[yor_on]

Things that bother me

Imagine yourself in a 'room', like a space.
You can't state if you're still or moving, there are no references.

That's your uniform motion.

Now turn on on the rocket engine. That one needs no other medium to work against except its engines chamber, that it 'pushes' on.

Now you will find 'gravity'.

Uniform motion is 'space', a ground state of it. Accelerations is gravity.
=

Remember that there are no references here. You can not state that either of those two states are moving.
=

So why do we see it differently?

Radiation is what binds invariant mass together in our universe. Radiation defines the 'clock' we Lorentz transform comparing 'frames of reference'. We have two types of 'accelerations', or 'gravity. One is invariant mass, expressed as energy a planet is an awful lot of energy, defined in a symmetry of sorts. The other is 'local accelerations' that won't express as much energy, or gravity. But that doesn't explain how I can reach the same 'velocity' in so many ways, or is the energy expended equivalent? And it fails to explain why I won't 'bend' the space around me as a planet does, neutron star, and finally close to being a Black Hole.

To assume the energy equivalent I will have to count over extended amounts of time, finding it so, and it will still not be equivalent to what a planet is, in form of energy.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Don't forget that gravity accelerates objects unless something stops them. Gravity inertia and inertia from acceleration are not exactly the same processes, they have different causes, but their relative effects on an elementary particle are the same. They both cause the particles to shrink or expand, relatively speaking. The way i see it is: elastic strings between elementary particles which oppose changes in relative speed between them for acceleration inertia and opposing incrementation in the distance integral over time for gravity inertia. So there is two differential orders between both types of inertia. This is why you feel gravity inertia without moving in a gravitational field and you need to accelerate to feel acceleration inertia. If you take the rocket and its fuel as the entire system, there is no spending of energy, only entropy is growing...

If you are in a free fall, accelerating in a gravity well, you don't feel anything: Both types of inertia seem to be the two opposite sides of the same coin...

It may seems awkward to talk about integral of distance over time for gravity but think about the changes in the rotation period of a particle in those circumstances. Gravity is opposing to differential of timerate between two elementary particles... Acceleration causes differential in timerate. All matter was once entangled in a big particle, THE Black Ring of Origin... )

Oh, and something important i have to add: Massive particles are made of charges always rotating at the speed of light in their own frame, so a particle at rest is not really at rest.

[yor_on]

Well, there is different approaches to reality CPT. I don't know which one is 'right', this is more me discussing things I don't understand. And those of you reading don't need to look that smug reading me here:).

I have my own way of thinking of it, doesn't exclude other definitions though, not until I found a way to define something that makes a experimental difference, pointing one way or another. I discuss it from Einsteins definitions, hopefully? Can't be sure there, my ideas are like a mongrel, healthy but not pure

His was the importance of 'symmetries' 'equivalences', and possibly 'symmetry breaks' (?) although I think symmetry breaks have become more and more defined since he once started to propose symmetries.

But if we go from a 'space' defined by 'uniform motion', inseparable from being 'at rest' as I see it, then what do we have? Does it have 'dimensions'? I don't think so, I think that what we call 'dimensions' is the way matter gets defined against each other. And that it gets by radiation. You need to see that I'm discussing the 'classical' definition first here, the one where we say that 'space' is empty, free from particles.

How can that be? It falls back on what we call gravity. If gravity really is a metric of space, then gravity defines 'distances', at least macroscopically. And then I will say what I always seems to say We're defining it wrong. The 'distances' we measure is naturally true from our perspective, and it isn't just a question of 'macroscopicallity' against 'microscopicallity'. It's a function of a whole 'SpaceTime', in where you have to look at both 'dimensions' and 'times arrow', or time if you like.

And we have to differ between a 'direction' in time, and a 'clock'. We have one 'clock' as I define it. That one is 'c', and it is because of that 'clocks' invariance we have Lorentz transformations and time dilations.

We also need to differ between conceptualizing 'SpaceTime', as a whole, from 'locality'. They are not the same, they are also what Einstein called, well, the way I think of it at least, symmetries. The simplest definitions will always be found 'locally' and in 'black room scenarios'. From there you will need to find the simplest ways of conceptualizing those into a 'whole SpaceTime'. And to me that is radiation, the messengers of 'change'.

By the way, do radiation have a inertia? How about a BEC? Do a 'photon' lose 'energy' by getting 'stayed' inside that BEC? Not as I know? The 'energy' will be unchanged as the 'temperature' raises releasing the 'photon'.

