-----Original Message----- From: Mauro Lacy Elaborating further: In a framework like the one I propose before(particle rotation along a fourth dimensional axis), gravity can be explained as no more than gentle variations of this "second spin" of elementary particles (I think that we can call it "W-Spin", because it happens along the "W" axis).
Mauro, I like this concept, and am wondering if it would not work as well with 3+3 dimensions? i.e. three of space and three of time ... That more general idea, based on Chen's theory of three time dimensions, or a version of it, is going around (so to speak) and has a lot of appeal. It assumes that "we" are located now in (S3,T2) but the net effect of a fourth spatial dimension cannot be distinguished from (S3,T3) and in fact 'space' (as opposed to space time) is in reality limited to the common verbal and mental framework or understanding of three spatial axes. There are some advantages to this "slight" change in perspective, and probably disadvantages as well. I wish I had time to dig deeper into it. Really, all it does for me now is to better facilitate the merger of the language of mathematics with verbal wording. Nothing against Rucker, and the others who have tried to merge the math withon the limitations of the human brain by describing what a real 4-space would be like - but he never really makes a strong case for four full spatial dimensions to me. "Curvature" or fractals is about as far as you get without resorting to magic. Not that substituting one kind of magic for another is going to make a huge difference. But it could. Jones
