[Guille]

If we consider impulse, noting that it is the interval of momentum (linear, so we don't cimplicate things) and also the interval of velocity in force, then:
Which means that the mass times the interval of speed is equal to the force times the interval of time (both equate Impulse). We could also equate this with angular momentum if we generalize angular momentum to any momentum that impplies achange in direction and magnitude, then dxp (distance times momentum) is equal to . Then we know that the time interval at which we apply a force times the force is equal to 2·KE·m but because mass times the interval of speed is also equal to these, then we can say that the interval of velocity is twice the kinetic energy. We can hypothesize that this is fv/d (Ft) such that it is the inverse of E=fd. Therefore impulse is for force what speed is for energy. As the impulse is bigger, so is the force, we knew this from the start, the important thing is that FI=vE is ok for any massless particle. So photons, as having v=c must have the energy it has from lorentz force, such that gravity is 0. So wherever photons are, there are no gravitons, and so gravitons can't form the structure of spacetime. What is the curvature of spacetime then? Or is gravity something completely different?

[mkirkpatrick]

Maybe the curvature of spacetime is
the beginning of the formation of a vortex,of unimaginal size?

kindregards michael.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Maybe the curvature of spacetime is the beginning of the formation of a vortex,of unimaginal size? kindregards michael.

I think u are absolutely right there

I dont believe gravitons form the structure of space time. because gravitons are still hypothetical. What i believe is may be the space time is the plane of existence

[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?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by <<>> 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?

Guille i don't understand it much myself. But wherever i have read i understand that space time is like a piece of graph sheet-with more dimensions. Because of these extra dimensions i think it can accomodate fluctuations. Where as a graph sheet won't.
So space time should be just dimensions.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Guille i don't understand it much myself. But wherever i have read i understand that space time is like a piece of graph sheet-with more dimensions. Because of these extra dimensions i think it can accomodate fluctuations. Where as a graph sheet won't. So space time should be just dimensions.

Yes, spacetime is just dimensions. But that leads to the false thought that spacetime is human invented, illusions. Spacetime is part of reality, so we have to define what really we mean by 'dimension' in the physical way, and part of this is deciding whether it is continuous or discreet. It is very hard, but i believe it can be done without the need of inventing 11 dimensions for matter and 26 dimensions for force, as have string theorists done. Do you believe in string theory?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I dont believe gravitons form the structure of space time. because gravitons are still hypothetical. What i believe is may be the space time is the plane of existence

Space time is just another word for the relative universe,both are illusions,albeit relatively real illusions,that have no
eternal value,only a "tempore" arena for energy to coalase?

kind regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by <<>> Yes, spacetime is just dimensions. But that leads to the false thought that spacetime is human invented, illusions. Spacetime is part of reality, so we have to define what really we mean by 'dimension' in the physical way, and part of this is deciding whether it is continuous or discreet. It is very hard, but i believe it can be done without the need of inventing 11 dimensions for matter and 26 dimensions for force, as have string theorists done. Do you believe in string theory?

Dimensions are human invented. hmmm... I don't think so then it would be much like telling that universe is there because u are there. Dimensions are the understanding of human thought. That doesn't mean they are human invented. And yes we can explain the universe in a much simpler way than giving all those extra dimensions. Space time is continous is what i believe but it does become discrete at special circumstances like beginning of the universe and in the singularities.

Do i believe in string i don't know because i don't know anything about it. If you could name a good book i can follow.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I think u are absolutely right there

Well thank you
young sir,I would treat you to a ice cold glass of lassi if I were closer.

kindest regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Dimensions are human invented. hmmm... I don't think so then it would be much like telling that universe is there because u are there.

The anthropic principle asserts that the universe exists ultimatelly for the existence of humans. I don't believe in it, but it is true that all science is limited to our experiences of the world, and we cannot experience something directly itself, but our perception of it.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Dimensions are the understanding of human thought. That doesn't mean they are human invented. And yes we can explain the universe in a much simpler way than giving all those extra dimensions. Space time is continous is what i believe but it does become discrete at special circumstances like beginning of the universe and in the singularities.

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?

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Do i believe in string i don't know because i don't know anything about it. If you could name a good book i can follow.

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).