An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287321 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 #700 on: 07/03/2013 10:34:55 »
Applied on relative motion, this sort of thinking ignore a background, you don't need it. What you need is paths, and the paths together with 'gravity' defines a universe.
"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 #701 on: 07/03/2013 10:38:07 »
And now we go back to 'energy'. Finite? Or not?

That has to do with your definitions of a universe. Is it a 'container' of sorts?
"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 #702 on: 07/03/2013 10:57:43 »
Can you see why I prefer to call gravity a 'preferred direction'? Remember the way we first tried to describe 'gravity'? As some 'rubber mat', in three dimensions? Never made my day that one, it just confused me.

If you want to stay with dimensions, why doesn't a geodesic find 'friction'? After all, we have a dynamically changing universe filled with 'gravity', acting on, and being acted from, mass. Where those gravitational potentials meet each other, why is there no friction in that geodesic?

And there isn't..
Remember us discussing uniform motion, and the absence of 'blue red' shifts?

Paths though, without a background, also fills in a universe.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 11:02:17 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 #703 on: 07/03/2013 11:13:21 »
So, Einstein was right again (Well, I think so :) No surprise there, he's so exceedingly cool that man in his thinking. Gravity must be the 'metric' of the universe, defining it.

And if you consider it from 'paths' creating what we see, or 'geodesics' defining a universe, filling it in, including 'densities, 'energy', distances etc etc' then, is the energy finite or undefined?

Well, the conservation laws seem to work?

You could imagine it as densities and buoyancy, Our 'universe' becoming something of a certain buoyancy, in where we experience it, and ourselves, as being what is 'real'. Using our observations, and measurements we then go to define 'limits' for that universe, as a length, a width, a height, and of course, a arrow.
"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 #704 on: 07/03/2013 11:21:05 »
Using this idea you will find a 'aether' almost impossible to define. Because there is nothing guaranteeing any end to what consist of 'densities'. My assumption is that for a aether to exist, you first need a 'closed universe', how else can you describe that piece of 'no motion'? From a unlimited universe? Maybe, but I don't think so. And the universe I see is 'unbounded', and 'unlimited' in all degrees of freedom, those we know and those we don't. But our experiments give us the constants defining the limitations inside which we exist.
=

Furthermore I happily find it fitting the idea of us just needing some very small 'local' change, to 'pop out' a new universe. Because it's not 'energy' per se that comes to be created, it's more like you get 'constants' that redefines some, in our case. 'volume'. The 'energy' should already be there. Also I think it suits Einsteins definition of the arrow belonging to the room we see, meaning that they aren't really 'split able'. And 'redefine' shouldn't be read as if a universe comes from a 'known territory', more than I expect whatever there is before to have 'energy'. But as I don't know what 'energy' really is, more than transformations?

Tell me, how cold can it be?
And how hot?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 11:53:28 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 #705 on: 07/03/2013 12:22:40 »
In such a universe, does light propagate?

Maybe, although I prefer to think of it as not. Using relative motion as a description between 'frames of reference' the universe is not your toybox. You can't just open it and define a 'motion' relative the box's walls. I'm finding constants to be more and more interesting there. Also what degrees of freedom really means for this universe.
"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 #706 on: 07/03/2013 12:52:22 »
Geometrically expressed I would expect such a universe to have a size defined by its dynamics, and constants, not by some predefined volume. So what about the inflation? And the subsequent accelerating expansion? If it exist, does it need to cost 'energy', and how is it transformed if so? Into what? Or is it a cause of Einsteins so called biggest blunder, 'the cosmological constant'?

And another thing. Assume that you create a theory describing to great detail how things seem to work, now assume that along comes another that have taken a different approach, both theories are slightly inconsistent but both fits amazingly well. Must only one of them be right? Or can there be several way to describe a same thing? Relativity is about 'frames of reference' and geometry, also about constants, gravity, symmetries, energy and mass. Quantum mechanics is about probabilities, entanglements, indeterminism, statistics, and what more? The standard theory seems a little of both to me.

You need to read me from that approach, I'm not saying that I need to be correct in any of this, but it is how I view it, and to me it's a ongoing work. Or just me, blathering away :)

The cosmological constant.



"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 #707 on: 07/03/2013 15:49:44 »
So what about a arrow? Think of a 'superposition'.

