An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 286772 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2300 on: 20/09/2016 14:14:06 »
We presume that a entanglement also is about 'communication', well, most of us do at least :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2301 on: 20/09/2016 14:14:36 »
But 'c' is the limit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2302 on: 20/09/2016 14:21:06 »
We scale it down and it 'dissolves', possibly into a 'field', scale it up slightly and we find QM, scale it up further, into a global definition, and we meet GR, and SR. All of them describing the same thing? They have to communicate, but my question is, do they describe the same thing?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2303 on: 20/09/2016 14:24:00 »
Seen another way, is there a hypothesis you might make in where you need something 'more', or for that sake 'less', joining them? Entanglements are strange, aren't they?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2304 on: 20/09/2016 14:34:02 »
The real question of a entanglement is how it can 'know' beforehand, for example its respective polarizations. It 'knows' faster than light can carry the information. And the Big Bang is 'local'? heh, I think it is.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2305 on: 20/09/2016 14:36:23 »
It must have to do with the way this universe is, not with what we think us see.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2306 on: 20/09/2016 14:43:34 »
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way we look at it. You have a arrow of time, 'c', you have causality, 'propagation' and 'motion'. mass and gravity. 'energy'. All of it fitting this 'plane', SpaceTime, we exist inside. We can measure it so it exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2307 on: 20/09/2016 14:45:16 »
What you can't measure is very hard to prove.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2308 on: 20/09/2016 14:53:02 »
There are some weird questions I have, for example the one about how a Big Bang could be seen as a local phenomena, and what that would mean for our later global description of a 'whole universe'. Then the one in where you need to ask yourself in what way light 'propagates', it follows the first actually if you think about it. Then of course there is 'time', and entanglements.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2309 on: 20/09/2016 15:11:01 »
Dimensions does not make it justice, when presuming that each point in our global description of SpaceTime must be a equivalent 'Big Bang' origin. You're perfectly welcome to disprove that one. To me it's no longer a 'unified expansion' of a vacuum, more like points creating points all around itself, ad infinitum, or points changing scale? Well, depending on how you think about it. We measure the age through the light we find, aka the suns existing in that vacuum. But the Big Bang origins seem to exist still, as we are in a accelerating expansion.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2310 on: 20/09/2016 15:19:54 »
Actually I would prefer a vacuum not to exist, which it actually does too :)
That would simplify it, as it would make any discussion about a vacuum growing ftl meaningless, also it would allow me to call it a scale of nothing.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2311 on: 20/09/2016 15:23:20 »
What are a perfect vacuums interactions?
Put another way, what does it need to interact?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2312 on: 20/09/2016 15:40:28 »
I suppose you could reach a effect of a vacuum 'expanding faster than light' just by imagining it as points. Use suns around you to define some sphere of a volume, then 'insert new points of a vacuum' everywhere in that volume. filling it in at the speed of 'c'. then watch those suns receding from you, faster and faster, as those points continue to be 'filled in'. That doesn't accelerate those suns though, they're still 'buoys' laying still.

