[yor_on]

And all of this makes HUP so incredibly important to me. It's a principle for 'motion' without 'motion', it allows things to be 'manycolored' even though we know that, when 'falling out', there can only be one color existing 'historically'.

It does not involve a arrow, it does not discuss motion, although I used it as a weird analogue It's just a state of indeterminacy. And it's close to the 'probability functions' we discussed before. They both point out one thing, that we won't know until we measured.

(Now you can point out that we won't know all qualities of our measurement, simultaneously, even after measuring according to HUP, and that is true. But it's weirder than that, by choosing one of those properties, you actually can be seen as 'forcing' it to come true, making its probability a 'certainty', and that is what I'm aiming at here.)

You can argue that the probability for the moon to be there are as near certainty to make it meaningless to question. But the beauty of it is that there still will be a probability of it not existing, however small. We live in a universe of probability. But macroscopically we don't find it indeterministic, and that should have to do with 'scales'. Does a greater scale imply a larger quantity?
=

What about a Lorenz contraction?
And the way we expect it possible to create energy (radiation) from relative motion.

Scales are weird.

[yor_on]

Vacuum fluctuations is not anything fluctuating. It's that exact state of indeterminacy in where it has a probability of 'energy'. And a vacuum is classically 'empty', without 'energy' as I see it. Both statements works together. You will only find a vacuum 'effect' as the Casimir effect when introducing a relation that disturbs that 'emptiness' at a quantum scale.
==

And the idea of a negative 'energy' can't be true in a universe steered by conservations laws. If it was we should lose 'energy', and as far as I know we don't. What we have instead is symmetries, anti-particles/particles for example. Exchange the idea of 'negative' for indeterminacy, and I will agree though. Not that they are the same, but its as close to it as I can come for now. Except in the case of there being proved that 'negative energy' really exist. And the proof for that would be something annihilating something else leaving no trace, and no radiation/energy.

==

Defining 'gravity' as 'negative energy' makes no sense to me. Imagine a gravity well, imagine one photon falling into it, another 'climbing' it. Where is the negative result? They will take each other out, and what 'energy' one 'gained' relative the observer, the other one lost. If it was truly 'negative', all universe would be one single gravity well pointing 'up', no matter your direction, everything getting red shifted, but I don't see that?

('Negative' is in this case the idea of something 'losing energy' relative 'gravity'.)

[yor_on]

So, what is time? Keep coming back to that one don't I

I don't really know, to me it is something giving us a temporal direction, but I believe it uses a 'clock', and that is radiation. Assume you're 100 lightyears away, at rest relative me on earth. You use your laser and send me a light pulse. How long will it take? Now you stand up and start to walk away from my position relative your planet, as you do you send me a new light pulse. What do you expect the time difference to be, walking at 10 meters a second away from me, if compared to the time it would take that light pulse you sent sitting down, at rest relative me?

I've seen some reasoning around the idea of the sheer geometry making a 'time dilation' larger,  in the definition of your 'now', relative mine 'now', displacing it into the past, and if you went towards me displacing your now into my future. That's a really weird way of defining 'time' to me.

That light pulse you sent, will be slightly displaced by the durations differing as you sent it, as defined from your frame of reference. But the speed of it will be the same, and the time dilation those ten meters made negligible, as I think of it. Why would the distance between two frames, at rest with each other, change the time dilation? It's a geometric idea that light will kill, when sent.

Simply put, lights speed is 'c', the distance measured between two frames of reference, at rest relative each other, must give the same measure from both frames. A motion at 10 meters/s will produce a slight time dilation, but it shouldn't matter if those frames of reference is one mile from each other, or a hundred light years, as I see it.

Relative motion is just relative motion. It doesn't care about the distance measured between those frames of reference. It's lights invariant speed that defines a time dilation, relative motion and mass (energy).
=

But if you have a proof of it being different, feel free to correct this. And not 'geometry' per se, a proof.

[yor_on]

So tell me, do you assume all stars and planets in this universe to be 'at rest' relative each other, in that uniform motion they should have? No matter what 'energy' they may have? Relative Earths uniform motion? If so, do you assume that they all have a same 'speed/velocity'?

The question here is, assume that stars have different 'speeds/velocities' relative each other, but also that they are 'at rest' relative each other, having a uniform motion. If a 'energy' is found relative that 'speed' as defined relative Earths 'speed/velocity', will they then have a time dilation relative Earth?

And, can they then be said to be 'at rest' relative Earth?
=

And as mass is a equivalence to 'energy' that is enough for proofing different 'energies' here.