Make it into a circle filled with dots. The circle becomes the boundary defining some limit, the dots inside represent probabilities. Now imagine the circle as a universe, inside it are all probabilities that exist for that universe. But first, is there a limit to probabilities creating other probabilities, creating new probabilities? In that case we can imagine it a as a static representation.

If it is so that you can assume new 'unique' probabilities created through interactions of 'old' probabilities though, defining uniquely new patterns, then it is a 'dynamic system' to me, and not static, as I think for now at least. Like this, we define some laws for their interactions, a game. Can the outcomes from such a proposition vary indefinitely? In a static universe the circle could be seen as the probability's limit, and inside it you would find what we call the arrow, described through outcomes inside it. But in a 'dynamic' system able to create new unique configurations, this reasoning fails to me.

Because there are no boundary's if this is true, and the thought up circumference, describing some limit to probabilities can't exist. Maybe that too can be seen as a expression of 'free will', meaning that although the rules may be simple, the result can be just as complex as you imagine, and then some.

(Thinking of it naively a lot of 'history' seems to be cyclic, it keeps coming back, people recycling the same dumb mistakes, although, to their generation the mistakes seems 'new', often called 'visions' :) But now and then something unique happens that will change the way we live. Like a new theory describing electricity.)

"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 #708 on: 07/03/2013 18:38:48 »
I better admit it, I'm not that happy about the definition of a 'same universe'. Pick it apart I say :) If you do, you find matter following geodesics, defined by mass/gravity, and all in relative motion. That one opens for other ways to untangle 'energy'. Is energy conserved? Well, if the universe you see is observer defined, can you define where it is conserved? But matter then, the 'energy' in matter? You burn a slab of wood, it transforms into ashes, some of it disappear in smoke, some of it in heat. Is it conserved?

Is heat conserved? is Earth open to space?
Where does that heat go.

And space is a Mexican hat?
Energy densities.
"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 #709 on: 08/03/2013 10:59:02 »
To be honest I very much doubt that Einstein would be too pleased with my interpretation of his theories. I have this suspicion :) that he would like it to be one universe, with light propagating, as in some pyramidal scheme. Building on Newton, with corrections at very high 'energies' where we then find relativity to step in. He seems to have been very 'down to Earth' when it came to realism, although still creating a unified theory, building on observer dependencies. But it his theories I'm using and no one else. Although I stop before the stress energy tensor, it becoming so esoteric , and difficult to imagine, that I don't know where I should put that 'energy', and yes, also questioning 'potential energy'.

Because considering it as paths taken, or vectors/velocities/geodesics, in something without resistance you have two things. No resistance and paths taken. There is no resistance if what the paths do is to follow geodesics, and gravity is nothing more that a preferred direction described from local dependencies, relative the 'relative motion' described from other objects in space.

One of the things we do, all of us, is to use a 'whole universe'. So you can't decide a 'energy', what the he*, use a whole 'universe' and it becomes definable and understandable. But if there is no such thing then? What if the universe you see is your description, and your measurements? Translating it to my view of a universe must be possible as that is simple logic. Otherwise the universe would become magic.

So you have to believe in logic. The universe we see is logic. Then measurements, do you believe in that the measurement you make describes your reality? And here you better be awake.. Yes or no?

And do you believe in 'repeatable experiments' defining truths?
But the universe is observer dependent?

How can both be correct? That we, each one of us, find a different description when comparing frames of reference, yet still define it so that if a experiment is the 'exact same', giving us a exact same outcome, then it must be real? And how can we get those 'same' results?

And that is local measurements, being the same. Frames of reference, not being the same. To get those experimental results locality must become a equivalent platform for us all, no matter what 'frame of reference' someone might define us too.

Furthermore, it must also be the origin of whatever makes us think we have a 'same universe'.

"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 #710 on: 08/03/2013 11:19:34 »
The next step is to take it into absurdum :)

And that means quantum. Does this type of 'locality' have a limit? If you trust quantum logic it should, as far as I understand it. It ends at Plank scale. That's scales my friends, your life defined from scales. So, scaling becomes important in this universe. 'motion' may be ill defined (as I see it then), but scaling is not. I mean, it got to be one of the most 'local' tests you can do of a universe, no matter what you're looking for.

So scales. but 'motion'?

"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 #711 on: 08/03/2013 11:31:42 »
Then a third step. Motion as split into uniform motion and accelerations. Sometimes I use the idea of freezing it, mostly to describe what I feel is behind it all, some static representation existing, before that 'motion'. But uniform motion is being still. Your life consist of accelerations, although I can freeze those in my mind they become two different descriptions. Uniform motion being 'still', relative motion being you comparing your 'uniform motion' relative some other objects 'uniform motion' (as described by light, and yes, I could make it more precise but this is a discussion to me).

