# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281426 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #525 on: 25/04/2012 14:03:49 »
To see how I look at it. We all are defined locally, at Plank scale, or possibly slightly over it as we have HUP (?) to consider too. We are a 'construction' inside constants, defined as being equivalent 'locally'. Those constants define the 'room time geometry' we exist in and the borders are real, but also very conceptual. One is Planck scale, the 'microscopic domain', the other is 'c', the 'macroscopic domain'. And 'gravity' is a geometry, not a 'force', although inside those constants we define it as such. It is the metric whose plasticity defines the 'space & distances' we measure, and it's equivalent to c'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #526 on: 25/04/2012 14:10:48 »
And we define the 'plasticity' relative our 'motion' and our 'mass'.

Then we have 'energy' but that is a conceptual 'coin' that seems to exist only in 'transformations', relative 'Bosons, 'particles', as in the wave/particle duality, and invariant rest mass. With 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow we get a explanation to why we see a 'time', but we do not get a explanation why it can be that way. Only that it is.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #527 on: 26/04/2012 12:13:31 »
How can there be a 'instantaneous' inertial reaction to a change of 'motion'?

If there is then we have a geometry, not 'gravitons'. You might argue it as a field though.
The geometry becoming a field of sorts. 'Gravity' is like a spiders web in where 'gravitational waves' are like local distortions in the room time geometry. But they 'propagate' in it, so, how do they do it?

Motion must exist for SpaceTime, and have a definition in itself, if I am to assume that 'gravitational waves' propagates. Otherwise I could assume 'something' in where motion always are defined 'relative' mass as that is what we can measure on, and follow. But we haven't found any gravitational waves yet, as far as I know?

But inertia then? How does inertia exist everywhere there is mass?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #528 on: 26/04/2012 12:19:54 »
To me inertia must be a product of a relation, but what other frame of reference do you have? 'Space'? 'Gravity'?
They are the two relations I see, and mass of course. But as inertia comes instantly you can assume it to be a property of mass, but to be a relation you will need to propose 'something' that it will 'react' relative. And that should be a field of some sort.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #529 on: 26/04/2012 12:30:09 »
There is a alternative definition that states that when you change the 'motion' of something you introduce new relations between the particles, creating that piece of matter that change its 'motion', and there is the reason for inertia. And in a weird way this may fit perfectly with locality, as if i define all relations from a smallest point then they all have a relation to other 'points' around them, defined through Lorentz contractions and time dilations.

That way there is no 'field' existing, well depending on how I look at that. I can then formulate it in form of relations. But those relations, very conceptually now, never 'stop communicating' and in the end leave us a SpaceTime.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #530 on: 26/04/2012 12:39:14 »
And then Mach's idea of all mass 'communicating' instantaneously with all other mass as described by inertia would be wrong, if you by that mean that the arrow can be overcome by inertia. And as I define the arrow to 'c' I can state that 'c' must be a limit for 'time'. In another way he will be correct as it then is matter, all matter, that defines inertia, and instantly so, but through what I call my 'principle of locality'. I've seen other principles of locality defined but the are not the way I think of it, so if you see me write it as a 'principle' which I think it is,  please don't confuse it with some other description.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #531 on: 26/04/2012 12:45:25 »
To see my point of 'instantly' ask yourself if a Lorentz contraction is real. If it is and you see the stars in front of you come closer in your relative motion. Do that effect 'propagate'? Or is it 'instant'?

It must be instant.
=

But that is also about 'space' isn't it?
And we already have ideas of how 'space' can 'expand' and 'inflate' faster than lights speed in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 26/04/2012 12:48:09 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #532 on: 26/04/2012 13:51:50 »
And could I also call that a 'static' description?
Something happening instantaneously for you?

A acceleration can be described as displacements from uniform motion(s).
A uniform motion can be defined as being 'still'.

A Lorentz contraction does not propagate inside 'c'.
So is your SpaceTime in some terms a static configuration
Where what adapt instantaneously is a description of that?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #533 on: 26/04/2012 21:53:20 »
And Bosons, can you give them a 'frame of reference' too?
I'm not sure, the main stream definition is that they do not have one, they're a constant. But then we have the fact that we can, well, not see them 'come' really, but we can 'experience' them in their interactions. Isn't that the result of a relation which by its very nature demands two frames of reference to exist?

