The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281191 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #725 on: 08/03/2013 13:32:15 »
And that makes a 'many universe's' universe. One where you live, now.
And it make 'space' illusionary. As what sort of 'space' would it be? Connecting my description to yours. (And such a statement should indeed phreak some serious thinkers out :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #726 on: 08/03/2013 13:40:23 »
And it all goes out from measurements made. To disprove you need to prove that relativity is wrong.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #727 on: 08/03/2013 13:49:35 »
In a way I suppose it is a matter of 'emergences'? The ones that change the properties of stuff, water becoming ice etc. But the 'emergences' must be local in origin, joining my SpaceTime to yours by 'force and information' carriers that also follow those local definitions. Some of the constants we find we experience as being 'universal', but they must be local to their origin, although joining our interpretations into a 'universal' pattern. So 'constants', just as that 'uniform motion' can be seen as something 'objectively existing', although in a very theoretical manner as it seems to me. The experiments you do define your reality, and they are local.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #728 on: 08/03/2013 13:58:26 »
Constants seems about comparing frames of reference, looking for patterns that repeat themselves. What constants won't compare between frames of reference?

'c', ideally defined from locality, being at rest, in a flat space?

What about mathematical constants?

Feigenbaum's constant, is that a periodicity or is it a 'static description' existing in some other space. To be a constant, you need to find it everywhere, in all local descriptions of a universe, as it seems to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #729 on: 08/03/2013 14:24:36 »
You can't define it such as 'well, space is energies' and bosons carrying them.' because those are not 'space'. Bosons can be superpositioned, try to do the same to a locally defined space, or turned around. Space get its definition from the absence of matter, as locally measured between two masses. In that motto there is no way for you to superimpose that 'space'. It's a fixed description locally, although measured from another frame of reference you might want to imagine it as getting 'superimposed' relative 'motion' and mass? But the same must be true for matter too, measured from another frame of reference. Take a look at that 'pole in the barn' example for a description of it.

Also it becomes illogical to expect a space to become superimposed due to for example super positioning light at some point. Still, it is also about extreme 'energies', able to distort SpaceTime, as that quark gluon plasma somewhere near a beginning. But assuming you to have been there, at rest with, and measuring a distance between, two defined spots you would still find that distance to be 'real' to you, and unable to superimpose, or superposition.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 17:22:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #730 on: 08/03/2013 14:53:35 »
To redefine a 'space' as being able to superimpose, or position, from locality (at rest with) doesn't seem possible, using a distance measured between two masses. But it still is redefined, using that same ruler and clock, any time you compare between frames of reference, just as matter is. And what about a very large mass, that should also be able to redefine 'forces' and 'measurements'. And there is no way I see you can equalize the force spent in a acceleration to the amount of 'shrinking' that universe in front of you present you with. Take a look at muon's for a practical description of that.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #731 on: 08/03/2013 15:06:19 »
And to see the biggest beef I have with reality you just need to accept that if a large mass makes it measurable, it should mean that small masses too will redefine time and distance compared between 'frames of reference'. I just love NIST. And there is a link further to the experiment too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #732 on: 08/03/2013 15:09:01 »
So we have mass, and we have 'motion', able to redefine time and distance. And it has nothing to do with energy expended being equivalent to what 'shrinking' you might define from your local definitions, well, as far as I get it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #733 on: 08/03/2013 15:23:19 »
Now, where then would we find a measurement of a distance ideally to be 'at rest', being equivalent, with some other point in space and time, also measuring on that distance? We need a flat SpaceTime, we need a agreed on definition of what a segment of time should be, locally defined. And we need a agreed on segmentation of a ruler into equivalent 'spaces' depicted on them, let's call them centimeters. We don't want any of our equipment to mass anything, for obvious reasons :) We don't want to 'move' relative each other, and we need a guarantee for what we use to measure with have a constant 'speed', and no inertial mass. Then we should get a same 'distance' hopefully, as I think. But introduce mass anywhere, it not being equal at both points, or even the slightest acceleration, it should (theoretically) destroy the experiment, giving us unequal distances. That we don't have the instruments to measure it shouldn't matter.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #734 on: 08/03/2013 15:30:59 »
Well, SpaceTime doesn't really matter for it, thinking again. It don't really have to be 'flat', as long as there are no changes in gravitational potentials. That's more what we need for a definition of ideal 'speed', as gravity bends paths.