But accelerations is life.
"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 #712 on: 08/03/2013 11:49:11 »
Let's go back to uniform motion. You're not moving, unless you look at some other heavenly body, in which case you find yourself to gain a 'relative motion'. So what are those other bodies doing? How can they show me different geodesics, containing different speeds/velocities if they aren't moving?

Well, how about asking yourself, why is the universe observer dependent, while we wonder about that, too?

I don't know, or I do, it is a result from 'c' being a constant, and us doing local experiments finding uniform motion to change nothing locally, although still presenting us with a 'energy' when compared to another 'frame of reference' (collision).

But it is logic, if you put it together with observer dependencies. Both say the same, reality is a local description. Frames of reference is not your reality, although all to real in a collision. So what is a collision? Frames of reference becoming one?
"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 #713 on: 08/03/2013 11:58:01 »
So what is a geodesic, assuming you're not moving?
"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 #714 on: 08/03/2013 12:10:39 »
What tell you those other bodies exist?
Light, or radiation.

That weird pimpernel. Existing through the 'recoil' described in matter- not existing in between that and- its annihilation. You can measure the path of matters geodesic, everything that stops accelerating will follow a geodesic, everywhere. A football exist in its path, but light only exist intrinsically, in its annihilation.

And we call the way it 'propagates' a 'duality'. You can depending on experimental setup either find it to be 'wave like' or 'quantized' as a 'photon'.
"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 #715 on: 08/03/2013 12:15:01 »
You can not find it to be both simultaneously though, except theoretically, there is no experiment I know of showing light as both a wave and a photon in its annihilation, simultaneously? You can assume that all light quanta of a same energy are equivalent, and looking at astronomically you also can assume that it is intrinsically 'time less' (ignoring astronomical and other red shifts here, as well as blue shifts). A lot of people don't like that.
"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 #716 on: 08/03/2013 12:16:18 »
I don't like it either :)
"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 #717 on: 08/03/2013 12:19:55 »
But it has to with definitions, do we have a 'indivisible same universe' as normally though of? If we do, then we will ignore relativity for this, to define it such as there are immutable astronomical distances, that light propagates over.

But if we have a relativistic universe, in where all motion, except accelerations, are being 'still' as far as we can measure locally?
"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 #718 on: 08/03/2013 12:31:45 »
Accelerations define change, the recoil define a change locally, the annihilation define a change, also locally. but a 'uniform motion' in between?

And that, ahem, friends, is that a result of a arrow?
"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 #719 on: 08/03/2013 12:33:05 »
The football you follow is actually described by that same light we can't follow in its 'uniform motion'.
"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 #720 on: 08/03/2013 12:50:49 »
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?'
"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 #721 on: 08/03/2013 13:02:33 »
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.

"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 #722 on: 08/03/2013 13:07:24 »
But do they need to collide to be able to influence each other? How about binary stars, and gravity waves?
"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 #723 on: 08/03/2013 13:08:50 »
What 'propagates' a 'gravity wave'?
"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 #724 on: 08/03/2013 13:23:20 »
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.
"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 #725 on: 08/03/2013 13:32:15 »
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 :)
"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 #726 on: 08/03/2013 13:40:23 »
And it all goes out from measurements made. To disprove you need to prove that relativity is wrong.
"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 #727 on: 08/03/2013 13:49:35 »
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.
"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 #728 on: 08/03/2013 13:58:26 »
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.
"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 #729 on: 08/03/2013 14:24:36 »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 17:22:32 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 #730 on: 08/03/2013 14:53:35 »
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.
"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 #731 on: 08/03/2013 15:06:19 »
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.
"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 #732 on: 08/03/2013 15:09:01 »
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.
"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 #733 on: 08/03/2013 15:23:19 »
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.
"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 #734 on: 08/03/2013 15:30:59 »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 15:40:41 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 #735 on: 08/03/2013 15:51:54 »
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 :)
« Last Edit: 08/03/2013 16:37:48 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 #736 on: 08/03/2013 16:20:55 »
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'.
"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 #737 on: 08/03/2013 17:08:09 »
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.
"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 #738 on: 08/03/2013 17:38:28 »
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?
"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 #739 on: 09/03/2013 00:50:09 »
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?
"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 #740 on: 09/03/2013 01:01:35 »
It doesn't matter at what 'speed' you define this dynamic 'field' to move. Each point of 'gravity/space' must be influenced at all times, acted on from all directions. If we use 'c' as a speed of gravity the update frequency for it is 'c', but as soon as the point been defined by gravity the updates will arrive depending on 'relative motion', never mind a speed. And as gravity is a 'force' without end, you need to include not only the universe we can observe, but ?? Probably that is possible to simplify, but to do so you will need to make assumptions. (Wonder what a quantum computer could do to describing it?)