So, I do not think a 'photon/radiation' has a inertia, as for now at least. It also make the idea of a symmetry between what we call 'inertia', and the 'gravity' of invariant mass, one and the same to me.

[yor_on]

In my world, 'uniform motion', whether gravitationally induced or far from 'matter' is the same. Both will be geodesics, and the 'velocity/speed' you measure will be a function of comparisons between 'frames of reference'. You see something 'falling' in a 'free fall', some space debris for example. To you it will be accelerating, to the debris itself there is no 'energy expended', and so it can't be accelerating in my universe.

[yor_on]

SpaceTime isn't that complicated really, not if you look at the 'wide picture'

It's defined by 'uniform motion' relative 'accelerations'. Seen locally all 'uniform motion' is being at rest, not expending 'energy' locally. All accelerations are 'gravity'.

Radiation is what defines 'SpaceTime' to us. It binds 'frames of reference' aka your 'room time geometry', that to its nature always will be one and the same no matter where you are, to all other 'room time geometries'.

That's where all confusion comes from, our inability to accept that what we see, and what is is, as two different approaches to 'reality'. We want SpaceTime to adapt to what we think is 'true', and so we construct for ever more complicated and tortuous equations and definitions, each one fitting a small niche somewhere in 'reality'. But SpaceTime doesn't do it that way, it's just us.

Start with a empty room, introduce uniform motion. Define it such as everything 'changing' will need to expend energy. Stop thinking of it in form of uniform motion 'moving' objects. They are at rest.

And find a way of making the changes point in one 'direction'.

[yor_on]

By 'changes' I'm really discussing 'interactions'. And preferably local ones. When you use a conceptual frame of logic, every thing seems to 'move' relative each other, doesn't it?

But as defined locally, only acceleration can introduce a change.

I think this is the right way to define it. SpaceTime either will expend 'energy' or it will not. And the 'things' expending that energy always does it locally. If you accept my definition of locality then there is no such things as a whole SpaceTime acting. Well, there is, conceptually but in reality that 'wholeness' always will be defined 'locally'. And from locality's point of view you either expend energy, or you don't. Any interactions, or transformations, locally must follow that principle.

So when we discuss the 'energy' of a whole SpaceTime? What do we mean? All of those local phenomena put together? Representing our 'reality'? Why not, it's one way of defining it. And if you look at the way we reproduce, and grow, it makes real sense to do so. From strict 'locality' though, you're some sort of nucleus, defining a unchanging frame of reference although highly conceptual if you think of it in form of 'clocks' defining each point of SpaceTime uniquely. You also change dynamically in each of those points with your earth rotating and 'uniformly moving' as defined against all other objects/points existing.

And that is somewhat of a mystery, ain't it? If you accept my definition SpaceTime as such have some pretty simple definitions but then we come to the way we all 'interact' both locally and over 'distances'. And it must have to do with radiation, and our 'time', or arrow.

[yor_on]

So a uniformly moving SpaceTime, all 'objects of locality' included, does not expend energy. But all things 'interacting' and 'transforming' should break that principle. If I assume that uniform SpaceTime to represent a measure of 'fresh energy' shouldn't that mean that we are using it up? Transforming it into 'stale energy' of some sort :)or are we actually taking it away from SpaceTime? And that is about 'dimensions' and the question of how we differ them and if there are 'unseen' ones joining us up into some other definition of a 'greater SpaceTime'. It is also the question of 'velocity/speed' and how we by manipulating that can get both 'motion', as well as 'Magnifying/Contracting' effects. It's, to me that is, the question of how we define 'c' and how we by picking a 'size' can chop 'c' into pieces, and what we see happening when we do so.

Macroscopicallity against Quantum mechanics.

[yor_on]

And there is where we find some rules.


1. Constants.
2. Symmetries.
3. Symmetry breaks
4. 'Fractal behaviors' as non-linearity, inside linearity, inside non-linearity inside.. Ad infinitum.

What more?

(Add to that the question why we perceive a arrow?)

[yor_on]

Let's define the radiation 'duality' (wave/particle) as a 'symmetry'. Is that symmetry a 'global phenomena' spanning a whole SpaceTime, or is it a 'local phenomena' changing in each point?

If it is changing in each point, what makes it do so?

