[yor_on]

The only way I can make this work is by assuming that neither time, nor distance, nor entropy exist as 'objective values'. And that what I 'change' expending energy is 'information'. But that makes no sense or at least, very little sense.

What it does is to create a universe of information in where I am its center, depending on my expending of energy that information will change. And it also states that the beliefs I have, of what my 'outside observations' consists of, have very little to do with what happens.

[yor_on]

Let's look at it from another perspective. When I accelerate I will see a blue-shift, Unruh energy and Rindler observers notwithstanding. So, assuming that I see the whole of the universe visible in my direction. How much energy will that make? It will be usable energy from my frame of reference too, I can collect it with ah, tinfoil and use it to heat my food. Will that energy be more than what I expend accelerating? It seems to me that it should, but I'm not sure. It have to do with how much my 'event horizon' will shrink and with it the amount of 'energy quanta' I will receive.

Okay, assume that I travel toward a really big and hot sun, with me very near light speed. I will travel such that the sun for me is placed at the center of my viewing field, relativistic effects notwithstanding. Will that make a difference for the amount of 'information' I receive?

What I'm asking here, is 'energy' and 'information' the same?
Either they are and then it will have a difference, more information the more sun
Or energy have nothing to do with the idea of 'information'
==

What I did before was reasoning me forward to a concept in where I defined 'energy' as what made the 'room time geometry' change, not the 'motion' per se. And the reason I say motion instead of only acceleration here is that I expect a changed 'room time geometry' to stay, even after you stopped your acceleration.

But thinking of it I can't be right there, about energy changing my room time geometry I mean. Not if uniform motion will keep the 'room time geometry' unchanged, as that one you can 'stretch out' as far as you like 'time-wise, without expending any more energy. And that idea I'm very sure of. It must, or your 'SpaceTime' will be a magic rubber band, where you sprooing back into a universal, having one same 'frame of reference' with all uniformly moving objects, their velocities relative each other non-withstanding. And that makes no sense, what so ever, as that will introduce a non-relativistic 'objective' frame of reference for all uniform motion.

But I will consider it, soon

So energy can't be the thing changing a 'room time geometry', at least not as I put it here.
==

But is it information then?

Well, that depends on how you look at it coming at you. One way of looking at it is as 'light quanta'. Then it can only have one 'energy' per 'unit'. and what you call more energy will from that perspective just be more 'light quanta' hitting you in the same period of time. Forget everything about waves and frequency's for this one please
==

So yes, from this perspective that sun makes no difference for the amount of 'information' presented. If we look at it as 'still frames' one at a time, it will only mean that they come at you at a shorter 'time interval'.
=

That means that we have a contender for 'information', the energy quanta.

[yor_on]

Okay, let us consider the universe in where only acceleration present you with a time dilation, as well as a Lorenz contraction.

So I let you speed away at .999999999999 of light speed under one week. then coast one year, then decelerate one week and come home. You get a time dilation of 100, as a arbitrary unit.

Then you do the same but this time you coast ten years, and 'travel' so much further before coming back. Now that should also give the same number of time-dilation, shouldn't it? A 100.

And it also present you with the possibility of you accelerating one second, very hard, to watch our universe die, or a year if you like, or a million..

Then again, how about the time dilation measured by our GPS-systems? Are they constantly correcting in their 'uniform motions' or do they just do it one time?

It do make sense to me, in a very weird way, but I have a lot of problems with it still. It makes momentum and relative mass totally unable to have any time dilating effect for example, if you assume that to exist when 'coasting' too that is. But that's quite okay to me

What's not as okay is the idea it presents of all uniformly moving objects as 'equivalent' no matter their velocities. I've assumed the equivalence before but in a black box scenario, the same type of scenario you make when imagining a uniform acceleration at one Gravity being equivalent to standing on Earth.

