[yor_on]

What would happen to a 'space' without gravity? would it still have three 'directions', not including the arrow of time here. If I assumed that my idea of 'time' covered the past, present, and future, then, what would that be.

Maybe it's better to define it as without a arrow there can be no linearity, so the question of past, present and future loses its meaning. For 'time' to mean something to me you need a causality chain. So any idea of discussing a 'free will' from the perspective of 'pure time' is meaningless. It only gets its meaning from the arrow inside SpaceTime, and it's only there the dichotomy exist.

But you can still question if 'space' would exist? Define no gravity as a geodesic, what would that mean? That this 'space' then would be one big geodesic? but it would have no direction, right? So, without a direction, where is the 'metric'? Or maybe that is wrong? Maybe a 'space' without gravity is a point?
=

The way to get into a geodesic is to stop accelerating. And what happens at 'c' is that you are at rest with light and gravity. What does that make a black hole? Is a Black Hole a geodesic? All 'gravitational accelerations' are geodesics so it should be one. Does it have a metric at its center? can any 'metric' exist at 'c'? I don't think so. Our Jello is of a very weird consistence, push it too hard and it disappear.
==

One thing more, if you define 'no gravity' as geodesics, then any gravity can be one. You only need to stop expending energy to find it. And that should mean that my hypothetical 'no gravity universe' above would be equivalent to a Black Hole. And if it is so, I would go for that it becomes a point. But it will also mean that all uniform motion then becomes, not points as long as they are under 'c', but striving for it.

I think I need to sleep on this one, to make any sense from it
A year?
==

Another question, what if that 'empty space' would be 'c'?
As a 'empty space' from my definition becomes inseparable from any degree of 'gravity' and if I assume that the coupling we have to 'gravity' is more of a restriction than mass, ('energy' in a way) and accelerations?

Then it should be at 'c', whatever that is? And if it is? It has to be 'dimension less' sort of? But then we have light, defined as being at 'c', why is it allowed inside SpaceTime? But if I assume that this particular case is the 'metronome' instead of 'propagating' we can ignore that one (maybe, for this at least:)and look at how all other stuff behave closing on to 'c' (ignoring radiation). Then they all 'contract' don't they? And if you assume that as they become infinitesimally close to 'c' also becomes so contracted that they not even become a line? As observed by the universe at large? I don't know here, it seems to me that the energy need to be infinite and that they also, if interacting, would release that 'energy'. Furthermore, they can't really 'disappear', they are locked inside SpaceTime.

But on the third tentacle, we're not discussing matter, if the definition would be correct we would discuss something a lot like 'bosons' or possibly 'energy'. Even though 'energy' only can be defined through interactions it's still a measure of something. At least that's the definition I understand the stress energy tensor use when it defines it as 'stored' in 'space'. So if 'space' is the metric of 'gravity'? Why can it 'store energy'? 

How?

(Yeah i know. Gravity is the metric of space huh:) But you can turn it around too, I did

[CPT ArkAngel]

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slow down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

[yor_on]

That's the opposite of my definitions CPT.
'Timerate' does not slow down in mine.


That's why you can use it as 'c'. Because in my definition they are the same, equivalent. It simplifies the universe for me. Then you have the idea of 'gravity' propagating at 'c' which also will fit the picture. The only thing needed for it is to exchange the idea of a propagation to one of a constant and it all will make sense. So gravity, light and the arrow of time is 'equivalent' to some degree. To make it work I'm also adding the idea of gravity's coupling being 'infinite' and the idea of splitting 'time' from its arrow. The first things I'm satisfied with, those definitions will work. The second is like a intuition so far, a feeling I had for a long time that we can make further sense from this universe, if we just stop trying to fit it to our preconceptions.

But I agree, we can't perceive anything 'faster' than 'c'. It's the metronome defining a arrow. To pass it would make it into 'chunks' to us, possibly? Because without a rhythm (linearity/causality chain) all 'things' you see at that conceptual plane should become 'still'. Maybe that's what QM meet as it probe those small places, or must meet?