All other 'things' defining it? How can they 'define' it? There is nothing communicating faster than 'c', not making sense at least, ah, in my 'universe' that is

Stop thinking of it as 'propagating' and it will make more sense, well, in a way it will In others it becomes a headache. If light is your 'clock' then we are 'ticking' constantly. Your whole universe, if thought of as a 'global' frozen 'SpaceTime slice', lifted forward in 'time' by each 'tick', according to us observing.

The 'energy' expended are defined from 'locality', but conceptually radiations 'clock' binds it all together into big SpaceTime slices 'tick by tock', defined by rules that you both can see as 'local' and 'global', depending on preferences. Going out from locality makes them easier to see for me though.

With a clock and no 'propagation' light gets its definition from where it is observed.

[yor_on]

What can a entanglement tell you?

That there are 'rules' on the quantum mechanical plane too?
Rules that have little to do with our definitions of 'motion', 'communication', and 'propagation'?

If there is a way of defining a state over far distances from my locality, instantly. Then there is no necessity for light to 'propagate' either. And it has to do with 'size', doesn't it? Size of observation, Planck scales, chopping up light into its smallest constituents.
=

(Fractal) ?
Symmetry breaks ?

[yor_on]

So, time? And its arrow? What is it.

Well, it's what defines you.
And your thoughts.

And your experiments.
And hypotheses
And Theory's.

Then you can use mathematical definitions too. In those Time 't' is a variable, that you, depending on how you treat your equations now can change place with a lot of other variables. So, which one is the proof of our reality?

The math, or your life? I don't know really? It's a very tough question, but I do think that what I see and experience between my birth and death will be one arrow, pointing only one way.

But maybe the arrow is something that 'grows' into becoming such, a function of 'size' as I call it, or 'scale' if you like. That still leaves us to define what we actually see when observing some QM 'time reversible' effect though. How can we define it as 'going the other way time wise' if we observe it taking place under our arrow?

That seems to fall under same category as 'frames of reference'  to me. Where exactly are your 'frame of reference' localized, can you give it a definite position in SpaceTime. I think not, and perhaps that also is the ultimate definition of 'time'?

If so it seems uniquely 'local', and no matter which way it might be defined to 'tick', from somebody else's 'frame of reference', it should still intrinsically always have only one same, pointing one way, direction, at all times.

If 'clocks' exist everywhere in all points, which they should as I see it, they all 'tick' in one direction, no place in SpaceTime 'ticks' backward.

So, if you ever could prove a process going 'backward' in time, experimentally, the explanation for that should be in the comparison between 'frames', as I think of it now.

What it is not, is a illusion. To prove it a illusion you better become 'immortal' first. Simply expressed, don't you go dying on us while proving it please.

[yor_on]

This is just thoughts. I need to get them sorted out, but they make sense to me.

This 'phasespace' Smolin wonders about, and LightArrow pointed out to me, made me reconsider my understanding of 'SpaceTime'. I realized that we in both would find all points unique. One of the reasons people gets confused seems to be that they see Einsteins SpaceTime as a 'whole', and Lorentz transformations as a 'proof' of it being so. That is only a part of it as I think, I don't see it as a 'whole', although it is a 'whole' to me when measuring it. 

This moldable 'jello' (SpaceTime) you experience is definitely a 'whole', as far as you are concerned seamlessly fitting. But your neighbors SpaceTime won't fit yours. Einsteins universe is defined from one thing, and one thing only, 'constants'. The 'space' we live in is a geometry. The geometry is defined by clocks.

It's not the only definition you can use, but it is the one that makes most sense to me, and the one I will go out from here.

Think of all points in SpaceTime as defined from your 'clock'. That 'clock' is related to the 'gravity' that couples to mass, and 'motion'. It creates your own unique SpaceTime, and becomes the 'frame of reference' defining all other frames. But all those 'points' you observe, defined by your clock, each one of them has its own unique clock, and where you at any of those other 'points' you would now find SpaceTime slightly differently defined. To that you can add the way 'motion' and mass (and 'energy' as an idea) redefines it. The 'point' I want to make here is that all points see SpaceTime slightly different.

It opens for a question though. Just as with Smolins momentum space, it seems to create an absurdity? How can any two points ever couple to each other, becoming the 'composites' we call matter if they find distances differ? A orange is consisting of molecules, the molecules consists of atoms, the atoms lies inside the realm of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the 'force carriers' between those atoms (virtual particles) are definitely not 'here', in the sense of being measurable.

