[CZARCAR]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12620560   huh?

[yor_on]

Gravity is a geometry. The geometry express itself everywhere, inside us and outside. Quantum physics hopes to find evidence for it becoming 'particles' of some kind, like the Higgs boson/field or gravitons. But, as far as I understand it, Einstein didn't see gravity as 'particles'. Geometry is shapes, everything radiation shows us has a 'shape' of some kind, except 'space'.

Space is a classical (as in GR) negation of everything, it's not a 'medium' like air, and it do not contain anything we can observe classically other than invariant matter and, possibly, radiation. The only thing that can define this space is 'distance'. There is no way for us to mark out 'space' in certain measures, we have to use heavenly objects like stars (and radiation) for defining the size of it.

Think of boxes 'filled' with nothing. That nothing is a vacuum, aka 'space. Make the boxes differently large. Can you now say that you have more 'vacuum' in the larger box? Why? There's nothing there. Its not the vacuum that is 'larger' there, but the shape of the box, its geometry. So the most interesting question with space is how something not really there can get a 'distance'? And that one has irritated me a long time but maybe, just maybe? Recently Ive started to wonder about what 'gravity' really can do? Can it give a 'nothing' a distance? If it can, it really is a geometry. And a geometry that not only creates distance, but also will create the directions for both radiation and invariant mass. There are two things I know that can warp/distort SpaceTime, invariant mass and energy. So what is a 'distance'? And what is a 'speed'?

[Geezer]

I think you might be havering Yoron.

Light follows a straight line through space, but matter distorts space, so a straight line might actually be curved when viewed from a different perspective.

[yor_on]

Sorry, what's the argument Geezer?
Not sure how you think there?

That gravity distort space is clear.
That we have a three dimensional reality is also very clear.
That we live inside the 'arrow of time' having one direction is also indisputable, at least macroscopically.

So what the he* are you talking about

[yor_on]

Maybe you visualize light as being visible streaks through 'space'? And then it is 'convoluted' and so if we only could straight it out we would get more 'distance' from it? And so we could argue that 'space' exist?

Light only exist in a interaction. There is no way to see a 'photon' more than once, if you don't want to argue that a entanglement are the exact same. But then the other photon also should be annihilated. And it ain't, both live a 'life' of their own even if entangled.

So that space is a nothing. Gravity may create it and also 'distort' it. Or are you thinking of Newtons 'forces'? Everything having a 'vector' (magnitude and direction). Meaning that everything should be a 'flat' surface from the beginning? Maybe? Don't know, you can use all kinds of premises for describing SpaceTime. To assume that we 'know' how it should behave have been repeatedly wrong in the past. And most of the things we trust in today will 'somewhere' have to be changed before we get any closer to 'reality'.

It's a little presumptuous assuming that we 'know' how to build a 'SpaceTime' because we just 'discovered' alternatively 'invented' Quantum mechanics. Only *** believe that their own little corner contain the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth, so help me **.

[yor_on]

If you won't agree with me that distance is a discussable concept then show me where and how it can't be disputed please. To me it seems as if both particles and space builds on the same concept, 'distance'. Then we have some things that seems to make it without. Light.

[yor_on]

When light bends to gravity then that's because it plays by the 'rules'. The 'rules' we have state that everything obeys 'gravity'. Space and matter seems very alike in that they both contain this property, 'distance'. Then we have some things that don't. Light is what comes to my mind then. Particles are also defined by their need to take up a '3D-room' wherever they are, sort of reserving a 'space'. That's also why we expect them to be there tomorrow. Light on the other side just 'is'. That you can find it everywhere tells you nothing about a speed or a 'distance'. Light only exist in a interaction, that we use our ideas of a '3D room geometry in times arrow' to measure a 'speed' is a direct result from where we live. No guarantee of this being anything else than a defect in something else, getting 'locally' (SpaceTime) some very weird properties enabling linearity inside non-linearity inside linearity inside ...

I prefer looking at light speed in a vacuum as a constant nowadays. Not that makes it any more understandable, just that light do some very weird things that? I don't know, I think of it as a 'constant'. And those 'Constants' is what we need to find.

[spook1456]

light does not bend (but it still can be considered as bending) the space and time around light is bended making it seem like light is bending hence light is bending and not bending at the same time

[granpa]

even if light were not affected by gravity it would still bend due to gravitational time dilation.

[David]

My understanding is that about 10 years ago the weight of photons was measured. My other question is; is the fourth dimension dark matter?