Assume that it could be so, would that mean that we do have a 'granularity'? Or would it be a description of where our observations fail? To me you can see it both ways, the granularity may well be the last stage we can observe, but beyond that there, to me that is, should be a 'smoothness'. We do all things, and observations, inside our arrow of time. Then we lay them out for observation and define them.
==

You could see it this way, to see why I speak of QM as a place where 'c' loses its coherence. All 'speeds' are defined from 'distances' in times arrow. The smaller the distance the less arrow. At some plane the arrow and 'distance' will be equal, and that's Planck's intuition, and constant. Pass that and you're at the place where 'chunks' should be seen, being still resting in what I call 'time' instead of a arrow. And yes, I have no proofs I can come up with, indications I have but no real proofs. And that's also why I keep discussing 'sizes' as they become the definition we use with the arrow to describe all kinds of things, from 'dimensions' to 'speeds' to 'distance'. From Einsteins view the universe really can be magnified and contracted with motion, gravity/mass, and 'energy' (as a description of something I'm not sure what it should be:)

[yor_on]

Time? And HUP. How does it it work? Do we get a measure of how element combines through their 'average value' of arrow? I'm not even sure if I'm formulating my thoughts right here. My own definition of HUP makes sense to me, needing a 'simultaneous measurement' in time of a particle?

But let us, just for fun, assume that we have some hypothetical universe where everything gets defined through 'chunks of time'. In such a universe we can attribute every element, and combination of elements, different 'chunks'. From such a universe the approach of 'weak measurements' seem to make perfect sense to me as it will catch just the property a such universe should have. And so also 'eliminate' HUP.

I definitely need to understand this one, and as I said, it's weird.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is probably regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...

[yor_on]

Well You need to define your hypothesis CPT. Myself I'm wondering what 'times arrow' is here. You could assume that we have only one, as that is the way it seems, and that its property is of one 'temporal direction', at least macroscopically. But thinking of weak measurements I'm wondering. Although I'm unsure of how it should 'work' with how I define the arrow as radiations 'metronome' I just think it might?

A universe made out of 'averages'.
==

To make it work one would have to consider how photons communicate, over particles as well as with the idea of 'virtual particles'. One would need to twist the universe into a new way of looking at it. If it now is possible?
==

If you assume that the arrow is 'c', then it follows that for something to stop 'ticking' as we see it there has to be something changing with the 'c' we are used too. Does that make sense?

[CPT ArkAngel]

In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate, i should specify... interesting hey?... )

[yor_on]

Well, write it up in a thread CPT. I'll visit it, but make it as clear and simple as you can, charge for example is a difficult thing to define. But do it and we'll see.

[yor_on]

Hm, let's define a photon as I understands it. No mass, no intrinsic time, no charge, always at 'c'. It may be the 'force carrier' for EM but it does not bend to a electrical field. I called its energy 'kinetic' somewhere, and that is not right, sloppy writing that. It has a energy, a light quanta, and that is partially a intrinsic property, partially a property that will vary with the 'photon' measurement aka 'observer/detector'. It has no inertial frame of reference of its own, meaning that we have no place where we can define it as not 'moving' at 'c'.

What more?
==

We can define a 'recoil' to it, when leaving a source, but only from the principle of symmetry. We can also define a sink, as when interacting with your eye or matter/particles. It does not interact with itself, as far as I know. The idea of it interacting with other photons, creating a gravitational effect through its energy under certain geometries, are plausible but as far as I know still only a hypothesis. That is, I do not know any experiments proving it.

You might assume that a sun would be a sort of proof, but that's particles of 'rest mass' interacting releasing 'energy' aka photons/waves.

Ah yes, light also can act as a particle, as well as wave. But not simultaneously, called its 'duality'.
==

If I bend light gravitationally in a circle, will it blue shift?
It should, shouldn't it.