But they are still a constant, the same for any frame of reference as I see it. That's one of the reasons why I don't like them to 'propagate' :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #534 on: 28/04/2012 03:23:13 »
So allow me to wonder some more about frames of reference. If I as I've already done :) define them, at their smallest scale, to Planck size. Doing so in that we can't get it any smaller, meaningfully, in the physics we have.

What is then a frame of reference?
Firstly it is a position in time and space. We usually use our wristwatch and our ruler to define all other things from our local 'frame of reference', although that becomes a very conceptual definition if you use my ideas of what it is. But rudely, it works, as is correct as we can't really measure down to those incredibly small differences I'm discussing.

Each position should, in Einsteins universe, be defined by time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Will that create 'forces' acting upon the other positional 'piece of matter' as particles surrounding that position? I actually presume it does. Then we have motion, we put a rod into motion, now its Lorentz contractions gets a direction and the rods points of positions starts to move, but not simultaneously. Try this one by John Mallinckrodt for size.

But this point is wider than that, what is a 'force' in this description, what does it make motion if it is correct. There are more things to it, but I'm still trying to see why it interest me so much.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #535 on: 28/04/2012 03:33:48 »
What would be a 'frame of reference' for bosons in a non propagating definition? What would it make the idea of 'c'? What would 'motion' become in such a universe?
==

And yes, can Einstein play with mirrors then I feel free to play with 'frames of reference'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #536 on: 28/04/2012 04:40:34 »
The point is, and where I might differ from John Mallinckrodts description.

If I define each 'particle' as a relation to each other 'particle' in that rod I would not only expect time dilations to define it in a acceleration, but also Lorentz contractions as found for each 'position', relative all other positions 'moving' in the overall direction of the rod. And that should be a fact assuming that we can define it to Planck scale.
==

And here the point also becomes one of HUP. Plank size might be a 'ideal definition' for it but when HUP comes in? Where does it come in? Atoms?
« Last Edit: 28/04/2012 04:45:45 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #537 on: 28/04/2012 04:55:08 »
Because my main point overall is that I don't expect matter to ever be without 'time dilations' and if it isn't then it must also have the complementary Lorentz contractions. And that one goes back to what we call 'motion', 'relative motion' and 'acceleration'. Please define the global absolute frame of reference you can guarantee to be still for a piece of matter? If you can't, what can you define? If I say that something is 'at rest' relative something else, does that guarantee there to be no time dilations? And no Lorentz contractions?

Where does one 'frame of reference' end and another takes its place?
Try to see that one, because it's important :) Well, to me it is..

Frames of references and forces.
So weird.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #538 on: 28/04/2012 04:59:36 »
I think Mach had it right. Although he thought of a whole universe in his definition.
Just exchange universe and 'mass' for Plank sized 'positions' in mass.

There's where we find the invariant arrow equivalent to 'c' locally.
There is where we find the first idea of inertia.

Then again, I'm not sure of that scale at all, it's about HUP to me, maybe it has some relevance to what HUP is?
==

Einstein was a extraordinary mind. Here is what he had to say about Mach.

"    The significance of personalities like Mach lies by no means only in the fact that they satisfy the philosophical needs of their times, an endeavor which the hard-nosed specialist may dismiss as a luxury. Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc.

Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand. This breaks their all too powerful authority. They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer. (Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29)"

And Mach was one clever, clever, person.

« Last Edit: 28/04/2012 05:10:16 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #539 on: 28/04/2012 05:22:27 »
You also need to remember that I have defined a immutable arrow, equivalent to c' here. And as you know personally, you are going to die, some day. The arrow exist. What it is then becomes a question about why 'c' can act as it does. But as the arrow exist, and 'mass' & 'motions' we must have time dilations and Lorentz contractions constantly.
=

But what one needs to do, to get it straight in ones head, is to decide where one expect one frame of reference to start and another to end.
==

What you can argue is that all 'time dilations' exist between frames of reference, which is true, but to where do we define those frames when you accelerate, as sitting down or standing up.
« Last Edit: 28/04/2012 10:35:34 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #540 on: 28/04/2012 05:28:10 »
Mach was a relationist, and I'm one too. The Chinese concept of yin and yang is a relationist one too.
And Tao describes it so beautifully.
=

The final question might be, what is 'c'?
Can there exist only one 'frame of reference', from where you get a multitude?

