i need some validation to an idea I have

[Eaurrua]

I am thinking that the boundry set to objects moving thru space time can not exceed the speed of light because they exude a gravitation field which holds them into relative space time and can not move any faster because the space they are moving into is created at that moment and at the speed of light. If i am correct in my asumptions i might have an intresting idea about what gravity may be Please comment

Edited September 25, 2016 by Eaurrua

[Mordred]

I noticed the accidental double post. I'll flag the extra to avoid cross posts.

 

Ok not sure what your implying by space created at speed of light. Space by definition is the volume. GR uses it this way as well. GR doesn't state space is created. This is usually a pop media hindrance of trying to describe geometric volume relations between events as space being created, curved, folded etc.

 

Yet its really describing is the differential geometry relations. Not some fabric or other materilistic property.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Mordred

[Eaurrua]

Picture if you will the walls in the in your room and notice where the two lines intersect in any corner. In relative time you can observe a single point and move towards it and away from it because you physicality exerts a gravitational field. I am suggesting that if you could observe the same two planes (but that would not be possible) with out exerting a gravitational field and observe it. The two planes would never cross, I believe that's why we cant detect dark matter . We look for it in a four dimensional world but dark matter is trapped in a single dimensional state I believe the reason for that is because it lacks enough gravity to enter in to relative space time . It does have an effect on the fabric of space time but it is not detectable in the methods we are looking for it but I do believe its there

Edited September 25, 2016 by Eaurrua

[KipIngram]

You're sort of asking *why* the speed of light is constant for all observers, and I'm not sure we know that. I'm not a professional physicist, though, so I may be behind the times. But recall that "c is constant" is a *postulate* of special relativity - it's not a conclusion. You get the theory when you start with that as an assumption; therefore, relativity doesn't provide an explanation as to why.

[mistermack]

It think the speed of light being a constant, and it being a constant for all observers, are two different questions.

 

If you imagine a train that always travels at a constant speed which cannot vary, that is one thing and would have a certain physical explanation.

But if the same train always travelled at the same speed for all observers, that is a very different phenomenon, and would require time to be different for each observer.

[swansont]

You're sort of asking *why* the speed of light is constant for all observers, and I'm not sure we know that. I'm not a professional physicist, though, so I may be behind the times. But recall that "c is constant" is a *postulate* of special relativity - it's not a conclusion. You get the theory when you start with that as an assumption; therefore, relativity doesn't provide an explanation as to why.

Relativity doesn't really need to explain why, it's already an observation from E&M — Maxwell's equations have c as an invariant. SR was just an extension of that idea into kinematics

[KipIngram]

Yes, I agree - I didn't mean to be demanding an explanation. Just saying what you said - that relativity isn't on the hook for that.