Can there exist any frame where it wouldn't?
==

It will always follow a geodesic, meaning that it actually can be seen as being 'at rest' with gravity. Well, as I define it

I've seen it defined as photons acquire a mass through the Meissner effect. "It has been shown that the exclusion of magnetic flux (Meissner effect) corresponds to a finite range for the electromagnetic field and hence to a `massive photon'. In the context of quantum field theory, the meissner effect in a superconductor occurs because the U(1) gauge symmetry is broken in a superconductor. The photon acquires a mass through the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs bosons are the Cooper pairs."

But the Higgs are still a hypothesis, not a experimental fact? It should be possible to define if photons get a mass by studying the sun, possibly? Waves/photons passing should then 'bend' more the closer in you measure them, as it seems to me? Maybe too difficult/small to measure though.

But any Neutron star or Black Hole should do. And the LHC should be able to test it I think.
(Ah, this is from the assumption that a photon would have a invariant mass, however small.)

[yor_on]

So do I think photons has a mass?
Not yet

Does space has a mass?
Gravity?
Energy?

Energy only exist in interactions where it become our measure of the effect (useful work) we find, loosely speaking. So even if we expect us to be able to relate energy to invariant mass, and vice versa, energy still seems more of conceptual description than of anything you ever will 'touch'.

So I think I'll stay with the definition where it does not have a mass.
Intrinsically timeless then, well yes, everything points to it.

So now I treated it from the definitions I can remember, for now. I'm sure there are more things to be said but..
==

So let's look at my definition of it then, as 'not propagating'.
It takes care of its duality. It takes care of any discussion of why you can't 'see/define it propagating without a measurement'. Indeed, it takes care of all unexplained facts I know. I don't have to wonder about the duality, I just have to find how it express itself.

It becomes a question of interactions, and what 'the arrow of time' is.
A cheap trick you say? Not as I see it, a better and simpler explanation.

But if it doesn't propagate, how can it keep presenting itself as such?
Who says it does?

How can space always seem the same, but still contract/magnify?
Why does light always keep to 'c' as observed 'locally'?
Why does your personal frame of reference always 'tick' the same?

If I tell you that all our clocks 'tick' the same, never changing durations when we measure them, where can a 'time dilation' come in? There is no measurements you can do that will tell you otherwise and all other measurements you do relative other 'frames of reference' will build on your own 'frame of reference' clock. To measure 'times arrow' as 'uncertain', becomes a joke as you measure it from that same clock you find suspect.

I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.

[yor_on]

In fact, my own definition of what we call a 'time dilation' makes a he* of a lot more sense than the one I gave at first. Although it is not wrong it assumes one whole common 'SpaceTime', in where we all play our part. In my universe I'm alone, as you're in yours. What connects yours and mine is the arrow. That one lends its definition, as I see it, from radiation ('c' as defined by lights speed in a vacuum.), which makes us into a 'universe of light' As those new age poets like to describe it. Your 'multiverses' are already here, sort of.
==

Maybe I should stop calling it radiation and just refer to 'c'?
Any which way you like it, it's what I think defines 'durations' here.
==

You need to see that with my definition I don't really need to twist any geometry, in the travelers 'frame', as observed by him, to define a 'time dilation'. Although Earth will observe a distortion of 'room time', and the traveler observe a changed 'SpaceTime', I can allow both to keep their own geometries, instead define it as a result of slightly changed (distorted) relations between 'frames of reference' under the time traveled. It taste so much better to me, as well as becoming simpler.

But I agree, it's a hard one to melt.
Still, I like it
==

[yor_on]

So, in my hypothetical universe gravity should be 'space'. What Einstein called 'the metric' of space. So we have this bubble with all those gravitational potentials/gradients smoothly disappearing/joining into each other.

