Hi Robh
Yes indeed my view is formed no doubt from my desire to have a "mechanical" explanation and so particles speculated upon such as a graviton are of interest.... however it was not I that came up with the graviton or the boson and the fact that others greater than I have arrived at such hypothesis does not make my thoughts out of bounds.
The premise of general relativity is very much as you suggest things may be..it just is.... if asked for a simple explanation of general relativity one could answer that it is a concept that attributes space with certain properties "that just are" particularly that space is "bent" by mass.
The geometry lets us then look at gravity as little more than the shortest path between two objects with mass and this "shortest" distance is in effect the result of the bending of space.
However at the risk of over simplification what we deal with is a geometric construct with no reference to how space does what we attribute to its working.
I simply contend that there must be more at work than geometry. We use geometry to plan a house and such plan is invaluable during construction...but the plan is not the house..the house finally will be constructed with real things each capable of classification and measurement.
In the case of the flow of a river it is clear rivers flow to the sea... that is simlar to saying mass bends space and time but further consideration enables us to propose that it is the difference in height at either end of the river and what we observe is water flowing to the lowest point..again similar to the space time bend approach..but there is something happening at a particle level one could expect that enables particles in the river to chose which way they must travel...
In any event if we stick doggedly to the notion that space bends and that is the end of it we simply dabble with geometry and avoid adding any reason as to why the geometry dictates what we observe.. we can draw the house plans but then offer no candidates for the materials to be used in its construction....as I understand it physisits are happy to stop at the geometry point and that is fair but I think we will miss a grander story..and the grander story does not have to conflict with GR in fact one reasoning should and must compliment the other.
I think to offer nothing more than geometry misses the point and folk are so happily indulging the math they fail to recognise that probably things dont happen as if by magic but there is possibly a particle conection and interaction...
Also I ask..how can folk happily indulge speculation upon what happens in a black hole if nothing can escape...even presumably any possibilty of an observation that will support any of the speculations presented.
I think my consideration that a feild must be made up of some particle flow is far from unreasonable in terms of speculation when one considers the speculation other indulge when it comes to black holes.
Frankly I think its like arguing about what Hobbits have for their second breakfasts
Have to go will edit this later it was a rush..
alex