And that may be the point of it all? There are no such thing as a 'fixed distance' in a dynamic SpaceTime with relative motion, as it seems to me? All masses are in motion, if measured relative each other. Which in fact means that if you want a 'whole' same universe, you better stop thinking of the implications of a dynamic SpaceTime, and distances.
=

And mass.
==

But then we have geodesics. the paths of no resistance.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 15:40:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #735 on: 08/03/2013 15:51:54 »
There is a logic to my madness here, hopefully. All distances are real, measured locally, but none are more 'real', as I think. So when the (let's say, three) guys at NIST stood looking at the two clocks, they may have found it to show the same macroscopically described. But in 'reality' those guys, each one of them, became a separate 'system' measuring the difference in distance and time between the clocks. The system here being the relations between their mass, relative motion, relative those two clocks. So when they agreed on seeing 'the same' discrepancy between the clocks they expressed it 'approximately', as in reality they were separate 'systems'. Although there is a ratio to any exact description of what join their experience of clocks ticking, they saw three different things, relatively speaking, and all as I think.
==

And if you want to make it weirder still, you only need to consider that each one of them had their own definition of a 'ruler and clock'. Making each 'clock ticking' studied unique. So we have three 'systems', each system arriving to two unique definitions of 'clock rates' relative their own clock, then comparing those two clock rates to each other, still finding the discrepancy to be the same. But, that's humans for you :)
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 16:37:48 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #736 on: 08/03/2013 16:20:55 »
Now, if someone tells you that he 'understands' relativity, I would call him mad :) How can you 'understand' that your measurements must differ from mine? And how can you understand that we still find us to to be in a same universe? A universe where both time and distance becomes mutable? As soon as you start to move you will change your relations relative anything of mass, even if not measurable. And simultaneity does not make it 'understandable', although it gives you tools for describing it. Maybe it gives you a better intuitive feeling for the relations, but it does not 'explain' 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #737 on: 08/03/2013 17:08:09 »
In some way it make us all expressions off reality, as we all locally define a universe. And I know you exist as you know that I exist, due to those 'force information carriers' able to inform us, and our senses. We move and touch, and we communicate.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #738 on: 08/03/2013 17:38:28 »
So, is a 'energy density' measured relative the motion and mass you have, relative? Use light for that one, and red and blueshifts. Is it then the same for the time dilations you see, and length contractions? If a mass (a pole) contracts according to you, is its energy the same as before your acceleration. What I'm asking about is relations? Can I assume that one kg, indeed have a one and for all defined energy density, or is it a relation? From a modern point of view we define a 'rest mass', defining it to be the same no matter where you place that kg. At home, or on the moon.

Using light and relative motion it becomes trickier.
Is a light quanta constantly of one energy.
If it isn't, how can it change without annihilating?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #739 on: 09/03/2013 00:50:09 »
Another thing. Imagine a universe of light. Because that is what it must be if we assume a propagation of light. Should be countable as some ratio relative suns. Then create and define all those geodesics, taking in consideration how a dynamical universe in relative motion must redefine gravity in each point as the configuration change. you now have gravitational 'field lines'. How do they look in your mind?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #740 on: 09/03/2013 01:01:35 »
It doesn't matter at what 'speed' you define this dynamic 'field' to move. Each point of 'gravity/space' must be influenced at all times, acted on from all directions. If we use 'c' as a speed of gravity the update frequency for it is 'c', but as soon as the point been defined by gravity the updates will arrive depending on 'relative motion', never mind a speed. And as gravity is a 'force' without end, you need to include not only the universe we can observe, but ?? Probably that is possible to simplify, but to do so you will need to make assumptions. (Wonder what a quantum computer could do to describing it?)

