Recent content by nikko lyng

That's like saying that velocity is not a property of motion. It is a property of s=vt as a whole. I cannot really make more sense of what you're saying here than that. Then you are free to remove "i suppose" and then you got one. As far as I've heard they failed to, but if they succeeded...

For example there could be a fourth dimension which is not time, but which the other three dimensions curve relative to? This fourth dimension may be proportional to time. Simple as that? Because if it does not have any similar properties it would not be logical to name it similar as well i...

Well yeah, maybe one could assume that there are 4 dimensions but that the fourth isn't time? However a 4th dimension implies that it has similar properties to the other three. Are you sure it is not possible that something which is still different could appear to have the properties of a 4th...

Yes I agree with that the results of GR would have to emerge from a more fundamental theory. But would time as a dimension be a necessity or could it be substituted by "how coordinates of space relates to coordinates of time" where time is not a dimension? If you are bored enough you can check...

Thank you for your answer. So it seems that time dilation and curvature of space-time somehow emerges from the field equations in order to predict reality slightly differently. At least it seems logical that Newton didnt account for time dilation. I suppose all this information came from...

Thanks, where in the field equations can I find this extra term?

Im curious what is it about space-time or Einsteins field equations which explains Mercurys precession correct while Newton's formula doesn't? So exactly what difference causes GR to explain it that Newton could not?