[yor_on]

To me it doesn't matter what speed you define them, but if you think that 'energy' is related to relative motion, and also localized to whatever object you define to move relative you.

It must..

Then there is a new definition of 'being at rest' too. In that definition you will now have to define a 'absolute speed scale' for the universe to know that 'energy' localized to whatever object you measure.

[yor_on]

Maybe I'm angling those questions a little. But it comes back to what that 'uniform motion' should be seen as. I assume here that being 'at rest' should mean that we have no time dilation and that the distance should be the same for all observers. But if we consider that all mass should be different, you will have a time dilation and Lorentz contraction in that fact only. If you then also consider the possibility of the relative motion to differ you will find that you will get different answers for it, depending on your choice of coordinates, earth as being 'still' for example.

So a uniform motion can not be assumed to present a same time dilation, Lorentz contraction, and I don't need to consider 'potential energy/relative motion' at all, only mass will do.

So I'm wrong in assuming that 'at rest' should represent a 'system' where both parties find distance, and time dilation, to fit. It must differ with mass. But it is still so that all uniform motion is impossible to differ in a black box scenario.

This one is more tricky than I first though.

The question becomes two folded. From the point of 'locality', which is the one I prefer, this is uninteresting. Because it doesn't matter what you find the time dilation to be, or distance. It's my definitions that are true for me, and the only thing we really share is a state in which we both will get the same results from experiments done in a black box scenario. But if I consider it from the idea of a 'whole SpaceTime' where simultaneity defines the reasons why we measure it differently?

I need to think about this one.

[yor_on]

Maybe I can put it like this? To me there are some properties of the universe that are 'common'. 'c' is one, being 'at rest' is another, gravity/accelerations is a third. Those binds this universe together, and to me they seem to be the closest thing to what might be seen as a collective frame of reference. And it is the way they present us with a universe that makes us think we 'share the same universe'.

[yor_on]

Let us have a look at another thing.
'Energy'.

Energy isn't 'here', and it isn't 'there' either. The purest expression of it, as I know, that we can observe is 'radiation'. And the reason why it is 'pure' is our mainstream definitions of a 'photon' as being intrinsically massless and timeless.

But it is also so that 'energy' is 'mass'.

"The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV. It consists of three quarks, each of which have a mass on the order of 3 MeV (more or less, not very accurate.) There is a huge discrepancy between 938 and 9. The remainder of the mass of the proton is the potential and kinetic energy of the gluons holding the whole thing together. The correct vision of a proton is a little subatomic gluonic lightning storm, buffeting three nearly insignificant quarks. "

?

[yor_on]

Potential 'energy' huh?

The same we should see in that relative motion? If I can't seem to define it for uniform motion, what makes you expect it to be there? Can you define it? Maybe it's not 'energy' at all, maybe it's some sort of 'nested' geometry?

But why would that give 'forces'?
Accelerations and decelerations, what are they?

[yor_on]

How about this then?

Assume that we have 'network' of borders, at a very small scale. They define something that is 'still'. Then as we scale it up the borders disappear and transforms, introducing us to the 'arrow of time' we know. The 'arrow of time' allows us a 'illusion' of motion, as well as 'energy'? And what we see is a effect of 'scales'. Too weird? Maybe.

Don't take 'illusion' too seriously here. It's no illusion from where we are, we built all of physics from the 'reality' we see and can experiment about.

[yor_on]

But then we have HUP, and indeterminacy.

A 'still motion' not in time.
=

If there is 'borders' at a microscopic plane, then what is HUP doing there?

[yor_on]

If space is observer dependent, will the 'flatness' we ascribe to the universe be 'flat' in all observations? And what makes you sure that one observation is more 'true' than another? If uniform motion, as I see it, is a 'universal description' of something shared by all observers, no matter their relative motion. Then we can imagine someone at a very high velocity, still being in a uniform motion.

What would he see? A 'flat' universe?

[yor_on]

When we imagine a 'density' of 'energy' we actually assume that there must be a border. Without a border a constant density is meaningless. But all of our definitions has to do with the way we experience things. We find borders everywhere on Earth, that can of tuna represent a border, differing the containments of it from the space outside that can. So we use that terminology when trying to understand the universe.

But it doesn't make sense. Look at our proposals. We come from a 'dimension less' point, we assume a 'even density' to it, then we assume a inflation to 'split' this density into the clusters we see today, being the same in every direction. We define it such as the 'distances' we measure is 'real', and that 'space' exist.

If you have a 'dimension less point', what makes you define what we have now as something different?

If there is no 'arrow of time', what makes you expect that you can deduct it.

