We have shown throughout this blog and its companion book “The Reality of the Fourth *Spatial* Dimension” it is possible to define a universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions in a manner that makes predictions identical with those of Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity while at the same time defining several theoretical advantages to adopting this perspective over that of his theories.
For example it predicts that mass should bend light creating a gravitational lens in a manner that is consistent with Einstein’s theories but has the advantage of being derivable in terms of the physically observable properties of the spatial dimensions instead of the non observable ones of a time or space time dimension.
A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a very distant source is “bent” around a massive object which is between the source object and the observer. The process is known as gravitational lensing, and is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of relativity.
Einstein developed a mathematical model that combined space and time into a single environment and defined the effects mass has on it. In particular he was able to show the presence of mass would cause a surface of a four-dimensional space-time manifold to curve. He viewed gravitation “not as a force but as a curvature in a space-time manifold caused by mass and that planets do not orbit a star because there is a force emanated from mass drawing them together but because they are moving freely under their own inertia in straight lines through curved space-time”.Â
However, he realized that the curvature in a space-time manifold caused by mass should also deflect or bend light if it moves through space-time.Â
In 1919 Authur Eddington led expeditions sponsored by the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Society to take photographs of a region of the sky centered on the Sun during the May 1919 total solar eclipse and compared the positions of the photographed stars with those of the same stars photographed from the same locations in July 1919 when the Sun was far from that region of the sky. The results showed that light was deflected in a manner that is consistent with concepts of General Relativity.
Many feel that light being bent by massive objects as proof of the space-time concepts of relativity because it is the simplest way to explain it.
However, as mentioned earlier we have shown though out this blog there are many observations suggesting that space is composed of four *spatial* dimensional instead of four-dimensional space-time.
The most significant of these is that time is perceived by most as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change and not as having the physical properties associated with matter or space.
Yet this observation is inconsistent with Einstein’s concepts of time being physical interconnected with the three spatial dimensions because for that to occur time would have to have physical properties. However, as just mentioned most perceive time is not as a physical entity, as is a spatial dimension but only as change in its physical properties.
Additionally the observation that time is irreversible is also inconsistent Einstein’s concept of it being physically interconnect to space. This is because if it were one should be able reverse or move backwards in time just as one can reverse physical movement in a spatial dimension. Yet no one has ever observed time to move backwards.
However, as was shown in the article “Defining what time is.†Sept 20, 2007 these observations suggest that it may only be a measure of the sequential ordering of the causality of events. This would provide an unambiguous definition of time that is more consistent with both physical and mathematical observations of it than defining it in terms of the physical properties of a time or space-time dimension as Einstein did.Â
One of the advantage to this approach is that it would also free physicists from the constraints imposed by defining it in terms of its physical properties and allow them to consider the possibility that gravity is the result of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension (as was done in the article “Why four spatial dimensions?) instead of one in a four-dimensional space-time manifold.”
Yet as mentioned a theoretical model based on four spatial dimensions instead of four dimensional space time can make prediction identical to one based on four dimensional space-time.  For example it could define gravity “not as a force but a curvature in a” “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by mass and that planets do not orbit a star because there is a force emanated from mass drawing them together but because they are moving freely under their own inertia in straight lines through curved four *spatial* dimensions.”
This definition is almost identical to the one Einstein defined used to gravity. It differs only in that it replaces his time dimension with a spatial one.
Additionally the article “The Photon: a matter wave?†Oct. 01, 2007 showed it is possible to derive the propagation of electromagnetic energy in terms of a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet, if a electromagnetic energy does travel on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time and gravity is caused by curvature in it then its path would also be distorted or bent as it move passed massive objects.
This shows that there are theoretical environments which can provide an explanation for gravity and gravitational lensing which is in many cases more consistent with observations of time than one composed of four dimensional space-time.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011