[yor_on]

It's becoming a universe having very little practical connection to how we experience it normally, doesn't it? A universe that in some motto can be seen as being 'static' if we allow uniform motion to be locally 'unmoving'. If you want to have some fun you can define it as your aether it being impossible to prove you wrong, using local experiments.

And this is probably where you shake your head commenting to yourself, 'and he think he is sane?'

[yor_on]

But it has some nice points to it. It makes why there is no resistance in a geodesic understandable, and how all those relative motions can crisscross each other never finding a obstacle for their 'motion' unless colliding, in which case they momentarily might be seen as joining a same 'frame of reference', although I'm pretty unsure how to describe that one. Then again, 'frames of reference' if you really start to wonder about what it should mean, is not solely about comparing points in space and time, it's also about defining points in space and time being 'at rest' with each other.

[yor_on]

But do they need to collide to be able to influence each other? How about binary stars, and gravity waves?

[yor_on]

What 'propagates' a 'gravity wave'?

[yor_on]

Let's reason a little. If a geodesic is no motion, how can we find other objects to move uniformly? Well, using a definition of a 'whole' same universe for us all we can't, I would say. To do it we need to find some other way to describe what we observe. A universe consistent with constants, presenting us with a same underlying logic, but splintered into observers describing it locally. That universe is not 'whole', unless you define it such as each interpretation of it is 'whole', locally described. But only a God would then be able to see it, as it really is.

[yor_on]

And that makes a 'many universe's' universe. One where you live, now.
And it make 'space' illusionary. As what sort of 'space' would it be? Connecting my description to yours. (And such a statement should indeed phreak some serious thinkers out

[yor_on]

And it all goes out from measurements made. To disprove you need to prove that relativity is wrong.

[yor_on]

In a way I suppose it is a matter of 'emergences'? The ones that change the properties of stuff, water becoming ice etc. But the 'emergences' must be local in origin, joining my SpaceTime to yours by 'force and information' carriers that also follow those local definitions. Some of the constants we find we experience as being 'universal', but they must be local to their origin, although joining our interpretations into a 'universal' pattern. So 'constants', just as that 'uniform motion' can be seen as something 'objectively existing', although in a very theoretical manner as it seems to me. The experiments you do define your reality, and they are local.

[yor_on]

Constants seems about comparing frames of reference, looking for patterns that repeat themselves. What constants won't compare between frames of reference?

'c', ideally defined from locality, being at rest, in a flat space?

What about mathematical constants?

Feigenbaum's constant, is that a periodicity or is it a 'static description' existing in some other space. To be a constant, you need to find it everywhere, in all local descriptions of a universe, as it seems to me.

[yor_on]

You can't define it such as 'well, space is energies' and bosons carrying them.' because those are not 'space'. Bosons can be superpositioned, try to do the same to a locally defined space, or turned around. Space get its definition from the absence of matter, as locally measured between two masses. In that motto there is no way for you to superimpose that 'space'. It's a fixed description locally, although measured from another frame of reference you might want to imagine it as getting 'superimposed' relative 'motion' and mass? But the same must be true for matter too, measured from another frame of reference. Take a look at that 'pole in the barn' example for a description of it.

Also it becomes illogical to expect a space to become superimposed due to for example super positioning light at some point. Still, it is also about extreme 'energies', able to distort SpaceTime, as that quark gluon plasma somewhere near a beginning. But assuming you to have been there, at rest with, and measuring a distance between, two defined spots you would still find that distance to be 'real' to you, and unable to superimpose, or superposition.

[yor_on]

To redefine a 'space' as being able to superimpose, or position, from locality (at rest with) doesn't seem possible, using a distance measured between two masses. But it still is redefined, using that same ruler and clock, any time you compare between frames of reference, just as matter is. And what about a very large mass, that should also be able to redefine 'forces' and 'measurements'. And there is no way I see you can equalize the force spent in a acceleration to the amount of 'shrinking' that universe in front of you present you with. Take a look at muon's for a practical description of that.

[yor_on]

And to see the biggest beef I have with reality you just need to accept that if a large mass makes it measurable, it should mean that small masses too will redefine time and distance compared between 'frames of reference'. I just love NIST. And there is a link further to the experiment too.