They all form 'geodesics' which matter, as well as light, seems to follow. They seem to be defined from the matter we see, and possibly also from energy. Then there is accelerations too, of course. Why I find the definition of light being able to describe an added restmass is primary through the idea of how our universe came to be. Because that first Big Bang should have been energy, and the purest carrier of 'energy' we know are photons/radiation.

But if that is true, how can the geometry matter for it having or not having a mass? That one is quite confusing, it's easier to imagine it being of the same principle as a compression (Black Hole).

Assume that you have a time reversed Black Hole. Also called White Hole, expanding in a burst. Would it need some sort of 'light geometry' to create a gravity, and so a 'space' to burst into?

And how could it create that geometry without a 'gravity' (space) to start in?

ah well, it's kind'a weird, isn't it?

[yor_on]

To make it work we first better assume that to 'become' a universe there must be some 'point'. That point must be coupled to gravity, if I would assume that the 'real thingie' doesn't have any restrictions then the point would be some sort of breach in that equilibrium. I'm just guessing here

So we have a breach in the equilibrium that 'is' whatever that 'is', some sort of focus. Why that focus can come to be? Don't know, but if we draw it down to its simplest definition is will be some sort of causality, as a assumption. Or it could be no causality at all but some other principle we never see inside here. Still, shouldn't it have a equivalence to causality?

The real assumption I make is that just as we are a breach in something, a Black hole is the way back to whatever it is 'holding us'. But it's not a direction in the usual manner, not as I think of it. To me it should have to do with 'sizes', and with the arrow of time breaking down in its center.

[yor_on]

Thinking of it, everything we see seem to fall back to symmetries. Think about earths view of that light clock on the travelers ship. As he sees the 'light-corn' take a steeper and longer path as the ships acceleration increase, defining the arrow as 'slower' taking more 'place' in SpaceTime, the simultaneous 'contraction' will decrease the ships size. Another weird result of relativity.

So as something contract, does the 'frames of reference' for it equalize?
And is the contraction valid from both point of views?
==

According to the definition I have? I'm not sure, that the arrow stays the same I'm sure of, but the 'contraction' is a very weird result. From Earth the contraction will involve the ship, not the SpaceTime. From the Spaceship the contraction will involve the SpaceTime, not itself.

But both will see 'distance' shrink.
==

So where is the symmetry? If I define the symmetry as a balance, between times arrow and the room, then there isn't one, not from the travelers point of view. Because my definition state that 'times arrow' stays the same, doesn't it? So why would he see the universe 'contract'?

Now, you can see this as a proof of my view of your personal 'frame of reference' never changing its arrow of time being wrong, or you can see it as a proof of a equilibrium getting disturbed. I suspect it to be a equilibrium upset.
==

Maybe that one should be reformulated. A geodesic doesn't upset SpaceTime, does it? And all geodesics are equivalent in a 'black room scenario', as we all know. so what 'upsets' if I now should use that word(?) should be the acceleration. That is also expending 'energy', all following 'uniform motion' from that state will not upset any 'equilibrium'. But the Lorentz contraction and time dilation will still be there, as far as I can see. So? I don't know, we can at least define it as a change, and possibly as something altering your former equilibrium to a new one. Then again, we have the equivalence to consider, and as that one is a 'absolute' to me? Maybe I better avoid this definition for now instead moving to the next description hereunder.

But 'energy expended' is a very weird state.
==

There is naturally another point of view possible in where we get another definition. It will be in that the traveler sees the universe 'speed up' relative the formerly known rate of change relative his timepiece. So there is a symmetry to the universe as observed from the traveler, balanced against the representation he presents to the earth bound observer. A symmetry as I think of it. But it doesn't answer the question why the travelers time never lose its durations.

But you could use it as a proof for my assumption of every 'observer' being unique, having a 'same temporal duration', no matter from where, or how, he measures it, inside his own frame of reference. But as we know from the atomic clocks, this definition is somewhat 'fuzzy', and related to the way we perceive the arrow of time as coherent over a generalized common area.