[yor_on]

I find this one to present a fairly understandable description of what we see, and think us to know about the universe today. The Expanding Universe

But it does not discuss the observer dependence.

[yor_on]

For those of you wanting to argue that this observer dependence only is applicable to relativistic speeds, and neutron stars/Black Holes, check on those atomic clocks that NIST used.

I expect them to exist on a Planck scale, and if so, not to be ignored in any description of a universe or quantum realm. The question is naturally also if you see Einsteins length contractions and time dilations as being true descriptions, but if you read this far I suspect you do

The idea of 'gravity' as a negative 'energy' do make for a balanced universe, but it also implies that we would have two opposite principles. But space do not negate 'energy', so to define it as 'negative' seems wrong to me. Once again I find myself liking the idea of 'symmetry' better.

So what was that 'dimension less point', maybe at Planck size, as that is where we start make sense of the physics we have. A symmetry break? Does a symmetry break crave a 'distance', or is that our definition of it from the inside?

[yor_on]

Assume that it is a symmetry break. Then what it shows us are durations ordered into a causality chain. What we define as a 'arrow', as in 'clocks', could then be the way we get our descriptions from, as it is from that we define a 'distance', as well as anything else you find making a 'change'. It's like having two simultaneous 'realities', one where the arrow defines our descriptions, another where 'time' has no meaning and where this 'symmetry break' just is.

That would fit the way different manipulations can contract the 'SpaceTime' we observe. But it's just a thought, nothing I can prove.

[yor_on]

But if it was so, then why would that 'arrow' always be the same to you? If we set for example 'c' as some limit, like a border for our SpaceTime. Why would that (invariant) clock still exist near the limit?

What I mean is that the 'arrow' still will be there for you, your 'intrinsic measure of time' no different from before, if we define it as your watch relative your heartbeats. That it, to me, is equivalent to our description of radiation as a constant, makes no difference for this. What makes 'time' and its 'arrow' so invariantly, locally, consistent?

[yor_on]

If it so that your intrinsic measure of life is constant, no matter where you are and do, then there is a arrow of time. Meaning that it contain a limited amount of durations (life span) that never will differ from your frame of reference. I assume this to be the truth. But that 'constant' makes all you see around you adapt relative motion/mass/gravity/energy.

So whatever 'time' is, to my eyes it's a local phenomena first, and a 'shared 'universal'', only in that restricted sense of us all experiencing it in the same (local) manner.

[yor_on]

And one weird thing more. Lately I've started to wonder about if 'scales' and 'distance' is the same? How do you define a 'scale'?

Dam*d if I know, I mean we have them, and we use them. That is what makes that 'quantum spookiness' visible to us. If you, as I, assume that 'dimensions' isn't something you 'glue together', but really exist as whole descriptions? That is what Einstein assumed too in his definitions, as I think of it, at least when presenting the idea of a SpaceTime.

How can I differ a contraction/magnifying, as in expanding a volume of interest, from a contraction/magnifying perceived in a relative motion/mass/gravity/energy?

I'm sure there must be a way, but I can't see it. Even if they are the same we percieve it differently. And now I'm sounding quite 'wacky'.

It's about geometry, and 'space'.
==

And before you tell me that there is no 'magnifying' in relative motion That depends on your relative motion, and mass, as compared to another frame of reference, as I think of it.

It's all about light, isn't it? And the way it conveys 'information'.

[yor_on]

So, if 'c' is the clock, what does it make time?

This is my view.

I see time as having both a value and a direction. And that is not wrong, although not the usual way to define it. Normally time is defined as a scalar, having only a value. From a entropic point of view in where you expect 'time' to evolve in each point, according to some entropic principle, you might want to argue that this is the best definition.

But my view is that time has a lot to do with 'c', and using that we will find that although we all find others 'time' to vary, we also can agree on that the 'local clock' we then use is, in some means, 'universal', meaning that all 'local frames' have a same defined 'ground state' as defined by 'c' locally (clock).

And that gives SpaceTime a 'direction', not only locally.

You might ignore the universality there, I usually do, as I define it all locally to keep it simple. But on the other hand, if that 'ground state' didn't exist we would have a lot of trouble assuming that 'entropic view' for example, as we then might find that there was no clear definitions of 'entropy' as in a radioactive decay relative another expected to be the 'exact same'. Also we have the fact that all atoms behave the same, and that one interaction with one atom is interchangeable with a same action on another 'same' atom, etc.

So it is a important principle to me, and if we let our imagination run free for a moment all points in SpaceTime then should be 'moving locally' at a same temporal speed/rate, but in this case also describing a (universal) vector at that 'ground state'.