And all of those points the orange makes must then have their own unique definition of a 'distance', and 'clocks', as you observe them, or as they observe all else. So what defines that orange? Where and how can it exist? That question is the strongest argument I can see for a definition of a 'smallest bit' existing.

==
What you must keep in mind reading me here is that although all clocks have a same beat/duration locally, each one will measure all other clocks to a different beat than their neighbor does. And that is because the universe is a geometry defined through radiations unchanging ground beat. That 'clock' always tick the same for you locally, the only thing changing being the relations you measure relative the rest of the universe, relative motion and mass/energy (Gravity).
==


Assume that there is a smallest 'bit'. A 'point' if you like. Also assume that all 'clocks' have a same duration. That one is checkable by you, as you nowhere will find a different duration. If the clocks now are the same on a very small plane, just as 'big' as your 'frame of reference' has to be by the way (Do try to define that 'size', if you can:), then they can couple to each other. And with greater 'sizes' or scales we will get 'space'. 'Space' is a definition, coming and following those clocks. And 'space' is defined through 'radiation'. Why it is so has to do with what we call 'constants'. Those are, as far as I can see, borders for our SpaceTime . The problem is to see what the 'constants' really consist of. But one is lights speed in a vacuum, and the fact that this 'speed' do not vary, ever. Not as you will measure it locally.

We live in 'space' defined by 'clocks', those clocks defines your universe. Then we have what I call 'size'. That's also the composites we call 'matter', they are all defined through 'size'. As you look out in the universe you measure a gravitational well from afar, like a neutron star, finding their 'clocks' to go very slow. Then you do the same with a Black Hole, and as you measure closer to its event horizon with your measuring apparatus, you now find that all 'clocks' seems to stop.

So, do they? Not according to my definitions, all points have a same 'ground beat' as we can see by measuring your clock 'locally', it will show the same durations according to you. Also according to all experiments you can make, no matter where you do it, the best being to measure lights speed in a vacuum using that as your 'clock'. But there must be something changing if you now place yourself at the Event horizon, instead of just measuring its 'clocks' from afar. What can change for you? The clock can't, but distance can.

Distance is a definition from 'clocks'. All 'clocks' have a a same 'duration' locally according to my definitions, and what defines a 'space' is 'size/scaling up' and 'constants'.

We live in a very weird universe. There are more to it, it has also to do with QM, but I had to write it down while I still remembered it. But QM is all a matter of 'size' to me.
==

Then we come to the idea of 'space' moving faster than light, as when passed the event horizon. That is incorrect, 'space' doesn't move. It's the way it gets defined by our measurements (clock) that makes us describe it that way. But inside that event horizon, the 'space' you observe will be able to be 'infinite'. And it all has to do with those 'clocks' same 'ground state', and 'symmetry'. SpaceTime is a balance defined by the observer.
=

Space is a construct by clocks. Or if you like, 'coupled' to clocks. And it is very correct to define it as a nothing, it is. What defines a 'space' is nothing, and 'gravity'. Gravity defines its 'shape' becoming its metric. And each point of that 'gravity' is a unique 'clock' redefining the way you observe the rest of the universe. But they all have a same 'ground beat/state/duration' defined by the best 'clock' that exists, radiation.

[yor_on]

So, I may still become a mystic here

I'm starting to look at the universe as a number space.

It's becoming 'static' to me, although the numbers defining each point do change. The change being what we define as our arrow of time. And as SpaceTime to me is defined by gravity, being its metric and 'clock(s), depending on how you look at it, it also must be observer dependent.

Think of it as a collection of symbols, shapes, geometries. Each of them defining a specific state for that point in SpaceTime, relative your 'frame of reference' observing. Then comes a invincible hand called time, rewriting them. But that timely hand is observer dependent, although always the same locally.

Does that mean that SpaceTime is a collection of 'frames'? Well, I think so, what joins them in a whole experience is the radiation communicating between them, and 'time'.

[yor_on]

I wrote "And all of those points the orange makes must then have their own unique definition of a 'distance', and 'clock' as you observe them, or they observe everything else. So what defines that orange? Where and how can it exist? That question is the strongest argument I can see for a definition of a 'smallest bit' existing."

You can by using HUP turn that upside down.

