14-November-2007, 01:02 PM
|
 |
Established Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,340
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
…
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Taking these cold hard facts at face-value—the equality of inertial and gravitational mass (see Einstein's equivalence principle), the behavior of clocks and measuring-rods on a rotating body, the deflection of light by a gravitational field (over the entire celestial sphere), the displacement of spectral lines towards the red (gravitational redshift), and the gravitational time-delay of light signals—we obtain sufficient information to construct a precise picture of the four-dimensional field associated with gravitation. There is no need for a hypothetical particle. Gravity must be perceived from all possible view-points; the Euclidean (or Galileian) reference frame, the local fields, and the global fields, if we wish to appreciate the mechanics and dynamics operational involved in the gravitational interaction.
CC
|
If there is a particle, whether the paep or some other unifying energy particle, those observations would be “sufficient information to construct a precise picture” of a three-dimensional field associated with gravitation, and curved spacetime and the mathematical singularity would not be required. That means that if curved spacetime is correct we don’t need a background field and if there is a background field we don’t need curved spacetime.
It seems to come down to the fact that if there is such a background it could help to account for more that just gravity while curved spacetime stops short of accounting for anything other than gravity, i.e. the action of particles in the Planck regime.
Last edited by Bogie; 22-November-2007 at 04:06 PM..
|