Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

First of all, I am in 8th grade. That doesn't mean you have to make your answer simple and easy to understand, but I ask you not to be too critical of my query/theory, because I don't consider myself an expert in this in any sense of the word.

So, imagine gravity. What is the Newtonian equation for gravity? The gravitational constant times the sum of the masses of the two objects (gravitated and gravitator) divided by the square of the radius of the gravitator squared. The gravitational constant times the sum of the masses of the two objects This illustrates the relation between density and gravitational strength.

Now, if we consider that mass and energy are, in a sense, parallel expressions of one another (i.e. parallel lines with the same slope, but one with a y-intercept of 1, the other with a y-intercept of whatever the speed of light squared is), than we come to the conclusion that they are, in their parallelity, almost interchangeable (of course, they must be converted into each other). So, really, mass is concrete energy and energy is abstract mass. Mass is a measure of matter, correct? If so, dense objects are objects with small volumes and great amounts of mass/energy.

Now, as the first three dimensions are dimensions of space, and therefore incompressible, as objects merely are in space, but not actually "using" or literally "taking up" space,(imagine it this way...if you draw a cube on a piece of paper, along with just it's length, width, and height, there is no possible way to calculate the cube's mass, weight, etc.) then space is stagnant without the introduction of a fourth dimension to bind, change, and affect space (this is how we know there is a fourth dimension, because otherwise, change, movement, and other principles would be inconceivable).

So, what should this dimension be? Well, it must be a duality. It must be concrete, to influence concrete objects in concrete ways, but it must be abstract, to influence the abstract (concepts, things, objects?) in abstract ways. Well, if we need such a duality, we can try the concept of energy/mass. Does this work? There are a few ways to check.

  1. Does this "dimension" affect concrete objects? We use energy/mass to move and influence objects.
  2. Does this "dimension" influence abstractions? Energy/mass is crucial to many abstractions, as we know.
  3. Is there a "real-world" proof of this new "dimension"?

To make sure this is valid, we apply our new "dimension" to a proven concept/theory/law. And so, we return to gravity. We already decided that density is a direct correlation between mass/energy and space. In Newtonian terms, the gravitational constant times the sum of the masses of the two objects (gravitated and gravitator) divided by the square of the radius of the gravitator squared. In more planar, abstractual terms, imagine the three dimensions of space, incompressible by just "space-taking" objects that only expand in those three dimensions (remember...if you draw a cube on a piece of paper, along with just it's length, width, and height, there is no possible way to calculate the cube's mass, weight, etc.). Now, how does mass/energy fit into this?

Well, if mass/energy is also a planar value, it has some different properties than space (mass/energy would not be invariant). Because that you now have mass/energy, different objects have different masses and amounts of energy in different amounts of space. This means that mass/energy must be compressed differently into different spaces, right? So, the plane of mass/energy has been distorted, warped, compressed. Because or new "dimension" has now created "space-energy/mass" as a four-dimensional, universal fabric, space has also been distorted, warped, compressed as well.

Now objects and abstractions traveling through the universe naturally take the path of least resistance and follow the now-curved and distorted planes of "space-mass/energy", creating the gravitational effect. The more space/mass is distorted, the more space is distorted, and thus the more powerful gravity is. There is more to this theory, but, until I receive validation of this theory, I will wait to digress more. Please contact me as soon as possible.

share|improve this question

migrated from theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com Mar 18 '12 at 8:21

This question came from our site for scientific theorists and academic scholars interested in theoretical, research-level physics.

closed as off topic by David Z Mar 18 '12 at 9:29

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer 1

[John, I should first point out that the moderators will likely move both your question and any answers over to physics.stackexchange.com. Also, your question is not showing up except for the first few words. When I answered below, I only had your title and first few words to go by. I do not know what your full argument was.]

Best answer is: No, but mass/energy and time have a very close relationship nonetheless.

Mass/energy is to time (t) what momentum is to space (xyz), so the correct pairing at a quite deep level really is time and space. However, quantum uncertainty creates a profound and mathematically precise relationship between both pairings. Most folks have heard about the uncertainty relationship between space and momentum -- that is, if you know exactly where a particle is, its momentum (speed) becomes very, very uncertain, and vice-versa.

The less know pairing is between time and mass/energy, but it works exactly the same way. Thus if you know very precisely what the mass/energy of a systems is, something paradoxical happens: You lose track of when it is in time! Richard Feynman covers this idea nicely in Volume III of his Lectures on Physics, if you happen to have access to that.

share|improve this answer