Using Hup we can define that 'smallest bit' as being uncertain. That will then allow them to couple even without us being able to prove a 'smallest bit'. But we will still need to see where HUP disappear and our measurable distances comes into play. Maybe it has to do with a Plank length? Maybe we need to scale it up even more, but there should be some 'transition' between all that 'uncertainty' and 'certainty'. you can define it as a matter of 'statistics' but that just imply a lot of what I call 'points'. So from such a definition we are built out of statistics, all of us

[yor_on]

Let's look at Hup some more, and inflation, and gravity.

Hup is a statement of uncertainty. This uncertainty has nothing to do with 'time'. When ever you read 'fluctuations' just remember that Hup do not discuss 'time' or an arrow. It is a description of a state from where the only way of defining it is through statistics, showing us the possibilities of how it might present itself to us, after 'falling out'. It's a state where time has no meaning.

Inflation then? And gravity?

As the universe expands gravity must follow. You can either look at it as if 'gravity' is of one predefined value, 'diluting' as the room 'expands' or as something that must come into existence by a 'expansion'. If the first was right then we could expect all gravity to 'weaken' as distances becoming larger. If the second is right it shouldn't.

I reckon the last is right, I also expect gravity to be the thing defining 'durations' as well as the 'room' we exist in. From a QM point of view everything must be a constant possibility of 'becoming', but to define it in a outcome there need to be a arrow. Or maybe 'time' in itself is enough? I don't know there, but for a causality chain you need a arrow, and our macroscopic SpaceTime is defined through a linear causality chain.

To QM there is no need of a 'distance'. Distance is a macroscopic object. There is no need for a time either as all time is a definition following measurable distances, defined by radiation.

[yor_on]

HUP and energy then?

According to HUP any 'microscopic' 'virtual' object, whatever that is, can have any energy. There are no limits, but there are no time for that 'energy' to express iteself in either. If HUP has no distance intrinsically, the discussion of SpaceTime as a series of 'points' have no meaning there. Then HUP describes a place, without measurable distances/durations. There not even one point exist, only 'becoming' and that 'becoming' is as true at all points in this macroscopic SpaceTime.

See, told you I was becoming a mystic

[yor_on]

Can there be a state where everything is possible? A 'superposition' as it is called at times, in where everything exist simultaneously? If it is so, can such a state have a arrow of time? Probability may give us the definition of the most probable outcome, but how exactly does it materialize itself inside our arrow? What gives it the 'impetus' to exist?

Is there a way to define that not using a arrow of time?
What exactly is 'scales'?

What was that point we expect the universe to have started in, and why did it describe a causality chain, making it possible to track it from that point to what we have now?

Is HUP and randomness the same, or are they two descriptions?

If the 'very small' doesn't use a arrow, then it has no size either. if it on the other hand contain a arrow then that arrow must become a uncertainty too, as it seems to me. Which in a way leave us a 'magical eh, point', containing all that is and can be.

In it nothing can be defined with absolute certainty, and whatever you do to define it must be observer dependent, that is, defined by you making a observation based on the experimental data, the experiment focusing on discerning one of several probabilities. That we from our arrow afterwards can give that outcome a definition based on its 'interference' in itself, does not state why it came it to be, does it? If you don't assume that when probability reaches a threshold of 'becoming' it must come into existence? Otherwise you still will need that causality chain we find the 'arrow' to be for it. But that can't be right, unless possibly our definition of time is ill defined.

Using statistics we definitely trust in a linear causality chain making repeatable experiments possible. That one is also called the arrow of time. Yep, I'm getting mystical here Assume that there is a 'cone of probability', in where we macroscopically exist on its expanded surface, in where those QM effects normally don't express itself. That cones surface becomes our SpaceTime, containing the arrow and distances which, in its turn, gets its definition from gravity's 'clocks', as observed/defined by you.

          o              o


          0              0 


Let us play with this as some border of a universe. When the inflation happened gravity is expected to have acted 'outwards', instead of, as it does now, acting 'inwards'. Does those borders get diffuse under an inflation? Was there a arrow existing for the inflation to expand in, or did the arrow get its present definition after/under the inflation?

Then think of them as four planets, coupled to gravity, becoming a very small universe. Can you imagine where the gravitational borders would be? Now assume that gravity acts 'outwards' instead, how do you expect the 'borders' to be then? The same or different? I think they should peter out the same, and where gravity vanish, the room should vanish. But then we have uniform motion in where gravity also vanish.

=
If we let gravity be repulsive then the room should expand, and with that the borders must expand too, but that would either mean that there should be a threshold for our little universe in where the borders can't expand any more, assuming a finite 'gravity' to begin with, or else finding its 'energy' of expanding somewhere else?

