[Tony Stanton]

Yes, matter/mass generates Space-Time

[zeroca]

Dear Tony!

---I’m not scientist, and I rarely read other people’s theories, especially those of scientists’, because I think that in the process of concentration on a certain, particular theme they loose principal, i.e. developing intellectually they blunt the intuition. And I also don’t care what great physicists assert (so should you), because it will either be true or false; also English isn’t my native language, I speak it not very well, I don’t understand clearly all your formulas, and I’m not sure that I saw your site correctly, but at least I looked through and read it.
---I found your theory somehow similar to mine, concerning the part where all bodies generate their own space-time, but you, as I guessed consider body as a complete, rigid event, but I consider it a process, opposite to its adjacent space, which also is a process (i.e. they both happen “within” time).
---I also agree that the rate of space (i.e. radius of sphere), generated by object is directly proportional to mass of the object (If you mean that), but I don’t think that any part of universe can be at rest. I believe that you used this term figuratively.
---And I think that not only space-time, but also body-time is 4-dimentional, but the difference between them is that body-time always occupies the central part (radially) of generated space, but space-time - peripheral part (radially).
---And I think you missed, or maybe haven’t prepared yet the analysys, how space-times are summed up/decomposed when their objects are summed up/decomposed, (particularly in cases of planets and also in cases of objects, placed within and outside of space-times of planets).
So you should produce your perfect “visual example” of glass paperweight within the space-time of the Earth and just outside it as well, i.e. outside of space-time of any planet (i.e. at rest), I’d like to say that the space-time of whole universe can be divided only into space-times of heavenly bodies, and all the rest little bodies, placed within the space-times of heavenly bodies have different behavior (their space-times are summed up with the space-time of heavenly body at once, radially, peripherally and just that’s the reason for striving of object to the planet’s body radially, centrally. I think you should produce your own view of it.
---I haven’t concentrated on the subject of light travel speed since my school time and don’t want to “spoil” my imagination by reading about it (it’s not my favorite method), but beforehand I can say that only nothing is constant and everything existing else is relative.
---I agree that gravity can be interpreted as distortion of space, but categorically not as attraction among bodies; I have my own view about it, but absolutely agree that Universe has a foam-like structure,
And partly agree that:
“Our Sun is contained within one of these small Space-Time enclosures, inside which the effect of gravity from the Sun can be felt but outside of this Space-Time enclosure, there is no gravitational effect from the Sun”,
Because I don’t think that this effect is from the Sun, but I believe that this effect is contained in Sun’s space-time.
---I don’t believe into existence of black holes
---And do you strongly believe that time “flows“ only in one direction? I don’t assert, but do you believe that the past can never be a future? Is it really ferroconcrete? I only say that if this universe stops and begins to spin in opposite direction, you’ll say again that time “flows” only in one direction.
Generally, I also think that your theory is sound concept, constructed from original thought (if it makes any difference, as I’m not an expert and not considered an authority).

Good luck!

[dleviwing]

Tony;
You have convinced yourself and therefore any comments one may make to you will be taken as harsh criticisms. Though you have several interesting views within your website, your interpretations of many concepts of the "Standard Model" indicate a lack of understanding.

Best regards;
Dave

[Tony Stanton]

Any comments are are welcome but I'm affraid I sometimes can be a little abrupt, its just the way write, I don't mind valid criticisms but until you have read all my website (including the consequences and discussion page) it is not valid to say that I have a lack of understanding of the "standard model".

