The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279089 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #950 on: 18/04/2013 13:53:19 »
And that one would be 'processes' interacting internally/externally with each other. But that one needs a reason too, doesn't it? Behind that is my 'arrow'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #951 on: 18/04/2013 13:59:35 »
My point here is that it is not enough with assuming processes. whatever creates a causality need a order imposed on it, and what imposes that order will be my arrow. I do not believe in something from nothing, although I have no problem accepting a 'limited truth' in where we find processes in some defined system to equal out, staying the same, under transformations.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #952 on: 18/04/2013 14:01:12 »
Because that one has to do with what you define to be a universe. My universe is a local definition, yours will most probably be the result from 'frames of reference' interacting.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #953 on: 18/04/2013 14:02:24 »
My universe is very much about defining constants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #954 on: 18/04/2013 14:06:01 »
locally unchanging, and there I define a arrow, 'c', uniform motion, and accelerations, so far. and I presume this to be the same for all local definitions, making those properties unchanging under time. Then you come to the mosaic those locally defined frames will present, with force carriers informing us about other frames. Because what regulates both the local definition, and the definition of a 'common universe' is 'c'.
=

Maybe you should exchange "making those properties unchanging under time" with 'time less', meaning that it won't matter what temporal definition you have for a acceleration to 'start'. It won't change its intrinsic properties from the next one, if you see how I think.
« Last Edit: 18/04/2013 14:09:39 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #955 on: 18/04/2013 14:15:06 »
And locally there does not exist a motion, although there exist a acceleration. Because if we define relative motion to be a result of frames of reference, interacting. Then what we are left with are what we call uniform motion, equal to being 'still', locally measured. And how the he** do you expect yourself to measure anything, if not locally? It's from frames of reference we draw the conclusions about motion existing, and it is from comparisons we find light propagating. But locally defined any uniform motion, not accelerating that means, are equivalent to any other.

And that means 'being still' locally defined.
Prove me wrong..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #956 on: 18/04/2013 14:20:03 »
And if you are using energies to define different (speeds) uniform motions, and observations from more than two objects, to prove it, you don't get me at all. This is strictly local definitions I use.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #957 on: 18/04/2013 14:21:24 »
The point here is that it is easy to confuse one self. Uniform motion has confused me for years :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #958 on: 18/04/2013 14:27:53 »
And it's painfully obvious from this reasoning that we need fractal behaviors to define the 'common' universe, self like under a scale.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #959 on: 18/04/2013 15:19:29 »
A symmetry break is not something out of nothing. A symmetry break is where you have 'emergences', and properties creating frames of reference.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #960 on: 18/04/2013 15:23:08 »
And a symmetry break can exist as a locally defined 'reality' without needing to 'disappear' from where it came, temporally described. By that I presume that the arrow define processes, the processes defining what we observe, and are able to test. You can define it as a universe gets 'lifted out' but to me it's still belonging to a version without 'symmetry breaks'. Linear time defines what we see.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #961 on: 18/04/2013 15:33:15 »
What would a temperature be from locality?
Light is dimension less, containing a 'energy'.
Space do not have a temperature, although we define it so, from dust etc.
Temperature is related to the arrow. If something 'jiggles' interacting, we find a temperature.

To get a temperature you need energy interacting with matter.
Does a locally defined Planck scale 'point' have a temperature?

What do you need to give it a temperature?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #962 on: 18/04/2013 15:41:14 »
To define a temperature to 'space' is to define a temperature to a 'perfect vacuum'.
Logically you can ask yourself how you could change that temperature, finding you can't.
But that is what temperatures are about under a arrow, you can change them.

so no temperature at all, does that stop you observing. meaning that the arrow is a result from processes? That one is also a question about from where you define it. Defined from a point of perfect vacuum? Or defined from the observer, observing a point of perfect vacuum. Pick one, or both :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #963 on: 18/04/2013 15:43:22 »
Temperature defines symmetry breaks.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #964 on: 18/04/2013 15:52:32 »
You might want to define such as complexity is what creates the order, interactions under some logic, defining and creating a arrow. That would be very wrong. Constants define, and create the arrow, using frames of reference to confuse us :) But temperature must be closely related to a arrow, and to complexity.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #965 on: 18/04/2013 15:57:12 »
Can you see why we need to question 'motion'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #966 on: 18/04/2013 15:58:17 »
motion is a result from frames of reference. Accelerations are not
=

That one depend on your scaling naturally, so, presume we scale it down.
At what scale would you expect a acceleration (locally defined naturally) to become impossible?

You can also consider it this way, no matter how you define something accelerating, as a entity or as 'particles interacting although 'at rest', everything consisting of those particles must experience the acceleration, locally defined too.

So, where does this reasoning break down?
I would expect it to break down at the same scale where Physics break down.

Planck scale.
« Last Edit: 18/04/2013 16:08:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #967 on: 18/04/2013 16:11:00 »
So, being at Planck scale, where is the symmetry break?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #968 on: 18/04/2013 16:12:01 »
And what makes it macroscopically existing?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #969 on: 18/04/2013 16:14:56 »
What was a 'speed' now again?

something 'moving' uniformly or not, under a arrow of time, all measurements of it strictly locally defined.
Would you agree to that?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #970 on: 18/04/2013 16:17:08 »
It's not enough, you need 'frames of reference' too. That's what defines a 'distance'. Those frames you find defining what a distance is. Can you see why 'space' is so weird? A vacuum.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #971 on: 18/04/2013 16:20:32 »
That one can be used as a argument for 'fields' too, possibly. But I still have to reason that one out in my mind :) Thought I had it defined, but, I'm not sure thinking some more of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #972 on: 18/04/2013 16:23:00 »
Anyway, ignoring our definitions of distance, what we have is being still, or accelerating.
(locally defined)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #973 on: 18/04/2013 16:25:09 »
And if you haven't got a headache by now, I'm sorry.
Tried my best :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #974 on: 18/04/2013 16:34:19 »
One more.

At Planck scale, assuming light to be a 'clock' as well as a constant, equal to a arrow. Does the arrow disappear?
does that mean that there is nothing existing under it? I prefer 'time less', as in losing that arrow, myself, but that doesn't mean it won't 'exist'. It exist now, under your feet :) just scale it down, simpler and simpler, as you get fewer and fewer possibilities (probabilities of) interacting, the 'shorter' your scale..

Or maybe turn that around, at Planck scale all exist, simultaneously, although not as defined outcomes.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #974 on: 18/04/2013 16:34:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length