[yor_on]

Mach was a relationist, and I'm one too. The Chinese concept of yin and yang is a relationist one too.
And Tao describes it so beautifully.
=

The final question might be, what is 'c'?
Can there exist only one 'frame of reference', from where you get a multitude?

And yes, Einstein most definitely was a relationist

[yor_on]

And what would it make 'space'?

If 'space' is a geometry defined from mass?
Adaptable in 'relative motion' and accelerations.

[yor_on]

We comes back to 'energy' here. The conceptual coin of transformations/interactions.
We need to define mass for this. What it is, and how it can be.

[yor_on]

Can there be a arrow without 'gravity' existing? I don't think so? At least I can't see a argument proving the opposite for the moment. The arrow is directly coupled to mass, as mass is coupled to 'gravity'. And 'interactions' is a description of that arrows 'direction'. It's a linear universe when described through a arrow.

[yor_on]

So, as a most weird thought.

If mass defines the arrow, and 'space' is defined through mass/energy/relative motion/accelerations. Will mass be 'all there is', and 'space' becoming a symmetry to that? We need a arrow for every measure we make and we get it in mass.

It's quite weird

Anyway, what is mass and how can it exist?

[yor_on]

A spin must be defined in/through mass. Although we observe it taking place in a defined 'space' inside a arrow. Bosons can't 'spin', they always follow geodesics. Which means that you can't assume that they accelerate, unless you truly believe that a wave perspective is the correct description of a universe with 'motion' and 'propagation' existing as 'absolutes' inside it.

I don't think I do that.

[yor_on]

Because you can't both keep the cake and eat it. Either 'motion' is a relative description and then a uniform motion, no matter its 'speed' can be defined as being 'still', or you believe in it as 'something' existing on its own as some sort of absolute. And the same goes for 'propagation of light', either it exist and then you meet all sorts of difficulties joining that to what we observe in experiments, or it doesn't..

Mass defines the arrow.

[yor_on]

hmm..

Locally defines it at as a constant I mean. Only in a comparison between frames of reference will you measure a difference, as expressed in time dilation's and Lorentz contractions. My, ahem, slightly homegrown 'principle of locality' is the one defining it to me. And I define each 'locality' at a Plank scale, if you've bothered reading that far with matter constantly then becoming time dilated (and Lorentz contracted) relative its own 'constituents/particles'.

Then we come to 'motion'.

What that does is to introduce even greater contractions and time dilation's for those particles relation relative each other. We have the gravitational contractions and time dilation's in matter even without considering any 'motion' relative something else.

So, what is mass?
And how can it exist?

'Energy'?

Geometry then becomes a description, created in mass existing..
And 'motion'? I don't know what that is, but it belongs inside a geometry.
And it needs a arrow.

[yor_on]

But then we have a difficulty in that different uniform motion will present you with different relations relative other frames of reference. Somehow 'motion' is a description of something which the universe each one of us observe is able to differ between. And it sometimes expresses it as a added mass as in a acceleration or 'spin', at other times as in a uniform motion only expressing it in the relation changing between your local frame relative all other frames of reference.

And the 'mass energy'?

What happens to that locally in a uniform motion? You can't measure a change there, not locally, as far as I know? In a acceleration you can though, as a added 'gravity'. So is 'gravity' a acceleration? But mass is easy to define relative you It doesn't run away from you, does it? Possibly it may add up with age but it is always 'there'.

Let us assume that mass indeed is a 'acceleration' of some sort. If we do we also acknowledge that we use the wrong ideas of what a 'motion' is. If we decide that the equivalence is wrong we also question general relativity and gravitational time dilation's. And then we will be wrong, as NIST experiments has shown us.

[yor_on]

What makes energy able to create mass?
And does 'energy' needs a geometry to do so? I don't think it does. Mass creates the geometry as a symmetry but 'energy' alone seems dimensionless? So what is it, and where does it exist. We see it in transformations, and in upholding symmetries of different kinds. This whole '4-D' SpaceTime then must be some sort of symmetry break in something else, with 'distances' becoming limited descriptions only relevant inside it. Which makes sense to me

[yor_on]

Against that you have the idea of a lot of energy 'confined' in a very small space at the Big Bang. Which needs to be explained. One way of defining it is to assume that we live in a chain of Big Bangs, each one assuming a preexisting geometry from which it 'spawn' a new SpaceTime. I'm not so happy about that definition as it presumes causality chains 'existing'. The question is if there is causality chains existing outside our 'symmetry break', or if that description belongs to what we have only?

[yor_on]

If you look at symmetries they're not causality chains as such. And what they presumes are neither descriptions of 'c' either. They are about equilibrium's, and balances. All causality chains presumes a linearity, to me best expressed as the arrow we exist under. But if we assume that the arrow needs 'mass' to exist, was there a arrow before it? What can there be without a arrow?

Indeterminacy?

The real problem is how to define something happening not using interactions. All interactions presumes a temporal direction, don't they?

