[yor_on]

Yeah, I know, all of those exist
But they are still questionable, if you as me find relativity to be correct.

And how can anything be simpler than 'one thing'? Don't really know how to express that one, that has to do with what the arrow 'is'? I'm thinking of 'interactions' there, and wondering if now the universe could, at some conceptual plane, be described as 'static'? That is as simple as it can get, but also a 'place' where a 'arrow' can't be, as well as a place where 'interactions' becomes 'limited ' or/and non existent.

So how can I get both?
It's about how to lay the puzzle.

[yor_on]

Entropy=heat=temperatures=particles but not 'bosons' alone.

Or you might want to argue that Entropy is what 'equalizes'? If it is so that the symmetries we see are 'phase transitions' defined through 'temperatures' that also becomes our 'entropy' then there can't be any, as a presumption, before that first 'phase transition' creating particles of rest mass.

But that sounds quite weird, doesn't it? On one hand I doubt the description of 'bosons' being able to interact. But on the other I assume a first 'phase transition' when only 'bosons' could have been there? But I use 'space', 'propagation' and 'heat' to define that one. There is no more 'heat' in space due to 'bosons' as far as I know.

So what would make it work?
Scales.

When does a 'dimensionless point' become a point? What is 'compressing' something? And what is a 'arrow'?
The 'arrow' expands our universe. The 'arrow' inflated it too. To that I can add, what are 'dimensions'?

[yor_on]

So can you define the arrow to 'change'?

I'm not sure, although I like the idea. Considering Victor Senchenkos proof of time being non-existent, in where he imagined putting one leaf in a refrigerator with the other laying on top of it open to the environment I realized that light still would be a constant, no matter what temperature you use. And if the clock best describing a arrow is 'c', and the arrow being locally equivalent to 'c', then it shouldn't matter to it what temperature there was. that 'clock' would still have a same 'time keeping' locally.

No, it doesn't seem as change is sufficient for describing it, not if considering it over a 'whole undifferentiated SpaceTime', but, if you agree with me on that locally defined all arrows is one and the same relative interactions, then the interactions we find to be different comparing, is just another proof of the constant 'c'.

[yor_on]

It has to be locally defined, you can't define a 'same' arrow of time in any other way.

Wrote this just now elsewhere, but I think it's correct, well, as for now at least

"The constant is defined in a vacuum, not in mediums having other densities And refraction is defined from a vacuum. You can use 'change' as I think, but only from a purely local definition and doing so there will be a same arrow, relative any interaction and no matter the temperature.

But it has to be a local definition in where you, using 'c' as your 'clock' of choice, splitting its locally invariant 'speed' into even events/chunks of 'time', measure that against your local interactions by mass. Then all interactions will have a same 'time keeping' as I see it. And that I can define as a 'arrow of time', same for all interactions locally.

I better point out that as far as I'm concerned all measurements you can do directly is local. For measurements at different frames of reference, conceptually seen as a 'system', you will need to consider time dilations, relative motion, etc."

Heh
=

The point is that temperature and environment has nothing to do with this (local) definition of 'change'. The leafs may disintegrate differently as compared by a observer, but the local definition of a arrow will hold as I see it.

[yor_on]

So 'c' and the arrow is equivalent. And as I define a frame of reference down to Planck scale you get another 'border' there, fitting in that it is the shortest 'step' light can take. One Planck length in one Planck time.

So two constants defining a 'scale', 'c' and the Planck scale. And gravity becoming equivalent to 'c' at the event horizon, as that is where lights geodesics all  must point to the 'center' of that Black Hole, and no light passing it to us.

'c' is the king pin.

[yor_on]

To see how I look at it. We all are defined locally, at Plank scale, or possibly slightly over it as we have HUP (?) to consider too. We are a 'construction' inside constants, defined as being equivalent 'locally'. Those constants define the 'room time geometry' we exist in and the borders are real, but also very conceptual. One is Planck scale, the 'microscopic domain', the other is 'c', the 'macroscopic domain'. And 'gravity' is a geometry, not a 'force', although inside those constants we define it as such. It is the metric whose plasticity defines the 'space & distances' we measure, and it's equivalent to c'.

[yor_on]

And we define the 'plasticity' relative our 'motion' and our 'mass'.

Then we have 'energy' but that is a conceptual 'coin' that seems to exist only in 'transformations', relative 'Bosons, 'particles', as in the wave/particle duality, and invariant rest mass. With 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow we get a explanation to why we see a 'time', but we do not get a explanation why it can be that way. Only that it is.

[yor_on]

How can there be a 'instantaneous' inertial reaction to a change of 'motion'?

If there is then we have a geometry, not 'gravitons'. You might argue it as a field though.
The geometry becoming a field of sorts. 'Gravity' is like a spiders web in where 'gravitational waves' are like local distortions in the room time geometry. But they 'propagate' in it, so, how do they do it?

Motion must exist for SpaceTime, and have a definition in itself, if I am to assume that 'gravitational waves' propagates. Otherwise I could assume 'something' in where motion always are defined 'relative' mass as that is what we can measure on, and follow. But we haven't found any gravitational waves yet, as far as I know?

But inertia then? How does inertia exist everywhere there is mass?

[yor_on]

To me inertia must be a product of a relation, but what other frame of reference do you have? 'Space'? 'Gravity'?
They are the two relations I see, and mass of course. But as inertia comes instantly you can assume it to be a property of mass, but to be a relation you will need to propose 'something' that it will 'react' relative. And that should be a field of some sort.

