h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maybe, "Gravity is a force rather than just a distortion", because space-time is a mathematical construct, that may if we are lucky, emulate the action of an actual measured force? If mass & energy are conserved, why not space-time, but then again its only a mathematical construct? You may find, Carel van der Togt`s "www.paradox-paradigm.nl" discussions of interest, or not?

Maybe if the proton bald spot idea has any merit, fissile material would tend to age faster during acceleration, as its protons pool towards one hemisphere of each atom? Maybe Japan`s reactors popped not only because of fractured pipes, during the earth quake, but possibly a temporary shortening of their fissile materials half life during acceleration(g-force)added to their problems? When launched into space has anybody noted a peak in energy production, as a satellite`s radioactive power source is accelerated?

When a projectile of low grade radioactive material impacts its target, is there a change in the materials half life, during the impact? Possibly supporting the proton bald spot idea? Constant speed enables protons within their atoms, to push each other apart, while acceleration possibly bunches them up towards one hemisphere of each atom, leaving a temporary bald spot of exposed neutrons.

If a projectile were to attain a speed close to that of light, would a shock-wave of compressed elastic space-time vibrations form around it? At what rate does elastic space-time, snap back? Could there be a trail of stretched space-time vibrations, following along behind it, for a short while, until they eventually restore normal space-time vibration levels( maybe space-time really is noisy )?

For Einsteins equation ( in an easier to understand version ),see "math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2".

A particle passing through a point may have various components of momentum, but since distances are fixed by choosing to observe the point at x,y & z, is it the particles age that changes for each component direction? Perhaps speed is a function of a particle`s age in any component direction, provided space-time vibrations are small enough to keep out any unwanted uncertainty ?

Possibly uncertainty creeps in, since the particle maybe an assembly of sub-atomic particles, an assembly of unique time events, all progressing as their individual ages increase, in any of the x,y & z directions . In the time direction sub-atomic particles grow together, maybe to go backwards in time a subatomic particle has to grow larger in time, quicker than those around it?

Space-time converts time into a single equivalent distance component "ct", where time passes at relative rates, which is alright, if you assume all particles came into existence together, but did they? Sub-atomic particles pop in and out of existence, possibly acquiring a new inception date, at every pop? Time is quite possibly an assembly of elapsed inception dates, that merge together as they pass through any point x, y & z. Since each elapsed inception date is expanding from a different direction, maybe time requires its own components x,y,z?

Checking clock time is easy, but is it possible to indirectly figure out time`s directional components? See,"wikipedia(en),Gauge Theory", maybe time fields with time excitations?

Is it possible to detect a single time wave, without using a clock that can only respond to the sum of all arriving time waves, at a point(x,y,z) in space? Maybe Gravity is a force due to the many individual time events that are co-expanding into the past, between chosen points within space?

Causal Set theory " arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9904062 ", maybe if events in time were able to join up, then they could possibly form chains and eventually networks, which as they grow construct space-time? Would volume depend on a networks size, could smaller networks pass between the gaps between larger networks, is light speed set by the average network size?

For causal sets without the difficult maths, see " einstein-online.info/spotlights/causal_sets ". Is time a continuum that supports events peppered within, or is it composed from discrete units that bounce around, building up and breaking down networks?

Maybe Causal-sets age as the grow, or reset to a younger age if they break apart? Since heated molecules may undergo accelerations, do some medications loose their efficacy during periods of high acceleration, as experienced during space flight?

The big bang theory only requires one gravitational force field inception date, yet each new particle of matter has a younger inception date? The gravitational (mass-energy) field being the sum of its parts, yet some parts are newer than others ? If energy is relative change of position over time, is mass change of time at a relative fixed position?

To an observer, a distant objects kinetic energy is proportional to its change in position during a period of passing time, but this equation also implies that mass is proportional to a change of the objects passing time as the objects position changes. Maybe asking how much Mass an object contains is every bit as rude, as asking how old it is?

Mass derived using a kinetic energy equation, being related to change of the increase in the age of an object, compared to the objects change in change of position. Mass derived using a potential energy equation is similar,( without taking the average ), to the above. Does space-time give directional components to time, if so, maybe rate of change of increase in age requires directional components as well? Maybe space-time is comparing the rate that an observer increases in age, with another nearby aging object( mostly ignoring other objects along other directions no matter how old they are )?

Maybe if the uncertainty equation product of rotational energy with time to orbit, bounded by Planck`s reduced constant were rewritten for mass, then mass still turns out to be proportional to the orbiting objects rate of change of age? Maybe particles in a circular orbit age at a constant rate and those in an elliptical orbit age at differing rates?

Sorry should have wrote" then mass still turns out to be proportional to the orbiting objects rate of change of its increasing age ".

Planck`s constant is in units of Jule.seconds, a unit of angular momentum, yet it also somehow determines the amount of energy borrowed by a newly created particle pair. Maybe duration of the new particle pair depends on their total mass, since mass depends on rate of change of increasing particle age?

Maybe angular-momentum`s mass is directly proportional to change of age compared to change of position all squared, yet inversely proportional to duration of the particle pair that popped into existence?