It depends on how we see it, as compared to what those clocks show us.
==

First of all, looking out at a whole universe, how do you define it? As one single 'frame of reference' communicating with the observer, or as a infinite amount of 'frames', all communicating through its radiation?

It must be one 'frame' to me, a curtain of radiation informing you at all 'instants' or 'nows'. And in it we have a simple definition of equilibrium. it's no energy expended, aka 'geodesics'.

Why?

Well, it's about my definition of us all being 'unique'. If that is a 'truth' then all other frames must present a coherence relative your own unique 'frame of reference'. If it wasn't that way we should all perceive sharing a 'same frame' (Earth) as inconsistent, and split up. But we don't, we all find us being in the same 'frame of reference' no matter that those frames, from my point of view, change in every point of 'SpaceTime'.
==

If 'c' is the clock ticking for you, then all information you receive is 'now', having the same duration from the perspective of your own 'frame of reference'. For that assumption it has no importance of what its source can be seen as. The light from the end of our visible universe is still 'now', as it present itself for your observation.

And the information you receive is in one form. Radiation, of whatever kind. Then we have invariant mass, but for this we will assume that, just as that football coming at you is defined from radiation, so any interaction between 'rest mass' will be defined by its 'force carriers', which I then define as 'photons'.

[yor_on]

This is a headache formulating consistently, and at times I reread it and find a better way of expressing it. So whatever you read here, it's only temporally speaking. It can, and will, change as I find a simpler definition that makes sense (to me that is:). So maybe you should wait a little with reading it, as I'm one of the uncrowned masters of rewriting

[yor_on]

So what is this universe? I say it's something defined in 'interactions'. The interactions are defined by the observer. The observer defines it as a causality chain. The causality chain is 'timed' by 'c'. All observables we have find their limit at 'c'. Radiation, gravity, matter. Space is defined from gravity, even when that gravity is immeasurable.

So what is a observer in this universe?

I don't know, once more it depends on your definitions. Can there be a SpaceTime without consciousness? Is it the act of 'measuring/observing' that creates the causality? Or is it so that even without anyone 'conscious' observing, the universe will exist?

I tentatively will define anything made of matter as a 'observer', but I'm not sure.
=

Light then?

Well, as I see it that's our clock, becoming the 'descriptions' of anything we observe. What would happen with the 'clock' if it could exist without invariant mass? Can it exist without becoming 'mass' or 'gravity'?
==

And then we have 'motion'. Let's define its prerequisites.

It needs a 'space'.
(That means that, to me, it needs 'gravity')

It needs a 'clock'
(And the clock should then, to me, be 'c' aka radiation)

It needs 'something' we can define as moving.
(and for me that is invariant mass aka matter.)

Possibly it also need a 'observer' to exist?
( That's a really, really, weird one

[yor_on]

Then we have accelerations. They are the trickiest part to define for me. They distort SpaceTime, giving it a new representation relative the traveler. They create 'gravity' without invariant mass, but nota bene, they need a invariant mass to express it. If it wasn't so any photon traveling at 'c' should be represented by a 'Black Hole', assuming a propagation for that. You could use the same logic with invariant mass too, but only at 'c'. Anything under 'c' can't produce it, and as invariant mass can't reach that 'speed' as far as I can see? And as my definition of light 'not propagating' must present you the same exact effects as if it was, I will use it for mine definition too.

Because the game is 'logical', it incorporate causality and motion even though the effects become really strange at relativistic speeds or near 'infinite mass'.
==

So now we have a new good question. How much 'invariant mass' do you need for getting one earth-gravity accelerating?

Doesn't matter what invariant mass you start with as I understands it. One gram or a thousand tonnes, to 'gravity' they are equivalent (in a sense).