[yor_on]

You can assume that as long as we find bosons we also must have a arrow. But if you define it as I do, as a static reality without propagation, but with some sort of arrow presenting us with outcomes representing motion and propagation to us? I don't know there, you can define a arrow in interactions but with bosons?

Interactions needs matter to exist.

[yor_on]

Yeah, I know. It seems as if I use two descriptions. The arrow as 'mass/interactions' alongside with the idea of an 'time' preexisting as some 'field' having a temporal direction to us. But that is 'time' and 'time' I do think have a objective existence, although the 'arrow' becomes a description through interactions and mass.

So yeah, 'time' is strange. It has a lot to do with indeterminacy to me.

[yor_on]

For a universe to exist you need a geometry. Indeterminacy is a description of something not needing that. It neither needs 'dimensions', nor a 'arrow'. But a Big Bang then? When did it get a arrow? In the first creation of 'particles'? Or was there a temporal direction before that? What is a symmetry?

[yor_on]

Think of it from my view of locality. Then the arrow is what changes in each Planck sized point and 'time' is the description of what 'pressures' behind those, or 'that', 'point(s)'. and as the 'points' in my local definitions are the exact same in all that matters, equivalent to 'c' they are indistinguishable locally, having the same original properties, as equivalently  'local arrows', and on that small scale, equivalent 3-D environments. The idea of a distance measured presumes a arrow existing, all experiments we do presumes it. And us using the idea of repeatable experiments also presumes the possibility of locally same environment possible. And that is what the principle of locality I've formulated here guarantee. But it doesn't guarantee anything of what we normally take for given, as distances existing as a objective 'reality', as in a 'indivisible same and common universe' for example.

Instead all becomes observer dependent.

What we have in common is the principle of locality.

[yor_on]

In such a universe a 'dimension less point' is an description of something more or less permeating what we see, from that 'point of view' we make no sense, and 'distance' isn't there. But to us it is. And that 'point' is all 'points' as it make no sense discussing such an idea using what we have. That's also why I expect SpaceTime to be a symmetry break.

[yor_on]

Then we have gravity, as a result from a geometry?
Don't we need something more than that?
Mass and? Space?

But if space is gravity, at least as translating it into 3D? And then with the arrow as the dynamic component creating 'motion' as in a casualty chain? How about 'inertia', can one replace gravity with 'inertia'?

As all non uniform 'motions' becomes 'gravitational?

Then 'inertia' might be a defintion of a 'real universe' without the time component and uniform motion seems the natural state of our universe? And that makes sense to me, if I'm assuming that to break inertia will cost you 'energy'. A ground state of 'gravity' maybe without accelerations. And a inertial universe don't really need a time component to 'exist', does it? It may exist statically, although to get 'motion' you need causality changes. Weird thoughts again

Space exist, just as 'distances' does, observer dependant, defined through mass.
==

I don't know, as ususal

You could consider uniform motion as being 'still', in that there is no 'absolute reference frame' from where you can define a absolute motion. Or you can turn that around and state that there are an infinite amount of 'absolute reference frames', all of them defining 'motion' relative themselves.

To define 'motion' relative locality makes the last one ring more true to me. But there must be something creating it, even though it always is locally defined.

And those are just loose thoughts. Inertia is weird.

[yor_on]

There is one point to be made though. If I define the arrow solely through 'change', as in interactions for example, then I will be wrong. Because we have relative motion too, and in that there are no 'interactions' if 'gravity' is a geometry.

So yeah, 'change' can be used as a local expression of a arrow, but when we look out on the geometry (SpaceTime) we also see 'relative motion'. And to observe a motion you need a arrow.
==

Or maybe I could refer to that as 'time'? The arrow gets its definition in each planck sized point of mass interacting with bosons, but what allows the geometry to reflect relative motion should be something else?

Or??
===

The thing is, we know 'motion' exist. There is no way around that, even though we and the universe, finds all uniform motion to express itself the same, meaning that, although mass may present you with different gravities, in all other aspects those planets, suns etc will express itself 'exactly the same' locally.

So motion exist and is a proof of 'time' even though the 'clock'' may use 'c', with a arrow defined through mass/interactions?

ouch.

[yor_on]

Pete just showed me another proof for motion, and also a point in that different uniform motions although equivalent also is frame dependent in form of their relativistic mass, as expressed from the measured EM field. It must differ between different uniform motion as measure by you.

But locally all uniform motions are equivalent, as I think of it. It's needed to have two frames of reference and then measure, but it proves therefore that something called motion exist independent of 'uniform motions' equivalence, as I think of it now at least.

I need to think more about it. To me it has to do with frames of reference and that always assumes someone to observe as we use measurements, defined by our locally invariant wristwatch and locally invariant ruler, although this is a loose definition of it as one might assume that everything, all rest mass as in 'particles', are time dilated and Lorentz contracted relative each other inside SpaceTime, as that is a dynamic configuration best defined from GR as I see it?

I really need to consider this one and see what one can make from it
If one can that is )
==

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=44254.0
==

seems I jumped over some words here, 'Lorentz dilated' indeed