but the really strange thing about it is the way those points can come to be.
« Last Edit: 20/09/2016 15:43:49 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2313 on: 20/09/2016 15:50:05 »
If a vacuum is 'energy', what happens as this vacuum expands? That vacuum has to have a equilibrium, doesn't it? If it 'loans' that 'energy' inside a SpaceTime, where would it come from? Also, the equilibrium isn't solely about the vacuum but has to belong to the whole of the continuum, as far as I get it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2314 on: 20/09/2016 15:56:18 »
You could assume it taking a lot of energy creating particles, creating suns, creating the rest of it/us. If it was so, then why are we inside a accelerating expansion? that turns it upon its head doesn't it? Less energy giving a accelerating expansion.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2315 on: 21/09/2016 09:57:30 »
The way we explain the idea of a 'container of rules' defining a SpaceTime is by assuming that you have different kinds of 'energy', simply expressed useful energy versus non-useful. The non-useful energy then dissipates as heat at the end of its transformations. That means that we should have a defined amount of useful energy relative a volume. If that volume is 'infinite', then the 'energy' also becomes 'infinite', but presuming a equilibrium existing over this volume, as well as presuming that the rules are the same over the whole volume makes it tricky to see where from that 'energy' gets loaned. If you want to see it as a defined dimensionality with 'real borders' the simplest reasoning should point to something (a volume) shrinking, shouldn't it? Also it should dissipate in some way as a added heat, shouldn't it? Or the 'energy' used is of a opposite kind, where less energy creates a expansion, then again, how would that fit a Big Bang?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2316 on: 21/09/2016 18:11:37 »
Don't read me wrong. I'm not disputing a accelerating expansion. I'm just trying to see why it is.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2317 on: 21/09/2016 18:12:21 »
We see this universe, but we don't see it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2318 on: 23/09/2016 23:03:06 »
Einstein and Gödel both thought time to be questionable. Einstein considered it a 'illusion' while Gödel wanted it to be non-existent. That's also from where he created his rotating universe using Einsteins field equations.  His view on his new universe was that it didn't really matter if it was the best/closest description of the universe we lived in, or not. That as it rigidly followed the field equations, while also allowing for "closed time-like curves (abbreviated CTC). And as those in their turn leads to all kinds of paradoxes (shooting your 'grandfather paradox' etc) the simplest solution would be that time doesn't exist. When people try to solve those paradoxes most actually go out from the opposite though :) Treating time as existent they then invent 'bifurcating universes' ad infinitum. I understand why Gödel wanted time to be non existent thinking about that one :) He seemed to have foreseen its implications.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2319 on: 23/09/2016 23:06:04 »
I don't consider it to be a illusion though, neither do I expect clocks to be non existent. Locally defined time exist, equivalent to the way 'c' can be used as a 'perfect clock'. Both are perfectly consistent locally measured.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2320 on: 23/09/2016 23:12:02 »
The real quagmire, philosophically, logically and physically is then to define what one mean by 'local'. And that one is a headache. You look at your clock and see the time, so you 'know it' :) But that time you defined from it is actually a approximation, also something involving what scale one use. that we all agree on it doesn't make it any less of an approximation.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2321 on: 23/09/2016 23:15:47 »
My own view is that to define local 'constants' you will have to go the way QM does. Then there are 'global constants' too, but to my eyes they should be emergences, coming from those local ones, scaling it up.

And this scaling becomes very like different 'dimensions' to me :) Although you might avoid citing me to a mathematician or physicist :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2322 on: 23/09/2016 23:27:57 »
Gödel did another very interesting thing. He gave a proof for that 'any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics'.

". He saw that no version of the formula game could encompass all truths, even about whole numbers. In the published version of his discovery, Gödel introduced a code by which the expressions of the formula game were each represented by a single whole number. Thus, certain statements about numbers could be seen by someone privy to the code as making assertions about the formula game as well. Gödel showed how to construct a statement P that, in this manner, asserted that a certain other statement, Q, could not be proved using the rules. Then he showed how to make Q=P, so that the statement P actually asserted that P itself is unprovable. From this it follows that P must be true and therefore, because of what it asserts, unprovable. This necessary incompleteness of the formula game was the first blow to Hilbert's work. A few weeks later, Gödel delivered the knockout punch by proving that Hilbert's ( cherished goal of proving the consistency of the formula game through restricted methods was doomed to failure."

What he apparently had started with was wanting to support David Hilbert's view that mathematics was the universe, its logic impeccable. "Hilbert's radical remedy was to create an entirely new branch of mathematics, dubbed metamathematics, which would apply mathematical methods to mathematics itself. In order to achieve this, it was first necessary to present mathematics as a 'formula game' in which the propositions of mathematics were represented as mere assemblages of symbols, and the methods of inference that led from axioms to theorems were presented as transparent rules for manipulating symbols." But he (Gödel that is) ended up finding himself doing the opposite.