[yor_on]

So we have mass, and we have 'motion', able to redefine time and distance. And it has nothing to do with energy expended being equivalent to what 'shrinking' you might define from your local definitions, well, as far as I get it.

[yor_on]

Now, where then would we find a measurement of a distance ideally to be 'at rest', being equivalent, with some other point in space and time, also measuring on that distance? We need a flat SpaceTime, we need a agreed on definition of what a segment of time should be, locally defined. And we need a agreed on segmentation of a ruler into equivalent 'spaces' depicted on them, let's call them centimeters. We don't want any of our equipment to mass anything, for obvious reasons We don't want to 'move' relative each other, and we need a guarantee for what we use to measure with have a constant 'speed', and no inertial mass. Then we should get a same 'distance' hopefully, as I think. But introduce mass anywhere, it not being equal at both points, or even the slightest acceleration, it should (theoretically) destroy the experiment, giving us unequal distances. That we don't have the instruments to measure it shouldn't matter.

[yor_on]

Well, SpaceTime doesn't really matter for it, thinking again. It don't really have to be 'flat', as long as there are no changes in gravitational potentials. That's more what we need for a definition of ideal 'speed', as gravity bends paths.

And that may be the point of it all? There are no such thing as a 'fixed distance' in a dynamic SpaceTime with relative motion, as it seems to me? All masses are in motion, if measured relative each other. Which in fact means that if you want a 'whole' same universe, you better stop thinking of the implications of a dynamic SpaceTime, and distances.
=

And mass.
==

But then we have geodesics. the paths of no resistance.

[yor_on]

There is a logic to my madness here, hopefully. All distances are real, measured locally, but none are more 'real', as I think. So when the (let's say, three) guys at NIST stood looking at the two clocks, they may have found it to show the same macroscopically described. But in 'reality' those guys, each one of them, became a separate 'system' measuring the difference in distance and time between the clocks. The system here being the relations between their mass, relative motion, relative those two clocks. So when they agreed on seeing 'the same' discrepancy between the clocks they expressed it 'approximately', as in reality they were separate 'systems'. Although there is a ratio to any exact description of what join their experience of clocks ticking, they saw three different things, relatively speaking, and all as I think.
==

And if you want to make it weirder still, you only need to consider that each one of them had their own definition of a 'ruler and clock'. Making each 'clock ticking' studied unique. So we have three 'systems', each system arriving to two unique definitions of 'clock rates' relative their own clock, then comparing those two clock rates to each other, still finding the discrepancy to be the same. But, that's humans for you

[yor_on]

Now, if someone tells you that he 'understands' relativity, I would call him mad How can you 'understand' that your measurements must differ from mine? And how can you understand that we still find us to to be in a same universe? A universe where both time and distance becomes mutable? As soon as you start to move you will change your relations relative anything of mass, even if not measurable. And simultaneity does not make it 'understandable', although it gives you tools for describing it. Maybe it gives you a better intuitive feeling for the relations, but it does not 'explain' 'c'.

[yor_on]

In some way it make us all expressions off reality, as we all locally define a universe. And I know you exist as you know that I exist, due to those 'force information carriers' able to inform us, and our senses. We move and touch, and we communicate.

[yor_on]

So, is a 'energy density' measured relative the motion and mass you have, relative? Use light for that one, and red and blueshifts. Is it then the same for the time dilations you see, and length contractions? If a mass (a pole) contracts according to you, is its energy the same as before your acceleration. What I'm asking about is relations? Can I assume that one kg, indeed have a one and for all defined energy density, or is it a relation? From a modern point of view we define a 'rest mass', defining it to be the same no matter where you place that kg. At home, or on the moon.

Using light and relative motion it becomes trickier.
Is a light quanta constantly of one energy.
If it isn't, how can it change without annihilating?

[yor_on]

Another thing. Imagine a universe of light. Because that is what it must be if we assume a propagation of light. Should be countable as some ratio relative suns. Then create and define all those geodesics, taking in consideration how a dynamical universe in relative motion must redefine gravity in each point as the configuration change. you now have gravitational 'field lines'. How do they look in your mind?