[MHGinTN]

I have no doubt that gravity is a spacetime phenomenon. My question is, however, what is it about mass that generates this phenomenon? ... Could it be that mass is an accumulation of temporal quanta? Isn't a particle merely a little bit of space and a smidgen of time wrapped up with energy? If the warping of spacetime is what gravity is, why have we left the temporal accumulation out of the reasoning?

[txroadkill]

Ow...that made my brain hurt

[lafroste]

I rarely say it, but I have what appears (to me at least) to be a coherent theory of gravity. SImply put, mass is it's own dimensional phenomenon and remains at all TIMES constant. Spacetime warp is simply a function of mass and absolute velocity (implying, of course that a set of absolute zero conditions, including velocity, exists). As a mass moves through this time wrp, it's apparent 4th dimensional energy state is altered in such a way as to keep its 5th dimensional "q" constant.

The theory has a lot of fascinating corollaries, and even suggests a method for building anti-gravity engines. Interested parties, see my tagline.

[CottShop]

[[If the warping of spacetime is what gravity is, why have we left the temporal accumulation out of the reasoning?]]

Because evolution hasn’t equipted us to deal rationally with such warped discussions

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

temporal quanta

How do we know that "temporal quanta" exist?

[betty boop]

Could it be that mass is an accumulation of temporal quanta? Isn't a particle merely a little bit of space and a smidgen of time wrapped up with energy? If the warping of spacetime is what gravity is, why have we left the temporal accumulation out of the reasoning?

Wonderful questions, MHGinTN! Somebody ought to be chasing them down.

[BTW, how's your book coming along???]

[Alamo-Girl]

If the warping of spacetime is what gravity is, why have we left the temporal accumulation out of the reasoning?

Indeed, many physicists - even knowing and accepting General Relativity - tend to check "time" at the door.

The subject of time, particularly when one considers the possibility of additional temporal dimensions wrecks havoc on presuppositions, especially physical causality (Vafa, Wesson et al).

[hosepipe]

[ Isn't a particle merely a little bit of space and a smidgen of time wrapped up with energy? ]

Thats cute.. well said.. could be kinda/fairly true..

My problem is with space/vacuum.. Space cannot be empty..
It must be filled with something.. What is nothing?..
If space is nothing, what is that nothing?.. the nothing must be something..

Dark matter/energy?.. I can live with that..
Even though we cannot see, touch or measure it..
It is there.... Where ever there is..
Dark whatever can also probably be here.. I sometimes know where here is..

Did I say anything?..

[SunkenCiv]

I have no doubt that I don’t know what gravity is. :’) I feel I’m in good company with that. ;’)

Anyway, just to drop another pebble to see if gravity makes it hit the waters and cause ripples...

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gravity.asp

[aNYCguy]

Isn't a particle merely a little bit of space and a smidgen of time wrapped up with energy?

Not really. Where did you get the idea that a particle is composed of some amount of space and time?

A particle is a packet of energy with various attributes. A given particle has a location in spacetime, but it's not generally thought of as being composed of space or time.