But my main interest is those geodesics, without a resistance.
"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 #741 on: 09/03/2013 01:18:01 »
Defined that way each point in a universe becomes a statement of a equilibrium, represented by all mass in the universe acting on it. When we talk about a point of mass though we also have to consider how that point of matter act back on the universe, so it seems simpler to keep us in space for this one :)
=

But it is a dynamically changing equilibrium to me.
"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 #742 on: 09/03/2013 01:40:31 »
I find it so hard to imagine those geodesics, using relative motion as 'real motion'. And it is measurably real, when we compare between frames of reference. And it must dynamically define gravity. Using paths, as in degrees of freedom, for a light quanta's motion it seems simpler than 'dimensions' though. There is no real 'back ground' to those paths to me, they are each one unique, and they together with gravity, define the space you measure. Assuming that they use a same constant for their definition they become a similar expression to me. Although light definitely differs in its energy delivery from gravity they both can be seen as informations carriers.
"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 #743 on: 09/03/2013 01:55:47 »
But we haven't meet the end of it yet. Now consider observer dependencies and geodesics. Each point, my interpretation this, have its own unique definition of a universe to contend with, or if you like, its own unique coordinate system. We can assume that some points may 'share' one 'frame of reference' relative the masses acting on them, (being 'at rest') their local clock and ruler being equivalent, defining distance and time for all other frames of reference. And they don't need to be locally spaced for this, that equivalent 'frame of reference' can in fact be spread out, all over a universe in some 'islands of equality'. But overall I think of it as if each point have its own definition relative its neighbors. Because space have a distance, and you can't superimpose that distance as I think. It may change with motion and mass, but it will be just as real from your measurements.

And all points, finds another universe measuring.

Now make those geodesics in your mind..
"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 #744 on: 09/03/2013 02:05:05 »
Does this mean that I think Einstein was wrong? Nope.
Think he was just right actually, I'm not trying to destroy anything here, I'm just trying to translate it into something making sense to me. Relativity is about questioning causality and trying to find it existing. Einstein wanted one coherent universe, same for us all, and so he arranged his definitions from that. I'm just rearranging it a little to suit my understanding, and I'm no near as good as he was :)

If I was you wouldn't see words here, you would see latex, sprouting out my ears..
Or is that tex? Never remember, it's tex huh? :)
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 02:07:20 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 #745 on: 09/03/2013 02:18:55 »
And I won't touch the stress energy tensor, because I don't understand it. Mathematically I'm sure it makes eminent sense, after all, it has been scrutinized for over a hundred years by guys assigning their lives to understanding the mathematics describing it. So what am I doing then? I'm rearranging what I think I can understand, to fit a very weird idea, not of his origin, but neither of mine. Or rather, as I looked at relativity, and tried to see what it might mean I've been looking a lot on quantum physics too. It's from there I pick Planck scales to connect them to lights 'speed' for example. And it's from there I sort of first started to think of frames of reference as being 'points' using a local clock and ruler, because 'at rest' is a very general description, although quite precise. I just wanted it all to make some sense to me.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 02:22:48 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 #746 on: 09/03/2013 02:21:39 »
Remember that I've been suggesting that there should be more than one way to describe a thing? Well, I'm looking at one way, and I don't use math for it, just logic.
"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 #747 on: 09/03/2013 02:26:48 »
Light doesn't propagate, but it uses a constant. and if that isn't a weird idea, I don't know what is?
Did someone say 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 #748 on: 09/03/2013 02:32:59 »
I'm not sure where and how I got that one, but I think I read about it in a mathematical site dedicated to explaining the mathematics behind different physics, and relativity. and it fitted me more and more as I tried to understand this pimpernel, light. Actually I started from photons, finding them to make more sense than waves, but today neither photons or waves make that much sense to me, or both do, equivalently so. If light don't propagate.
"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 #749 on: 09/03/2013 02:38:18 »
What is 'time'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."