But where the later needs the black box for it, and also will introduce one he* of a time dilation after just a year, the former suddenly becomes a general statement saying that different uniform motions won't contract your 'distance' and give a 'time dilation', but proper mass will?

Also it must mean that there can't be any length contraction observed for our muon 'free falling' following a geodesic towards Earth.

Or that I'm wrong in assuming that following a geodesic, free-fall, having no weight (if you tried to put a scale under your feet in that 'free fall' it wouldn't register you, so to speak:) towards Earth is the same as following any other geodesic?

But if it so, then I need someone to tell me where the difference lies?
That is, how to measure it?

But it has to be right, as the time dilation I would expect, falling into a Black Hole, from an outside observer, will be greater than if I was falling towards the Earth. Or proper mass doesn't create a time dilation..

And that one we know it does.

So, free falling towards Earth, and free falling in outer space isn't the same, even though I won't, as far as I can see, be able to differ between them, Coriolis force (& frame dragging) excepted?

And the equivalence is absolute for all uniform motion, except when near a 'proper mass' like a planet that is. Meaning that we have one truly 'objective' equivalence in 'SpaceTime'.

So why would acceleration only be able to do this?

Sh*
==

And it states that following a geodesic won't be a general equivalence to following another geodesic, suddenly changing a uniform motion, as measured by you in your black box falling towards a non rotating proper mass (planet). The geodesic I follow towards the planet then need to 'communicate' that fact to the object falling as there will be a Lorentz contraction as well as time dilation.

And that smells like a proof for the concept of something like Higgs particles needed to me, or possibly gravitons?

[yor_on]

So the game rules change here, we have a universe where all uniform motions, except when ending in a object of proper mass, will be the same from the perspective of time dilation and Lorentz contraction. That should mean that all statements of two spaceships passing each other observing a 'time dilation & Lorentz contraction' is bogus if you don't explicitly state at least one of them as accelerating, shouldn't it?

Wonder how many that thought about that

[yor_on]

And it split 'motion' into two parts. Where only acceleration is the one redefining SpaceTime, uniform motion not having any effect. And also splitting following a geodesic into two parts, either ending in a planet where it will introduce a time dilation and Lorentz contraction, or in deep space where it will be 'universally & magically' the same as all other 'uniform velocities', not introducing time dilation and Lorentz contraction.

Anyone more than me that gets a headache here?

[yor_on]

So what the he* makes it possible. The energy expended? Well, that was the one I really liked and now when uniform motion doesn't matter? Except when matter, ahem we're back in play, ain't we.

Yep eeeneeergy.
==

There is one weird effect of it though, validating an idea I've had. For a long time I've assumed a photons 'timelessness' to be related to its 'masslessness'. I've seen other state that it have to do with its speed, don't think so friend:)

Masslessness rule

[yor_on]

So let us consider a free fall towards a planet. Before I said I could accept the equivalence between matter and 'energy', calling a planet condensed 'energy'. Could I use that for redefining why the in-falling object will observe a time dilation and Lorentz contraction?

After all, think of it. The free falling object does not expend any energy, does it? But it's trucking along towards a object 'filled to the brim' with, ahem, frozen energy As that is what it is if we compare it to the state it was in, at the Big Bang. Our whole universe have to be in a 'frozen state' comparatively to that.
===

And inertia?

In a 'frozen universe', what could inertia be?
That remarkable 'resistance' to change?

And gravity?

[yor_on]

Just a footnote:
 
I'm still not sure that uniform motion plays no part for time dilation and Lorentz contraction. But for the sake of arguing (as well as I can't see how to refute my own logic, dam* I will argue like I'm convinced, unless someone present definite proof of the opposite?

If you have and can resurrect my former belief I'm interested, not that it won't work this way too, but it becomes a universe in where 'motion' suddenly have a 'duality' and .. ?

[yor_on]

Nope, I'll have to refute that one. It can't be right.

But when it comes to the muon free falling it is right that he will have a changed 'room time geometry' aka an equivalence to acceleration. and that screws up my beautiful geodesics, again

Let's see.

How to prove that uniform motion will have a time dilation

The first evidence is the evident absurdity the other idea introduces, especially if you think that the room time geometry will change in a acceleration.

The other is how to think about it. We have two theories of relativity, one called special relativity (SR) the other called general relativity (GR).

SR treats inertial frames (constant velocity without forces)
GR treats acceleration and gravity.

==

How do we know who introduced a change?
Think of it as a coordinate space.

You have A and B placed in different locations. If you are C you can see who moves first relative you. But when it comes to A and B then? That's where the acceleration comes in, to create a change you will need a acceleration, and the one introducing it ('A') will feel it as his inertia gets disturbed.

That's the simple one and falls under GR
 
=

But in a coordinate space where both are moving uniformly relative each other then?

There you will find it harder. First of all you can't really say who is moving relative one. It's a relative question who is moving relative who in this case. You can as easily define yourself as unmoving as the one you meet, or split the velocity into two or any mix inbetween, as I understands it. And this one falls under SR.

So how do we know that clocks slow down here too?

[yor_on]

Think of two mirrors at rest relative yourself, then let a light-corn bounce between them. As it does you will find the path that light-corn to take being a straight path, back and forth.

Now let the mirrors move, it won't matter when you look at them, under the acceleration or after it. From your point of view the light-corn suddenly will move slower, due to you finding it having a longer path between the mirrors, as they constantly moves away from you. Also you will find the path to move in a diagonal as it 'tags' after the mirrors in a zigzag motion, relative you, being still.
==

You being still falls under SR but the mirror when accelerating falls under GR,and so as a 'system' you both belong to GR there. After the acceleration when it just 'coasts' you will both belong to SR.
==

But thinking of it, can you under any of those circumstances find a moment when that light-corn didn't move in zigzag, having a longer path to traverse between the mirrors?
==

Now imagine that you would move with those mirrors, being at a constant rest with them.
First of all, when will you be able to prove that you are moving?

The acceleration right?

How do you think that light-corn will behave then?
Will it zigzag according to you being at rest with the mirrors

Contrast that to when you've stopped accelerating, uniformly moving.
Will the light-corn zigzag?

Do you think there is a difference between the acceleration and later uniform motion?
==

For the last one, imagine each one of the above. The only difference being that you both are inside a very large box. It's really, really black in there as the engineers forgot all about the windows. So, in which scenario will you be able to say that you are 'moving'?
==

When you've done those, you will know what I think I know
And you're right, the mirrors becomes the light clock.

[yor_on]

Hey, doesn't that destroy the equivalence I was talking about before between all 'uniformly moving' frames of reference? Nope, not when you do it in a black box scenario. And if we apply that on our muon free falling the geodesic he follows will be the same as if in deep space, as long as we ignore 'twisting' like the Coriolis force and 'frame dragging'.

So I change my mind, again

But doesn't the muon create a twisted 'room geometry' by himself then?
Yes, but if you exchange him for you, being inside a black box, free falling. How can you tell your possible 'speed'?

You can't.

How can you tell you're falling towards Earth?
No use trying that scale, it won't work.

Ignoring Coriolis force (and other frame dragging)
You can't.
==

Now imagine two sets of mirrors A and B passing each other in space, coasting or not.
How will their 'light-corns' tick? (Imagine yourself to be A first and look at B, then change)

And that's why it's nice with fixed stars, so far away that they 'never moves' relative Earth.
Helps you know when you're moving

[yor_on]

So what did you see when jumping between those 'light clocks'. and was it real? I consider it 'real' but there are different interpretations to that. If we take the last example we can start with saying that we are on A and then meet B. Well knowing that A have a velocity relative an inertial frame like Earth I can then look at B:s light clock and divide part of that 'ticking' to get what will be his 'correct' velocity, relative Earth Earth as that is from where I got my initial idea of what for me is considered my 'rest frame'. So in a way i can just let the ticking be what it is and so get any velocity I like it seems, between null and the maximum speed his clock can describe. It all falls back to that there is no ''exact time device' in the universe. But how the he* will I know if I've reached my correct near light-speed then, if I can change my velocity just by changing reference frame?

[yor_on]

If we had an aether we would have had a tarmac for our wheels to count their speed. but we have no such 'tarmac'. But we do have relativistic effects. And those are SpaceTimes answer to you speed/velocity, and only yours.
==

But to get back to the ordinary light clock. Yes, the ticking you see is 'real' but relative. Relative Earth, or Alpha Centauri or ... It is the 'right time' you see, you just don't know for whom, or if it needs to be 'split'. A weird subject indeed.
==

But if you think of it in form of your own unique 'room time geometry' it becomes easier to handle. You just need to remember that with acceleration and velocity that room will shrink, and so create your 'time dilation' and 'Lorentz contraction'. Then you can use relativistic effects to define your speed, if you don't have a defined 'rest frame'. It all builds on you knowing what to expect in form of hard radiation and 'Space Wrapping', aka the 'screen' you will meet at 'relativistic velocity' of course. But, it opens for surprising interpretations when it comes to what a uniform motion should be seen as, at least it does for me

[yor_on]

It's been my impression that most mathematicians and physicists don't really want to discuss what those dilations and contractions 'is'. but a easy argument is to use 'room time geometry', and then say that in traveling near light speed the pilot will observe his SpaceTime contracted, as well as 'warped'. If we then assume that his meter stick still measures a meter for him and his heart beats the same according to his wristwatch. Then what is this contraction. Not real? Go tell him

I don't see how one can get past that fact. That this only comes to bear at very high velocities is no hindrance to the concept existing. And if it exist 'for real' then we have a very weird SpaceTime'

[yor_on]

You might have noticed that I didn't use 'inertial rest frame' for Earth. that's because its a matter of interpretation with three answers

1.No. Earth rotates and have 'fictitious forces' like the Coriolis force.

2. Yes. In a Newtonian sense Earth is a 'inertial frame' in which Newton's laws of motion and the idea of inertia holds, having a constant velocity.

3.Yes. "Earth rotates around its axis as also revolves around the sun. In both these motion. Centripetal acceleration is present. Therefore, strictly speaking earth or any frame of reference fixed on earth cannot be taken as an inertial fame. However, as we are dealing with speeds  » x 108 ms-1 (speed of light) and speed of earth is only about 3 x 104  m/s, therefore when small time intervals are involved effect of rotation and revolution of earth can be ignored. Furthermore, this speed of earth can be assumed to be constant. Hence earth or any other frame of reference set up on earth can be taken as an approximately inertial fame of reference."

And that last one I think most people use today, At least I do it .

Einstein's famous though experiment about the elevator builds on treating Earth as a inertial frame of reference. Without that concept the general relativity's 'principle of equivalence' wouldn't exist. It states that a gravitational field at a uniform velocity is indistinguishable from a uniform acceleration in the opposite direction. And when we discussed the twin experiment there comes a 'time' when the traveling twin turns around to go back.

At that point it is as correct to see the Earthly twin as being the one falling down a gravity well with the 'traveling twin' being at rest and where the Earth twin 'age difference' being the result of 'turn-around acceleration'. That one is quite weird to me I must admit, and I'm not sure I really see how they think there? But I believe it to build on Einsteins idea that you could treat an 'accelerating reference frame' as it would 'create' a pseudo-force opposing the true acceleration of the reference frame? Or maybe not, it depends on where they expect it to happen? It's another weird one One could understand it as a centripetal force accelerating the rocket, maybe? But then it seems to me that this acceleration would have to be quite strong to produce such an effect? Heh.