(Ah, it will matter, no pun, but so little that I think I will ignore it for now)

=

You better reread the whole page if you came back now to see what new things sprouting.
I'm fickle ) And yes, I will probably rewrite this one later as it is fuzzy/incorrect. But there is a point to it.
=

You need a invariant mass to create gravity, and it doesn't matter what I start with, I can get one gravity with a space ship massing one gram, or a thousand tonnes.

[yor_on]

So we have proved that invariant mass must be coupled to gravity. But is a invariant mass gravity then?

Not as I see it. If it was then that gram, now giving you one earth gravity in its constant acceleration, should have its atoms, molecules etc, vibrating at near relativistic speeds at some time, vaporising as pure energy at some stage if it could hold together that long. But it doesn't. So the idea of potential energy is one that disturbs me, not in that it is 'potential' as in not there, but in the way people assume it to 'exist' without an interaction.

The cosmos must have a way to keep count, otherwise we wouldn't be able to grade collisions at all, but that potential energy you expect to build from a gravity/acceleration. Where does it go as you turn of your engines? Can you measure it in the hull? Will the spacecrafts light bulbs blueshift?

So gravity is coupled to accelerations and invariant mass, but they are not 'gravity'.
==

And no, I don't think Einstein would be that upset with me, after all, he introduced the 'stress energy tensor'

[yor_on]

The point there is that I see the potential energy and gravity, and accelerations as three expressions of the same thing here, expending energy. (Although 'potential energy' can be used for defining invariant mass too, we can define that mass as 'gravitationally accelerating' for this.) And then we have earth of course, always gravitationally accelerating at one gravity? So is that one gravity acceleration we do on that one gram equivalent to Earths?

If we define it as Einstein did, it is. He used a thought up 'Earth lab' and 'space lab' and stipulated that there was no experiments you could do in those labs that would tell you if you were on our one gram spaceship or on Earth.

But there is one difference, to get one type of acceleration you expend energy, to get the other you only need a lot of invariant mass. So? What is that about?

Motion, isn't it? So does that one gravity created locally have the same SpaceTime geometry as earth, that is, does SpaceTime 'bend' to a equivalent degree? No, and as I see it, it shouldn't. One is a lot of invariant mass, the other is one gram, but locally they both influence our experiments the same. If gravity is 'space', meaning that you won't have one without it. Why can you then find that same gravity from two different SpaceTime geometries?

That one I think I formulated right though
==

Although this is a assumption I make, I'm not entirely sure of this one?

There is the possibility that the 'one gram' do distort SpaceTime to a equivalent degree, although I have trouble seeing how, you might assume that it has to do with 'energy stored', in the relation it has relative all other frames, or one frame called SpaceTime.
==

Einstein did not define gravity as a intrinsic part of anything, he defined it as coupled which is another thing to me. And motion, as seen from his perspective, becomes three things, or more.

1. all motion will in SpaceTime (3D & time) take you from A to B.
2. All uniform motion is equivalent, unable to define it from being 'at rest'.
3. all constant uniform accelerations are 'gravity', unable to define as 'motion'.
4. The only acceleration able to define as not being a 'planetary gravity' is a non constant acceleration. and that only as we know in our bones that there exist no planets that change their gravitational potential as fast over 'time'.

So why not accept it?
Then you have only one definition of motion, a non constant acceleration.
But we still get from A to B, using any of them.

[yor_on]

It seems as everything we do and measure comes back to 'locally', have you noticed that? I think that is how Einstein saw it too, as a thought. And I think it is the only thing that will be true, 'locality'. It has to do with all our measurements, the conclusions we draw from finding SpaceTime to differ between 'frames of reference' is nothing more than our insight that if we want SpaceTime to be the exact same in all directions, giving us the same outcomes, then we will need to define why that unchanging 'locality' can be perceived as differing, when conceptually comparing 'frames'.

So we put it down to the relations between 'frames of reference'. If we do so we will need the 'stress energy tensor' as the room and time becomes inexhaustibly connected to whatever 'frame of references' you look at. But we have a 'gold standard' as I see it. Our own.