The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
20
21
[
22
]
23
24
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356964 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #420 on:
12/01/2014 16:27:02 »
Ok, we have a third, assuming you able to define what rest mass you have into a geometrical shape. Then you also get to 'dimensions', but that one would then consist of frames of reference, interacting, finding degrees of freedom relative each other.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #421 on:
12/01/2014 16:42:46 »
And Einstein should be correct in defining a 'motion' to gravity, as Earth acting on us at approximately one Gravity, I think?
'inertia' as a property, times a arrow, becomes gravity. We are 'rushing' through 'time'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #422 on:
12/01/2014 16:45:12 »
And if that is correct, then assuming 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow? Well, it will give us inertia as a constant too, won't it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #423 on:
12/01/2014 16:47:16 »
Sweet one. I really like it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #424 on:
12/01/2014 16:58:38 »
You have a added difficulty counting on that one though. And that is mass. Inertia is related to what mass we give something before we try to move it, inside that local arrow you measure it from. But it should still be possible to add in a arrow (another constant, locally equivalent to 'c' in my thoughts) to find inertia as being a constant too. And it simplifies what gravity is, as gravity is inertia, counted on over a arrow. And it fits both a acceleration, and you standing on Earth, 'feeling' that gravity act on you.
Yep, I'm very pleased, so far, with this one.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #425 on:
12/01/2014 17:02:48 »
I know, it seems to destroy 'gravitons', doesn't it
It's all about your definitions. Even with gravity becoming a 'down welling' in my thoughts it does not exclude gravity having a 'infinite reach' acting on all mass in a universe. One way does not exclude the other.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #426 on:
12/01/2014 17:23:28 »
So, let's see. I've defined three things as being constants so far? The speed of light in a vacuum
'c'
Then this arrow, as being locally equivalent to 'c'.
So 'c' and 'a'
)
And possibly, still need to wonder about this one.
Inertia being equivalent to a gravity, when described by/in its local arrow, defined as a 'local observer' of a universe, in a collision for example. I think this is right but also described in simple terms. Then again, I like simple?
That should mean that inertia, just as a vacuum, always is there as a property and constant. But to get to 'gravity' you need that arrow 'pushing you' into a future
.
And no, I don't know if a vacuum would be some sort of 'constant', although it makes sense from my ideas, don't it
But I could go out on limb here defining it as being of a same quality, property etc everywhere. and yes, a 'constant' of sorts. But not really, to me a vacuum is undefined, unless we introduce mass.
Any way.
I like the way I defined inertia.
==
So 'c' and 'a' and 'i'.
«
Last Edit: 12/01/2014 17:25:48 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #427 on:
12/01/2014 17:50:25 »
Then again, a property or constant is what it has. and that one defines a constant as something being the same everywhere you go. And as I also define distance as a effect of frames of reference interacting, and with that motion as it needs that distance as well as as a arrow as a global illusion, although locally as real as it can be?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #428 on:
12/01/2014 17:52:17 »
Sounds mystical doesn't it
You need something as a vacuum, and rest mass, to define dimensions. But you can, using my definitions, also relate to it as a 'constant', a axiom able to be proved anywhere you 'go'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #429 on:
12/01/2014 18:03:48 »
A Higgs field is expected to define inertia right
Hmm. Inside a arrow?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #430 on:
12/01/2014 18:07:48 »
I can relate to it as describing a way to define the inertia of rest mass, then again, it becomes a 'side way' description of a container universe, where you find 'forces' acting on you. Whereas, in my ideas, you have local constants and properties, creating 'globally valid' principles that defines inertia and gravity. Two ways, in which mine is the one zooming in on local definitions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #431 on:
12/01/2014 18:09:27 »
And a 'field' is always locally defined in my way of thinking.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #432 on:
12/01/2014 18:24:16 »
The point enabling one to see it better is the question of what a inside is.
You are here, ain't you? And everywhere you look things seem much the same. A isotropic and homogeneous universe in where we, and everything else, exist. Or have you seen a 'wall' defining where this geometric universe stops? From a point of inflation taking 'place' everywhere there is no limits to this universe. You do not need to go out to the right to come in at the left, as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go.
And there is no container to it either.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #433 on:
12/01/2014 18:28:16 »
"as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go." And tell each other about it, that is
A Black hole is not included in this description, as there will be no telling of what it is like inside.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #434 on:
12/01/2014 18:32:06 »
Although, assuming it to have a same background of constants, properties and principles, namely that classically defined non existent vacuum, well, as a way to make it 'touch able' imaginatively? Then we might assume it to be describable, possibly? Or maybe that is a place where those constants we find breaks down? I don't know what I would prefer there?
But if there exist walls to this universe, a black hole must be one.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #435 on:
12/01/2014 18:33:43 »
Although
The wall consist of information, just as 'c' becomes another.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #436 on:
12/01/2014 18:41:13 »
You could say that what defines a universe isn't the idea of dimensions, but the idea of information. And the idea of information is not entropy, it's 'c'. The speed of light in a vacuum defines the speed of information. and that one should be applicable on everything. A entanglement is not information, not unless you find a way to define what the spin is, before measuring. That one you won't find. In the universe I think of, that is
It may seem as a boring universe but it isn't. It's a projection, defined by informations speed, as locally measured.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #437 on:
12/01/2014 18:48:16 »
And we have ways of traversing it, expending 'energy'. But you won't be able to shrink a dimension, because dimensions does not exist in my thoughts. What you have is degrees of freedom, and they are a relation to your local constants, properties and so principles. We all have those equivalently as a 'back ground', and so we agree on a 'inside' in where we all exist. But it's not a container defined by dimensions. Maybe I could call it a container of constants though?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #438 on:
12/01/2014 18:56:46 »
Well, maybe you can use dimensions too? But not as a global container of a universe. You define a distance between rest masses relative your clock and ruler, and that will vary relative motion, mass, and 'energy'. You can either define that relative some expectations of a universally (globally) existing measure, making it a container universe. Or you can define it relative locally existing constants, properties and principles, equivalent no matter where you are. That makes the background for your experiments the same, everywhere, doesn't it
Then you introduce parameters as motion, mass and that pimpernel 'energy' to define how the universe you observe will behave. And it will be true, and you do not need a container anymore.
But it makes it important to define what a 'motion' should be, as well as mass and energy, locally.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #439 on:
12/01/2014 19:06:50 »
What we have so far is 'c', a equivalent arrow, and inertia combined with a arrow, giving us gravity. All local definitions, although equivalently shared everywhere. Not much is it? Well, we have the idea of scaling and decoherence too.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
20
21
[
22
]
23
24
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...