0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
That one isn't silly at all, although it should be noticeable, locally, as matter compressed. And the distance between planets would increase even though gravity should stay the same, I think? Ah well, it's late here better get some sleep.
There is a experiment called the dynamical Casimir effect though, in where you let the equivalence of a mirror oscillate, creating 'photons' from 'virtual particles' as you 'transfer' the kinetic energy to the vacuum. Maybe we should take it in its temporal order..http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspxThen.http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.html
well We can make this one into a nice SF if we like, or fantasy maybe. On the whole I tend to enjoy fantasy more than 'hard core' SF, unless someone really used his imagination. Btw: That doesn't mean that a arrow is a illusion, it's a constant, equivalent to 'c'. But the universe as a whole might just be one.
and we go back to probability, and the universe we describe macroscopically is a symmetry to the part we can't measure on.
Yes, it's hard to ignore consciousness. it seems as a added complexity to life, both expressions defined through linear time, Just as we use to define a entropy (tentatively so).
A 'force' then, is that a 'energy'?
Everything should be 'energy' I think? Except possibly a vacuum
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.
... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion??
Quote from: Ethos_ on 12/05/2013 23:12:07... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion??Absolute motion maybe. Relative motion, no. You could test that by walking into traffic, but I advise against it
My point here is; without acceleration or deceleration, we can't determine which one is moving. It is possible that they both are moving or it may be only one or the other.
An observer may determine that you have moved, which is defined as relative motion, but how can he prove that it is you and not he that has moved?
The point is, when you ask 'who moved?' in this context, you're really asking 'who accelerated?', so it becomes obvious that to answer the question you need to know who accelerated...
You're thinking of it in terms similar to mine when you talk about time, if we define it as a arrow of time. I relate it to 'c' locally, so for your example the only presumption we need to make is that 'c' regulate 'this universe' too.
... my example was about two bodies in uniform motion, of which neither was accelerating nor decelerating. In this scenario, neither can determine which one is moving even though relative motion can be established.