[yor_on]

There is a alternative definition that states that when you change the 'motion' of something you introduce new relations between the particles, creating that piece of matter that change its 'motion', and there is the reason for inertia. And in a weird way this may fit perfectly with locality, as if i define all relations from a smallest point then they all have a relation to other 'points' around them, defined through Lorentz contractions and time dilations.

That way there is no 'field' existing, well depending on how I look at that. I can then formulate it in form of relations. But those relations, very conceptually now, never 'stop communicating' and in the end leave us a SpaceTime.

[yor_on]

And then Mach's idea of all mass 'communicating' instantaneously with all other mass as described by inertia would be wrong, if you by that mean that the arrow can be overcome by inertia. And as I define the arrow to 'c' I can state that 'c' must be a limit for 'time'. In another way he will be correct as it then is matter, all matter, that defines inertia, and instantly so, but through what I call my 'principle of locality'. I've seen other principles of locality defined but the are not the way I think of it, so if you see me write it as a 'principle' which I think it is,  please don't confuse it with some other description.

[yor_on]

To see my point of 'instantly' ask yourself if a Lorentz contraction is real. If it is and you see the stars in front of you come closer in your relative motion. Do that effect 'propagate'? Or is it 'instant'?

It must be instant.
=

But that is also about 'space' isn't it?
And we already have ideas of how 'space' can 'expand' and 'inflate' faster than lights speed in a vacuum.

[yor_on]

And could I also call that a 'static' description?
Something happening instantaneously for you?

A acceleration can be described as displacements from uniform motion(s).
A uniform motion can be defined as being 'still'.

A Lorentz contraction does not propagate inside 'c'.
So is your SpaceTime in some terms a static configuration
Where what adapt instantaneously is a description of that?

[yor_on]

And Bosons, can you give them a 'frame of reference' too?
I'm not sure, the main stream definition is that they do not have one, they're a constant. But then we have the fact that we can, well, not see them 'come' really, but we can 'experience' them in their interactions. Isn't that the result of a relation which by its very nature demands two frames of reference to exist?

But they are still a constant, the same for any frame of reference as I see it. That's one of the reasons why I don't like them to 'propagate'

[yor_on]

So allow me to wonder some more about frames of reference. If I as I've already done define them, at their smallest scale, to Planck size. Doing so in that we can't get it any smaller, meaningfully, in the physics we have.

What is then a frame of reference?
Firstly it is a position in time and space. We usually use our wristwatch and our ruler to define all other things from our local 'frame of reference', although that becomes a very conceptual definition if you use my ideas of what it is. But rudely, it works, as is correct as we can't really measure down to those incredibly small differences I'm discussing.

Each position should, in Einsteins universe, be defined by time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Will that create 'forces' acting upon the other positional 'piece of matter' as particles surrounding that position? I actually presume it does. Then we have motion, we put a rod into motion, now its Lorentz contractions gets a direction and the rods points of positions starts to move, but not simultaneously. Try this one by John Mallinckrodt for size.

But this point is wider than that, what is a 'force' in this description, what does it make motion if it is correct. There are more things to it, but I'm still trying to see why it interest me so much.

[yor_on]

What would be a 'frame of reference' for bosons in a non propagating definition? What would it make the idea of 'c'? What would 'motion' become in such a universe?
==

And yes, can Einstein play with mirrors then I feel free to play with 'frames of reference'.

[yor_on]

The point is, and where I might differ from John Mallinckrodts description.

If I define each 'particle' as a relation to each other 'particle' in that rod I would not only expect time dilations to define it in a acceleration, but also Lorentz contractions as found for each 'position', relative all other positions 'moving' in the overall direction of the rod. And that should be a fact assuming that we can define it to Planck scale.
==

And here the point also becomes one of HUP. Plank size might be a 'ideal definition' for it but when HUP comes in? Where does it come in? Atoms?

[yor_on]

Because my main point overall is that I don't expect matter to ever be without 'time dilations' and if it isn't then it must also have the complementary Lorentz contractions. And that one goes back to what we call 'motion', 'relative motion' and 'acceleration'. Please define the global absolute frame of reference you can guarantee to be still for a piece of matter? If you can't, what can you define? If I say that something is 'at rest' relative something else, does that guarantee there to be no time dilations? And no Lorentz contractions?

Where does one 'frame of reference' end and another takes its place?
Try to see that one, because it's important Well, to me it is..

Frames of references and forces.
So weird.

[yor_on]

I think Mach had it right. Although he thought of a whole universe in his definition.
Just exchange universe and 'mass' for Plank sized 'positions' in mass.

There's where we find the invariant arrow equivalent to 'c' locally.
There is where we find the first idea of inertia.

Then again, I'm not sure of that scale at all, it's about HUP to me, maybe it has some relevance to what HUP is?
==

Einstein was a extraordinary mind. Here is what he had to say about Mach.

"    The significance of personalities like Mach lies by no means only in the fact that they satisfy the philosophical needs of their times, an endeavor which the hard-nosed specialist may dismiss as a luxury. Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc.

Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand. This breaks their all too powerful authority. They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer. (Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29)"

And Mach was one clever, clever, person.

[yor_on]

You also need to remember that I have defined a immutable arrow, equivalent to c' here. And as you know personally, you are going to die, some day. The arrow exist. What it is then becomes a question about why 'c' can act as it does. But as the arrow exist, and 'mass' & 'motions' we must have time dilations and Lorentz contractions constantly.
=

But what one needs to do, to get it straight in ones head, is to decide where one expect one frame of reference to start and another to end.
==

What you can argue is that all 'time dilations' exist between frames of reference, which is true, but to where do we define those frames when you accelerate, as sitting down or standing up.