But my main interest is those geodesics, without a resistance.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #741 on: 09/03/2013 01:18:01 »
Defined that way each point in a universe becomes a statement of a equilibrium, represented by all mass in the universe acting on it. When we talk about a point of mass though we also have to consider how that point of matter act back on the universe, so it seems simpler to keep us in space for this one :)
=

But it is a dynamically changing equilibrium to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #742 on: 09/03/2013 01:40:31 »
I find it so hard to imagine those geodesics, using relative motion as 'real motion'. And it is measurably real, when we compare between frames of reference. And it must dynamically define gravity. Using paths, as in degrees of freedom, for a light quanta's motion it seems simpler than 'dimensions' though. There is no real 'back ground' to those paths to me, they are each one unique, and they together with gravity, define the space you measure. Assuming that they use a same constant for their definition they become a similar expression to me. Although light definitely differs in its energy delivery from gravity they both can be seen as informations carriers.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #743 on: 09/03/2013 01:55:47 »
But we haven't meet the end of it yet. Now consider observer dependencies and geodesics. Each point, my interpretation this, have its own unique definition of a universe to contend with, or if you like, its own unique coordinate system. We can assume that some points may 'share' one 'frame of reference' relative the masses acting on them, (being 'at rest') their local clock and ruler being equivalent, defining distance and time for all other frames of reference. And they don't need to be locally spaced for this, that equivalent 'frame of reference' can in fact be spread out, all over a universe in some 'islands of equality'. But overall I think of it as if each point have its own definition relative its neighbors. Because space have a distance, and you can't superimpose that distance as I think. It may change with motion and mass, but it will be just as real from your measurements.

And all points, finds another universe measuring.

Now make those geodesics in your mind..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #744 on: 09/03/2013 02:05:05 »
Does this mean that I think Einstein was wrong? Nope.
Think he was just right actually, I'm not trying to destroy anything here, I'm just trying to translate it into something making sense to me. Relativity is about questioning causality and trying to find it existing. Einstein wanted one coherent universe, same for us all, and so he arranged his definitions from that. I'm just rearranging it a little to suit my understanding, and I'm no near as good as he was :)

If I was you wouldn't see words here, you would see latex, sprouting out my ears..
Or is that tex? Never remember, it's tex huh? :)
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 02:07:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #745 on: 09/03/2013 02:18:55 »
And I won't touch the stress energy tensor, because I don't understand it. Mathematically I'm sure it makes eminent sense, after all, it has been scrutinized for over a hundred years by guys assigning their lives to understanding the mathematics describing it. So what am I doing then? I'm rearranging what I think I can understand, to fit a very weird idea, not of his origin, but neither of mine. Or rather, as I looked at relativity, and tried to see what it might mean I've been looking a lot on quantum physics too. It's from there I pick Planck scales to connect them to lights 'speed' for example. And it's from there I sort of first started to think of frames of reference as being 'points' using a local clock and ruler, because 'at rest' is a very general description, although quite precise. I just wanted it all to make some sense to me.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 02:22:48 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #746 on: 09/03/2013 02:21:39 »
Remember that I've been suggesting that there should be more than one way to describe a thing? Well, I'm looking at one way, and I don't use math for it, just logic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #747 on: 09/03/2013 02:26:48 »
Light doesn't propagate, but it uses a constant. and if that isn't a weird idea, I don't know what is?
Did someone say entanglements?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #748 on: 09/03/2013 02:32:59 »
I'm not sure where and how I got that one, but I think I read about it in a mathematical site dedicated to explaining the mathematics behind different physics, and relativity. and it fitted me more and more as I tried to understand this pimpernel, light. Actually I started from photons, finding them to make more sense than waves, but today neither photons or waves make that much sense to me, or both do, equivalently so. If light don't propagate.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #749 on: 09/03/2013 02:38:18 »
What is 'time'?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #749 on: 09/03/2013 02:38:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums