[yor_on]

So energy can contract a distance as seen from the inside of it?
Maybe, we wouldn't notice it (outside of it) if so, would we?

But if it was right there should be a time dilation to it, as measured from our 'frame of reference', shouldn't it? so maybe not? But I will continue assume that I'm right for a while

[yor_on]

There was actually quite another question that this was leading too, but believe me or not, I've forgotten it but we can look at another one that also will work. If we assume a 'time dilation' to energetic processes, no matter if they are 'moving' in a vector or not, why don't we notice it here and now? Is the energies to 'weak' normally? Yep, that's what I think anyway Consider the experiments at CERN and the energies they expect themselves to need. But you might look at it differently?

[yor_on]

And that takes us to the photon in a roundabout way. If energy can contract its 'distance' as defined from its own frame of reference, can it become a 'point particle'?

That's interesting, isn't it?

[yor_on]

And that is another way of asking what it was I was thinking of originally.

Remember that I discussed the notion that you in your moving 'frame of reference' always would measure your 'distance' and 'arrow of time' as unchanging. No matter if you measure it on Earth, falling towards a 'Black Hole' or speeding away at some velocity as defined from 'somewhere else'.

Well, think of my question above and then tell me how to reformulate it so that we can in-cooperate both view points into one. As they are two 'points of views' inside the same 'frame of reference', at least when it comes to matter. Inside that ship my universe becomes really 'short' at the same time as my 'yard-stick' still measures a yard.

Heh, it became better, the question, as I forgot it?
The universe works in mysterious ways.

[yor_on]

So is 'the arrow of time' a function of geometry? If we look at the 'mirror example' above we find that the reason for 'time slowing down' actually could be seen as a result of that light-corn having to 'traverse' a larger amount of 'space' as seen from us on Earth. But why doesn't he traveling on the mirror notice that too? Well, put that 'black room' around you both, then look down at that light-corn bouncing. Does it take a straight path or not?

If you imagine that it doesn't, then I can imagine a 'time when it stops 'ticking', as it will miss the oposite mirror totally, not reaching it in 'time'. And if that mirror-set with the light-corn bouncing could be seen as a 'clock', which it definitely is, then you have just introduced the concept of time stopping.

[yor_on]

So, here's the next question. Looking at it, assuming that the concept of mirror-clock is correct. What is 'space', that classical 'nothing'. I say that it is a emergence from the 'rules' governing 'SpaceTime'. But can you think of some other way to explain it?

[yor_on]

Think of that path you see the light-corn take from Earth. From your view, incorporating the 'arrow of time' the guy traveling experiences as being his 'normal' (from his point of view). From your view, or better still, with the eyes of a God Could we say that this guy is right, distances have actually become compressed, inside each 'tick' of that clock.

Now think of it, suddenly I left the question of 'motion', instead jumping to that single 'tick', stating it as possible to see as if each of those 'ticks' had a greater volume of 'space' compressed inside it.

[yor_on]

So, what is it that makes it possible for us to discuss argue, and get downright ** at each other? Those 'ticks' I would say. How else can you think? Everything we do take some 'time'. You have nothing else to replace it with. Entropy doesn't discuss that creates thoughts, time does.

[yor_on]

Or turn it around, do thoughts have an entropy?

Sure they do, they can stop, grow, die out, even reverse sort of. But, they do it inside an single 'arrow of time', pointing in one temporal direction.

From your birth to your death.

[yor_on]

And if we go back to "Now think of it, suddenly I left the question of 'motion', instead jumping to that single 'tick', stating it as possible to see as if each of those 'ticks' had a greater volume of 'space' compressed inside it."

How does such a notion fit the idea of singular dimensions 'criss crossing' each other in every 'point' of SpaceTime?

I would say, badly.

I prefer the notion of 'properties'. Then what we see, in its 'internal workings', is a function of 'properties' undividable in Space. Just as a 'photons' properties. And then people can stop using one of the most irritating expressions I know Two-dimensional systems. In mathematics it's a useful tool, but when using it to describe a three-dimensional system I find it highly inappropriate.

[yor_on]

"As they are two 'points of views' inside the same 'frame of reference', at least when it comes to matter. Inside that ship my universe becomes really 'short' at the same time as my 'yard-stick' still measures a yard."

One solution would be to say that there is no dichotomy. That yard-sticks measures will be the same outside his space ship too. So he and his 'surroundings' are 'compressed' both. But, will that agree with what you see on earth?

That is, watching him in your super-duper-hi-tech atomic telescope you find him to contract? If it was correct, wouldn't it also imply that you at some possible 'time' would wach him 'disappear' into some speck?

[yor_on]

That one is actually quite simple to solve, you just need to think about what light-clock told you. You did see the light-corn take a longer time as its 'path' between the mirrors grew, but you did not see the mirror 'shrink'. So watching that ship, if you could see its atoms 'move', you would find them to 'move' slower, and that's all.

So where do the 'shrinking' come from?
==

And am I saying that there is no 'shrinking' involved from my point of view, aka 'Earths frame of reference'.

[yor_on]

That one needs thinking about.
Let's test if it would be possible to assume that that there is no shrinking observed from Earth.

But first, could we assume some 'law' defining that shrinking, if there was one observed?

Think about it.

[yor_on]

Let us start with defining a 'piece' of length. A rod perhaps?

Then we make it really, really, long. and yes, that law.
Well, it have to be something making sense with what we would expect to be a equivalent duration of time for the light to take from our 'frame of reference' (Earth). No matter how it is placed in 'space' relative us, wouldn't it And yes, it's that rod I'm talking about.

[yor_on]

So imagine that rod now, no, imagine two rods.
Let's mount a mirror at each of their endpoints, making it four mirrors for two rods. Now you take one of those rods and point it like a rocket away from you, the other you place perpendicular to the first one, making it look like a 'L' from Earths point of view.

| _  Like this.

They are both of the exact same length, with mirrors mounted at their endpoints as I said.


Now, let us put a light-corn bouncing between those endpoints. Booinnng boiiiinnng booiiinng.

We are at rest with the rods, looking at our two clocks we see them 'tick' at the same exact pace. Good, they are working.

[yor_on]

Heh, lightclocks have to be the best invention since the wheel, and single malt of course.

Now we're going to boost them away. Z000OooOm and off they go, at some speed close to light. So let's watch what happens with our clocks. Will it have an importance which way they are oriented in space relative us watching?


 

[yor_on]

Actually that's a pretty good question.
So, will it?

[yor_on]

After all, when I used the first example with the mirrors, you automatically thought of the light-corn as observable, didn't you? with the mirrors pointing away from you so you could see that light-corn bounce. But if you think of the mirrors turned 90 degrees so you can't really watch that light-corn? would it still be the same?

[yor_on]

Let me ask you a question, that first light clock we made, which way was the light bouncing relative us? -- like that, right? 'Parallel' to us so to speak

So thinking of those two rods that will be _ that one. Now we introduced another one pointed as a rocket | too, as seen from Earth. But they are traveling together, as a 'system' you might say.

[yor_on]

The one rod parallel to us ( _ ) will provide the same time dilation as we saw with our mirrors, that we're sure of, well, I am at least

But the other one then? The one pointing | like that?

Will that clock tick the same? It should shouldn't it? Or I would have to assume that there was something really strange to the 'arrow of time' as both rods move 'together', being as I called it, a 'system'.