If we let 'gravity' be attractive, would then the room 'draw together' or would gravity's borders be the same, no matter how the matter would act? I'm not sure on that one?
==

What would happen to our little universe if the matter broke down into a Black Hole? Assuming that gravity really is the metric defining a measurable space.
=

It seems to me as if we have several things defining a universe, symmetries, that linear causality chain or arrow in which we define our observations. Energy which is something shapeless but primeval to our universe, wandering from the 'room' created into 'gravity', according to some theories. Then there is more that I seem to have forgotten for the moment

I will have to reread this.

[yor_on]

This is thoughts, all of it is.

One dimensional strings. Make a square, cover the bottom of that square with one dimensional strings. How many do you need for one square cm?

The length is no problem, but their width surely is. They don't have a width at all, do they? So we would need a infinite amount to cover that square centimeter. Yet we expect them to be what build a SpaceTime?

But there is an awful lot of ideas coming just from string theory that makes sense to me. Take gravity for example, I see gravity in a expansion as something 'materializing' as needed. String theory, at least some ideas there sees gravity as one of the few things that can move freely in and out of all branes. and that is what I see too, that we, and SpaceTime is a 'density' inside something else. The idea of SpaceTime as a balloon, or a saddle, or whatever shape you want to make of it is not making much sense to me.

If there was a 'outside' and a 'inside' to SpaceTime there would be no end to it, because that 'outside' should be some others 'spaces' 'inside' ad infinitum.

Dumb idea. If we accept the idea of something(s) able to couple into something, that to us becomes a SpaceTime, then we have something where everything is a 'whole', although not all perceivable to us. What we see makes SpaceTime.

One dimensional strings though, is to me like 'quantum fluctuations', words that doesn't make sense. But that has to do with the descriptions we use, mathematically I'm sure they make sense. One big problem has to lay in our inability of translating the math into something making sense linguistically and logically using words as descriptions.

Plank scales. For me that is a border, as good as 'c', relating to where SpaceTime loses its coherence. That doesn't state that there is nothing else there, just that we won't see it.

Gravitons, string theory uses it to describe 'gravity'. It's like a string complement to the 'Higgs ocean', neither of them contradicting the other. It's just different descriptions.

What do I think then? I don't know, I look at it as geometry's, and wonder about scales. What is a distance? Why can it be two things simultaneously, observer dependent.

To me 'gravity' is like invisible clocks, defining a distance and time differently to every observer. And there I expect it to be true even microscopically, although I also expect HUP to be the one making the 'impossible couplings' between atoms and other particles come true, and there I include the arrow, that I would expect to become 'indeterministic' too.

Distance, time, scales. they all seems to come into play inside SpaceTime. If they are valid for what other possibilities that exist, those we can't perceive, I don't know, but as a fair guess I would expect them to be mere transitions, belonging to us primarily, that is SpaceTime.

I'm not really that mystic, I look at it differently.

[yor_on]

There is one thing I haven't discussed, and more than that I guess. But it is expressed in "What is a distance? Why can it be two things simultaneously, observer dependent."

We all live in our minds. In there we expect things to connect to each other, so when I describe a clock at the event horizon from Earth and then, by 'teleporting', finds it to give me another relation time wise, we almost intuitively assume that there must be some overriding factor connecting those two descriptions, making them into a 'whole thing', giving us a single description.

But the thing connecting those descriptions, as well as presenting it differently is radiation, which is a constant 'c'. In fact, even though I conceptually may assume that both descriptions follow a arrow, they are not the same. They are two frames of reference, or two 'room time geometry's' as I call it. The translation between them are purely conceptual, not existing anywhere except in our mind space.

Gravity defines our observation of all 'other clocks', coming from our own 'frame of reference' that always will be as invariant as radiation is, 'c'. If you let go of the assumption that there is a 'common hidden clock' in relativity you will see that all frames described is a result of your own frame, communicated by radiation.

[yor_on]

Then we come to a entropic vies, represented by 'decay'. You don't represent a million infinitesimally 'times', which, as I see it, is the correct interpretation of those 'points' your body represent physically. As far I know I only have one time/duration and that one is represented by any time device locally. But that physical system that you compose of must be represented by a different 'clock' in each point, relative any single defined duration you may use.

If now entropy, aka 'decay', is the the correct definition of time then how do it consider gravity? Does gravity decay?