Does that one even make sense

[yor_on]

Ah Now it make sense, the only thing being that it haven't anything to do with the 'turn around' in itself..

"
The simplest way, if the duration of the acceleration is small, is to just divide the distance (according to each twin) by the relative velocity. Then double the results to get the answer for a two way trip.

For example, if a ship travels to a star 10 light yrs away from earth at 0.8c, the elapsed time on earth will be 10ly/0.8c= 12.5 yrs. And the elapsed time on the ship will be 6ly/0.8c= 7.5 yrs (the distance is 6 ly in the ship's frame due to length contraction).

So the difference in elapsed time (between earth departure and star arrival) between the twins for a one way trip is 5 yrs. For a two way trip, it's 10 yrs.

The asymmetry in this "resolution" is the simple fact that the distance between the earth and the turnaround point is defined in earth's frame (un-contracted) and contracted in the ship's (inertial) frame. The distance "expands" back from 6 ly to 10 ly in the ship's accelerated frame during the deceleration."

It's about having the turnaround defined from different frames. Kind of weird but I presume they have a reason? I like my 'room time geometries' better. Why mix it?

[yor_on]

Now let us take a look at that light-corn again. As far as I understand this idea is the perfectly true one, but it's also remarkably weird. It catches the idea of 'frames of reference' perfectly, but if you think of it also says that there are no 'events' to it.

That it (time dilation and Lorenz contraction) grows with speed or velocity doesn't prove that it won't exist at lover speeds and velocities. And that we don't recognize it on Earth doesn't tell us a thing about if it's there or not. As all other proofs I can easily tell you that the reason why we don't perceive it at 'human standards' or biological is just the same reason why we 'work' and can 'communicate' in the linear human/biological way we do.

[yor_on]

So, how about it?
Do we live in a 'frozen' 'SpaceTime'? And if we do, what have that to do with 'frames of reference'? It's just a way of looking at it but you could imagine a plasma and ask yourself how many 'frames of reference' there would be in one homogenized plasma. If we assume that it from an outside observer would have a very slow 'time frame'. What would it look like from the 'inside' from its own 'frame of reference' aka room time geometry.

Imagine a 'plasma', and that you're piloting it. Imagine it extremely hot and energetic, then, would you agree to this being the same as it having reached a 'relativistic speed' near what motion would take you being near light speed in a vacuum?

It actually doesn't have to 'move' relative 'something else' for reaching this state. Heat is 'energy', and expending 'energy' can be seen as both a 'Lorentz contraction' and a 'time dilation', but you could also assume that it was a very weird type of 'confined plasma' with all its processes directed in one direction, creating a 'thrust' inside our 'SpaceTime' to see my meaning. It's not needed but it's a 'equivalence' sort of. Because I'm coming to a slightly different question soon.

[yor_on]

If that plasma created this time dilation and Lorentz contraction that I expect it able too, what would you see as its pilot? Would you see a 'Lorentz contraction'. If you think you would, is there a state where this plasma, or whatever you would like to call it. Is there a 'place' when it would become what we call a 'point particle'?

[yor_on]

Remember how I discussed the 'energy' and Black holes? I said

"Or that I'm wrong in assuming that following a geodesic, free-fall, having no weight (if you tried to put a scale under your feet in that 'free fall' it wouldn't register you, so to speak:) towards Earth is the same as following any other geodesic?

But if it so, then I need someone to tell me where the difference lies?
That is, how to measure it?

But it has to be right, as the time dilation I would expect, falling into a Black Hole, from an outside observer, will be greater than if I was falling towards the Earth. Or proper mass doesn't create a time dilation..

And that one we know it does."

So, what was wrong with this assumption?

As I see it it was me forgetting my own idea of 'room time geometries'. There are two things twisting a 'room time geometry', proper mass and expending energy. Motion is a function of expending energy but a planet isn't 'expending' anything. But both ideas will twist your 'reality'.