Best regards;
Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Even if you're not a scientist there is no reason why your opinions are not valid opinions, also I'm not a scientist either and I'm not yet half way through my degree but that does not stop me from having a wonderful imagination. I only started studying a few years ago because I wanted to prove that my theory could not possibly be right but the more I learn, the more true it becomes.
I will still carry on studying physics because I know my theory will slip easily into all aspects of physical laws that do not pertain to general relativity. If general relativity is wrong and gravity is found not to be infinite and Space-Time is found to rotate with (not dragged by) bodies such as the Earth, as we are about to find out from the gravity probe 'B' experiment, a lot of scientist will have wasted their careers and will not be very pleased.
I have to learn known physics to be able to argue my case, that's why I have a very good understanding of astronomy, and both special relativity and general relativity.
You are right, it is either true or false and until someone comes back to me with a valid reason why my theory does not work, I will carry on until someone sits up and takes enough notice to help bring this theory to the attention of all the physics community.
Battling the establishment is not going to be easy.
Great physicist's such as Einstein and Newton have contributed much to our understanding of our Universe, they have given us a structure to physics and must be given all due deference
Your English is fine, better than mine! and thank you for reading it all the way through, I hope that included the consequences page.
Hopefully I have answered all of your questions on the discussion page of my website www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk

Thanks for your support

Best regards
Tony

[Guille]

It's not that your opinion, or mine, or Zeroca's, or someone olse's opinion isn't valid, but it is that if we are making scientific theories that have to do with scientific studies, then, it is our obligation to act as a scientist (in the sence of creating theroies like them) or be scientists. Atleast for scientific theories like yours.

[Guille]

I agree with qaunta07,

having read most or 95% upwards of your webpage, I see your principles the only or only major stop point for the credibility of your theory. in aditions to his questions, what is this space-time made of? do we, humans, also create space-time? and finally, how can matter "create" something from nothing? this is thermodinamically impossible.

[dleviwing]

Tony;
There is a Quantum Physics concept for gravity that you may be interested in.
"GRAVITY AS QUANTUM FOAM IN-FLOW" by Reginald T. Cahill of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Australia.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html

There are many other science papers at this site well worth studying for those interested in a TOE.
I agree with Guille's comments in post #17.
Though all opinions are valid, facts are more convincing.

Best regards;
Dave

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by quanta07 I visited the site and read your views, by your request, here are my views; I commend you on the amount of work involved in this presentation. Starting with basic definitions for your PREMIS, you provide math formulas, show calculations, and derive conclusions. The equations presented and the functions used are valid, however.... I believe your PREMIS, (your principles) lacks any clear definition 'governed by the volume of Space-Time that body or object ‘A’ has generated' What is a 'body'? How does anything generate a 'volume of Space-time'? What is 'Space-time'? Where is the equation for 'Space-time'? Your PREMIS appears unsound, therefore, even if all logic applied to your premis is sound, the conclusions drawn are unsound, and as such, have even less creditability than the premis. You used valid equations to present your conclusions, please use valid equations to present your premis.

Thank you.

A clear definition of the principles is exactly what I am striving for. I could use the term particle, but that would only apply to the very small where as object or body applies to the very small and the very large so I think the term object or body is clear. It means any object or body, from the very small to the very large, generates a volume of Space-Time around itself at a rate that is dependant only the mass of that object or body, providing that body or object is a rest, as viewed from your inertial frame of reference. The greater the mass, the slower rate at which that object or body generates a volume of Space-Time each second. If that body or object is in relative motion, under acceleration or in constant motion as viewed from your inertial frame of reference, then the rate at which that body or object generates Space-Time each second, slows down. I hope that has clarified the term object or body.

I have answered this thread in more detail on the discussion page of my website www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by <<>> I agree with qaunta07, having read most or 95% upwards of your webpage, I see your principles the only or only major stop point for the credibility of your theory. in aditions to his questions, what is this space-time made of? do we, humans, also create space-time? and finally, how can matter "create" something from nothing? this is thermodinamically impossible.

It may be that you don't understand the principles and it may be that I should include clarifacation of these principles because it does take quite a bit just to get your head around them. I'll bare it in mind.
Yes, your body generates Space-Time, as does mine and any and all objects in this Universe. As for what Space-Time is made of, that is open for discussion, but if what I have in mind is true, it will not break the law of thermodynamics and the answers will only come as this theory matures.