« Last Edit: 23/09/2016 23:31:11 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2323 on: 23/09/2016 23:38:16 »
Once we lived in a world with clear answers, a 'finite' well ordered universe, having one 'absolute time'. It wasn't true, but it worked. Most of the mathematics used practically mirrored that conviction.

Today we have 'chaos mathematics', open ended systems, and Gödels incompleteness theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2324 on: 23/09/2016 23:43:47 »
Talking about mass, speeds and scales may confuse people. But if you scale down a mass, not shrinking it but scaling away the mass to a smaller 'ball' you also redefine the time. And if you to that add that different particles have different speed relative each other, well, welcome to the quagmire. It's not only accelerations that gives time dilations, uniform motion will do the same.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2325 on: 23/09/2016 23:49:27 »
And what was now the definition of something 'orbiting' something else? A acceleration, isn't it :) Doesn't really mater if the 'particle' in itself can be seen as a wave equation, or a 'standing wave', it still has a mass supposedly, and as long as it is in a orbit around another 'particle' it should be accelerating.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2326 on: 23/09/2016 23:52:49 »
So what do you consist of? Cells? Molecules? Particles? Standing waves? Strings and loops? Depends on your scale, doesn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2327 on: 24/09/2016 00:07:09 »
So, 'locally' defined :)

How far can you break down a beam of light? 'Photons'?
Take that beam, count the 'photons', and you get a clock, measuring time. We don't consider any macroscopic observer for this, just a pure 'idea experiment'. And yes, the idea of using 'photons' may be questionable but, hey, use a saw then :) to split this beam into even chunks, as far down in scale as you can come before it all breaks up.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2328 on: 24/09/2016 00:10:01 »
That's one way to define something as 'local', trying to ring it in physically. Then there are other definitions of what is 'local', microscopic as well as macroscopic, but most are 'ideal definitions' as far as I get it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2329 on: 24/09/2016 00:12:23 »
Defining it this way each 'photon' becomes your grain of time. What it really leans on though is the idea of 'c', being locally the same for you, no matter mass :) nor (relative) speed/accelerations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2330 on: 24/09/2016 00:18:23 »
Time definitely exist, but it may still be a artifact, on the other tentacle, it might be what allows this universe to come to be. If the universe was a infinite order of static planes laid upon each other then 'time' would be what rushes us through it. Although that seems much as a predestined universe, and even mathematically we can see that the universe is open ended. Just look at Gödel.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2331 on: 24/09/2016 00:24:56 »
We see four dimensions entwined. Length, width, height, and 'time'. They all go into each other, and 'c' is what communicates it to us.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2332 on: 24/09/2016 00:42:09 »
Heh :)

Now consider a non propagating 'c'`
Dearly suspect Gödel and Einstein to be turning in their *** by now, muttering about ***
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2333 on: 24/09/2016 00:43:45 »
'c' will still be 'c', time will still be time, and clocks will be clocks.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2334 on: 24/09/2016 00:45:42 »
To get to a non propagating 'c' you need some thing 'new', like a 'field' maybe?
Then you need something introducing change.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2335 on: 24/09/2016 00:47:05 »
This is a alternative to the 'predestined' example I gave before. You still need 'change' though.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2336 on: 24/09/2016 00:50:09 »
And you need 'probabilities', a equivalence to free will.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2337 on: 24/09/2016 00:53:51 »
And your universe will never be the same :)
Although the ingredients are the same.

'time' 'probabilities' 'dimensions' 'scales and emergences', and 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2338 on: 24/09/2016 00:59:19 »
What such a universe do very well, is telling us that there is more than one way to see it. The way we see it works for us, but there could be other ways that fit just as well, and possibly better in some ways.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2339 on: 24/09/2016 01:03:33 »
Think about it, what would you need to get a string to vibrate?
Does it matter if I call it 'change', or 'time'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2340 on: 24/09/2016 10:56:28 »
Now, what this bring us to is the question of Machs universe. The court still doesn't have a final verdict on that one, it's pretty tricky, and in some ways terribly theoretic. His idea was that you being on a spinning carousel just as easily could exchange it for the world spinning, and you being still.

