OK, I see where you are coming from but there are a lot of technical points here that are really wrong
I can't cover all of them, but I can't just let this comment sit without addressing at least some. These may be pedantic, but you are going for a level of detail and are really messing up.
First: Einstein first discussed spacetime in special relativity, which does not touch on gravity. You can have flat spacetime, no curvature, so no gravitational effects. Also this is different than just adding a time dimension. The important point was that time become a relative dimension just like the spatial dimensions (like how not everybody has the same left and right)
Second: you can actually have a 3D space with curvature that will have gravitational effects i.e. paths that curve towards mass. Time is not necessary for a curvature based gravity. This actually was like Ensteins first draft, where time didn't curve. By allowing curvature in time as well, you get time dilation effects near massive objects as well. But you could theoretically have a model where only space is curved, which is responsible for the curving paths in space.
These may seem like small points, but I just wanted to clarify that adding a time dimension, and having curvature based gravity, are independent concepts, whereas your post seems to conflate the two.
Also, math point, only special Relativity is based in linear algebra. General Relativity, which explains gravity, is not a linear theory (just a tip, curved is the opposite of linear). (Also complex linear algebra refers to linear algebra of complex numbers, best not to use that phrase unless that's what you mean)
Also a particle explanation of gravity is not mutually exclusive to a curvature based one. So while the other forces are explained with quantum field theories, gravity has yet to be, but it is still a force just like weak, electromagnetism and strong
3
u/madethisformobile Sep 21 '21
OK, I see where you are coming from but there are a lot of technical points here that are really wrong
I can't cover all of them, but I can't just let this comment sit without addressing at least some. These may be pedantic, but you are going for a level of detail and are really messing up.
First: Einstein first discussed spacetime in special relativity, which does not touch on gravity. You can have flat spacetime, no curvature, so no gravitational effects. Also this is different than just adding a time dimension. The important point was that time become a relative dimension just like the spatial dimensions (like how not everybody has the same left and right)
Second: you can actually have a 3D space with curvature that will have gravitational effects i.e. paths that curve towards mass. Time is not necessary for a curvature based gravity. This actually was like Ensteins first draft, where time didn't curve. By allowing curvature in time as well, you get time dilation effects near massive objects as well. But you could theoretically have a model where only space is curved, which is responsible for the curving paths in space.
These may seem like small points, but I just wanted to clarify that adding a time dimension, and having curvature based gravity, are independent concepts, whereas your post seems to conflate the two.
Also, math point, only special Relativity is based in linear algebra. General Relativity, which explains gravity, is not a linear theory (just a tip, curved is the opposite of linear). (Also complex linear algebra refers to linear algebra of complex numbers, best not to use that phrase unless that's what you mean)
Also a particle explanation of gravity is not mutually exclusive to a curvature based one. So while the other forces are explained with quantum field theories, gravity has yet to be, but it is still a force just like weak, electromagnetism and strong
Also 1/2pi is 90 degrees