The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: what is Mass?  (Read 23165 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
what is Mass?
« Reply #75 on: 06/07/2011 23:44:54 »
Okay, I see your idea. But even without that part of your brain present you will be born, and you will die. And even a rock grows old. It's a interesting concept though. In fact it fits my idea/description of light (radiation) being our ultimate clock very well.
==

Maybe we are defining the concept of time differently?

I define it as durations, those durations have a beat defined from 'c'. And even though all living things may have cycles related to those durations, the 'beat' will still exist when those things die. And that's what I call the 'arrow of time' pointing in one direction, at least macroscopically.

You could also define it as 'times arrow' needing some 'processing ability' to get noticed, is that how you see it?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 23:56:05 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
what is Mass?
« Reply #76 on: 06/07/2011 23:57:38 »
Suprachiasmatic Nucleus which is the proper typing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
what is Mass?
« Reply #77 on: 07/07/2011 00:08:44 »
Maybe I could see it locally as when I die I take reality with me. Half philosophical half reality. Because if I treat reality locally I'm free to define solely from the point of reality I know is true. And that can only be my own, it's only there I can prove that light always come at 'c'. So using that as a 'beat' I now have defined a situation in where all other descriptions of its propagation becomes doubtful as I compare them to mine observation of their situation. Locality is everything, sort of. But that would imply that I is the only one really here too :)

And you can do it, philosophically and logically you can draw that conclusion from 'frames of reference', if you by 'reality' craves that it always should be conceptually fitting to your own observations/descriptions. In Einsteins universe that isn't true though, and we need Lorentz transformations to define others descriptions of their clocks and positions as being what we see, observing them.
==

Or it is true :)
But then we're deep into philosophical space.

Actually it's 'simplicity' that steer my decisions here, and my hopefully 'common sense'.
Otherwise I would soon find myself in a padded cell, I'm afraid :)
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 00:28:19 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

what is Mass?
« Reply #77 on: 07/07/2011 00:08:44 »

 

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