There was no such things as absolute frames, everything instead being relative something else. And that makes sense to me :). In its simplest form such a statement says that there can't be a 'rotating universe' ala Gödel, because what would you rotate it relative? There is a clear difference to me assuming that measurable things can be proven to 'rotate' relative each other, relative assuming that the same can be proven for a whole universe.

And the whole idea of a 'rotating universe' will bring us back to the old notion of a universe having dimensional borders, which I consider rather shot to pieces myself. Exchange that one for a infinite universe, let things 'rotate' relative each other inside it, and stop imagining the universe as some balloon 'rotating'.

then again, it depends on how you read it. The main idea is that 'everything is influenced by everything', but if we take gravity the ¨'force' of that falls very quickly with distance. http://www.universeadventure.org/fundamentals/gravit-equation.htm

and it also question locality.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2341 on: 24/09/2016 11:18:00 »
Gravity is weird, isn't it?
A 'uniform constant acceleration' is a exact equivalence to gravity in GR. In Mach universe then the question must become, 'relative what'?

A accelerations definition is very local, it acts solely upon you accelerating, so the frame it acts relative should be the whole of the universe, shouldn't it? In 'Machian terms' you could be considered to remodel, at least, your perception of the universe, introducing a 'gravity' through your acceleration. But does that make sense? Can a acceleration, or a uniform motion, change a whole universe? And will the same also be equivalently true for those outside that acceleration?

If we talk about it in form of the 'energy expended' locally by you accelerating, then the difference between what you see the universe do, namely 'contract', relative what energy you've spent to make it do so becomes a nobrainer. There is no balance to it. And for a 'far away' observer your acceleration won't change a thing.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2342 on: 24/09/2016 11:22:54 »
Another reason for questioning a vacuum, isn't it. Because locally defined it 'contracts' relative you accelerating. If it now contracts, shouldn't that mean that the 'energy', aka 'virtual particles', also becomes 'denser' relative a locally perceived volume?

Ah, you see where I'm drifting, don't you :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2343 on: 24/09/2016 11:30:02 »
What we're missing here is the question about uniform motions, and if they too 'contracts' ones universe. I say they do, some want to blame it on all other things, 'turnarounds' etc etc, but the simplest explanation will be that they do. And a uniform motion is locally equivalent to being at rest, no matter what speed you define yourself to have, relative some stars blue shifts etc.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2344 on: 24/09/2016 11:35:48 »
It all falls back on the fact that there is no 'absolute frame' for a speed. You driving define it relative the road for example. Without a pivot of 'universal zero speed' everything becomes a question of what you will define it against. But, 'speeds' exist, even if we only can define them relatively. Otherwise accelerations (and decelerations which are the same phenomena) doesn't exist either, I mean, what purpose would they have?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2345 on: 24/09/2016 11:40:26 »
A pretty good question methinks, and one you should take seriously. What are motions, what are propagations?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2346 on: 24/09/2016 11:46:15 »
A uniform motion then contracts your universe, as well as it 'speeds it up' temporally. Or from the far away observer it will be you 'slowing down' temporally, but there will be no such thing as the universe 'expanding' around you from his perspective.

And yes, a vacuum becoming perturbated, locally defined, as your speed increase, it's volume 'shrinking'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2347 on: 24/09/2016 11:52:26 »
But then again, why won't it (the 'disturbance' aka virtual particles becoming locally 'real') hold for a subsequent uniform motion, this shrinking of a vacuum? Or will it?

If it does, what does it state? Remember that we don't know any 'absolute frame' to define a speed relative. Still? Wouldn't that point to 'absolute frames' existing. How else can the universe 'know' your speed, and offer you the appropriate response?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2349 on: 24/09/2016 12:00:06 »
Or maybe it can't? It 'knows' accelerations though, with your uniform motion still being equivalent to being at rest. But if you consider a blue shift due to a higher ('faster') uniform motion this becomes questionable.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."