And yes, Einstein most definitely was a relationist :)
« Last Edit: 28/04/2012 05:33:38 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #541 on: 17/05/2012 11:30:12 »
And what would it make 'space'?

If 'space' is a geometry defined from mass?
Adaptable in 'relative motion' and accelerations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #542 on: 17/05/2012 11:33:13 »
We comes back to 'energy' here. The conceptual coin of transformations/interactions.
We need to define mass for this. What it is, and how it can be.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #543 on: 17/05/2012 11:42:12 »
Can there be a arrow without 'gravity' existing? I don't think so? At least I can't see a argument proving the opposite for the moment. The arrow is directly coupled to mass, as mass is coupled to 'gravity'. And 'interactions' is a description of that arrows 'direction'. It's a linear universe when described through a arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #544 on: 17/05/2012 13:49:24 »
So, as a most weird thought.

If mass defines the arrow, and 'space' is defined through mass/energy/relative motion/accelerations. Will mass be 'all there is', and 'space' becoming a symmetry to that? We need a arrow for every measure we make and we get it in mass.

It's quite weird :)

Anyway, what is mass and how can it exist?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #545 on: 17/05/2012 13:55:00 »
A spin must be defined in/through mass. Although we observe it taking place in a defined 'space' inside a arrow. Bosons can't 'spin', they always follow geodesics. Which means that you can't assume that they accelerate, unless you truly believe that a wave perspective is the correct description of a universe with 'motion' and 'propagation' existing as 'absolutes' inside it.

I don't think I do that.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #546 on: 17/05/2012 13:59:05 »
Because you can't both keep the cake and eat it. Either 'motion' is a relative description and then a uniform motion, no matter its 'speed' can be defined as being 'still', or you believe in it as 'something' existing on its own as some sort of absolute. And the same goes for 'propagation of light', either it exist and then you meet all sorts of difficulties joining that to what we observe in experiments, or it doesn't..

Mass defines the arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #547 on: 17/05/2012 14:05:29 »
hmm.. :)

Locally defines it at as a constant I mean. Only in a comparison between frames of reference will you measure a difference, as expressed in time dilation's and Lorentz contractions. My, ahem, slightly homegrown 'principle of locality' is the one defining it to me. And I define each 'locality' at a Plank scale, if you've bothered reading that far :) with matter constantly then becoming time dilated (and Lorentz contracted) relative its own 'constituents/particles'.

Then we come to 'motion'.

What that does is to introduce even greater contractions and time dilation's for those particles relation relative each other. We have the gravitational contractions and time dilation's in matter even without considering any 'motion' relative something else.

So, what is mass?
And how can it exist?

'Energy'?

Geometry then becomes a description, created in mass existing..
And 'motion'? I don't know what that is, but it belongs inside a geometry.
And it needs a arrow.
« Last Edit: 17/05/2012 14:12:32 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #548 on: 17/05/2012 14:47:55 »
But then we have a difficulty in that different uniform motion will present you with different relations relative other frames of reference. Somehow 'motion' is a description of something which the universe each one of us observe is able to differ between. And it sometimes expresses it as a added mass as in a acceleration or 'spin', at other times as in a uniform motion only expressing it in the relation changing between your local frame relative all other frames of reference.

And the 'mass energy'?

What happens to that locally in a uniform motion? You can't measure a change there, not locally, as far as I know? In a acceleration you can though, as a added 'gravity'. So is 'gravity' a acceleration? But mass is easy to define relative you :) It doesn't run away from you, does it? Possibly it may add up with age but it is always 'there'.

Let us assume that mass indeed is a 'acceleration' of some sort. If we do we also acknowledge that we use the wrong ideas of what a 'motion' is. If we decide that the equivalence is wrong we also question general relativity and gravitational time dilation's. And then we will be wrong, as NIST experiments has shown us.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #549 on: 17/05/2012 14:57:13 »
What makes energy able to create mass?
And does 'energy' needs a geometry to do so? I don't think it does. Mass creates the geometry as a symmetry but 'energy' alone seems dimensionless? So what is it, and where does it exist. We see it in transformations, and in upholding symmetries of different kinds. This whole '4-D' SpaceTime then must be some sort of symmetry break in something else, with 'distances' becoming limited descriptions only relevant inside it. Which makes sense to me :)

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #549 on: 17/05/2012 14:57:13 »