for your age.

Mohan; try this site before you buy any string-theory books.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

[baudrunner]

It occurs to me that you are inputting your posts from a PDA, Michael. Am I correct in this assumption? Those carriage returns and those spelling errors, no offense meant, could only occur as the result of your inputting text into a limited keypad crammed for space.

Mohan, I think that just because something is hypothetical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. What it does mean is that it requires further investigation, because it seems to make sense based on the fact that it is curently being accepted by the community that the Universe is closed and infinitely expanding and that there appears to be evidence for a small cosmological constant therefore at the periphery of the expanding Universe space-time and matter are most probably continuing to be created, so space, as a creation, must therefore be made of something so why not gravitons, for lack of a better name?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by baudrunner It occurs to me that you are inputting your posts from a PDA, Michael. Am I correct in this assumption? Those carriage returns and those spelling errors, no offense meant, could only occur as the result of your inputting text into a limited keypad crammed for space. Mohan, I think that just because something is hypothetical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. What it does mean is that it requires further investigation, because it seems to make sense based on the fact that it is curently being accepted by the community that the Universe is closed and infinitely expanding and that there appears to be evidence for a small cosmological constant therefore at the periphery of the expanding Universe space-time and matter are most probably continuing to be created, so space, as a creation, must therefore be made of something so why not gravitons, for lack of a better name?

In one of your posts in another thread you have yourself accepted you have difficulty in accepting photons. So i don't like to repeat your same words. Like you say we believe in the existense of photons by their interactions. However we are not yet sure of the interactions of gravitons-which makes it hypothetical.

[dleviwing]

In particle physics, it is common practice to call measurements of quantum energy increments as being "FORCE PARTICLES". The Photon, Boson, Graviton, and morons fall into this category as being particles when they are NOT. They only exist as a measured quantity that produce a change. There is NO REALITY of them being autonomous units of physical being; they are only increments of energy change.

[Mohan.C]

Thank you dleviwing I have got what you mean. I was thinking of gravitons as something different.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> space-time is as you say only the dimensionality for existence. But I'm questioning it's internal structure, is there nothing, is space-time only a continuous (non-discrete) disposition for matter and force?

Does dimensions have internal structure.Dimensions are just one of the quantities we use to measure. Like time length breadth etc..

[whoami]

Originally Posted by dleviwing In particle physics, it is common practice to call measurements of quantum energy increments as being "FORCE PARTICLES". The Photon, Boson, Graviton, and morons fall into this category as being particles when they are NOT. They only exist as a measured quantity that produce a change. There is NO REALITY of them being autonomous units of physical being; they are only increments of energy change.

If the FORCE PARTICLes cannot be there can the force waves be there. May be they are all the fluctuation of Dimensions.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by whoami If the FORCE PARTICLes cannot be there can the force waves be there. Maybe they are all the fluctuation of Dimensions.

Mohan;
My comment basically answers your question. Force ( force particles) only exists while there is interaction between physical substance. The only phenomena that can be referred to as possibly being particles, is the interference domains created as waves interact constructively or destructively. It is quite likely that these domains have the mass/energy (Planck's constant) value that is interpreted by particle physicist as being bosons and photons.

BTW: Why are you using 2 ToeQuest accounts???

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> mkirkpatrik, If it is as you say, I wonder, what could 'be' the 'structure' of the void? mohan, space-time is as you say only the dimensionality for existence. But I'm questioning it's internal structure, is there nothing, is space-time only a continuous (non-discrete) disposition for matter and force?

That would be difficult to answer amigo,you can have no structure whatsoever in the void,absolute absence of all things, including, rays, whether gamma or not, absolute vacuum, devoid, unrealized potentuality, how can you discribe the undiscribable?

kind regards michael.