[yor_on]

I wrote 'As I see it everything is a 'observer', interacting through the relations created in 'observing' each other.'

Assume that each constituent of a universe only needs some relations to define itself through, look at it as some sort of 'infinite' dimensional matrix, in where all 'particles' find their definition through relations, 'observing' each other. A little like those computer simulations in where you set some simple rules and look at how patterns grow, disappear and come back in new positions, and also, think about how fractals seem to work.

How many relations does each 'particle' need? To create that universe?

[yor_on]

As this thread is highly speculative, and so clinically, **, ahem Let's do another dive.

Think of SpaceTime as your bag, it contain you and everything you ever will know, you push the bag and it change shape, but it won't disappear. Then wonder what the matter inside the bag is The bag is defined through some simple parameters as 'dimensions', space and matter, and 'c'. If now those 'dimensions' could be seen as descriptions of what we can notice instead of God given truths we live in a dimensional bubble of sorts, in where there are other degrees of freedom that we can't notice. Now consider your bag again from that perspective and again, wonder what matter is. The envelope defining matters limits is 'c', what happens if something exist outside 'c'? What does it do to it?

[yor_on]

So what is that 'bag'? From my point of view it's, really really, non existent
But it's also what defines the limits for our existence, and what we call SpaceTime.

And forces then?

[yor_on]

Okay, what takes up most of my time is trying to see why light won't bend depending on your uniform motion relative it.

It assumes that there are different uniform motions, relative whatever definition of a 'marker' you use.
It assumes that different uniform motions will affect a 'time dilation' & 'LorentzFitzGerald contraction' as per the often used 'light clocks examples'.

The elevator must also becomes a light clock as that (outside) light hits the opposite elevator wall, falling through the peephole drilled.

You better think about it. If there is no 'time dilation' in different uniform motions my understandings of 'time dilation' and uniform motion must be wrong. If that is wrong then all uniform motions have one 'same' arrow of time, and no length contraction, assuming that those two are complementary phenomena.

So, does light bend differently inside that 'frefalling' (uniformly moving) elevator as described form the inside. Depending on your 'relative motion'? As measured against some same 'marker'?

Nope. It doesn't.

If that is true, we then only have accelerations as presenting time dilations and contractions. Because in Einsteins universe you have two definitions of motions, uniform & accelerations.

Uniform is also being at rest.
Accelerations is equivalent to gravity.

Time dilations and LorenzFitzGerald contractions will then become accelerations.
And that must be wrong? As in the MM experiment where Lorentz first introduced a contraction. Because that's a uniform motion, lights constant. Think about it.

[yor_on]

I'm starting to see why Einstein preferred algebra before geometry, describing relativity Using geometry we have preconceptions of what it means, archetypes sort of, that we want to make sense. Using algebra you don't look at geometries, instead you manipulate symbols according to some logic, and assuming that mathematics is the language of the universe what falls out from your calculations must be the way the universe treats it, but also as defined in/from your 'system'.

[yor_on]

Okay, you have two definitions. One from inside the elevator where the light won't 'bend' in a uniform motion. another for the outside observer that will find the light to bend, even if you're moving uniformly. And so the geometry observed is observer dependent.

But in a acceleration then? Isn't that a infinite amount of uniform motions too? No, it's not, that definition must be wrong as there is constant changes in your intrinsic frame of reference. And those must be there or you can't have a acceleration.

[yor_on]

And that makes the arrow observer dependent. But in a twin experiment that dependence also will show itself to be objectively existent for us both simultaneously, my twin and me, as he has aged less than me in his travel? How did that happen?
==

Better expressed, what is 'time' (and its arrow). Is it something belonging to SpaceTime? A constituent of it, that you can't isolate, or is it a part that you can lift out and treat by itself?

It has to be a constituent if so, a statement unable to lift out.

[yor_on]

Using locality you get a very strange universe. Because according to locality we do have a constant arrow, defined by uniform motion, no matter its relative 'speed' as measured against something else. And that uniform motion is the also at rest aka 'still'. It is no motion at all, as defined locally.

That the arrow is locally a constant (invariant) is easily proved by superimposing frames of reference. From it you can easily see how a arrow and lights constant goes together.

[yor_on]

Then uniform motion is no motion. what makes us define it as motion is the way we compare frames of reference. And what we use then is the information mediated by that old constant 'light'.

Light is a uniformly moving 'propagating' experience. It informs us of how frames of reference distorts, depending on relative motion and acceleration . But 'relative motion' exist? how does it exist? Relative you comparing, no other way.

Accelerations can be felt inside whatever frame of reference you exist in though.

[yor_on]

Can you turn it around?
Give us a same experience, instead finding light to accelerate/decelerate?

As some mirror definition?

That would then be a purely cerebral exercise as the experiments we do only points one way. As light being a constant, but it's worth thinking of.
=

That one has to do with how I should see SpaceTime. a 'globally same' experience as we seem to assume it normally, or as a purely 'locally same'  experience, it joined by lights mediation between 'frames of reference' into a 'globally same' experience, loosely speaking there.

[yor_on]

so, what made that traveling twin to age less relative me. From my frame he 'slowed down' as per 'light clocks'.
From his frame he did not, but what about that acceleration he found to exist 'intrinsically'?

[yor_on]

If light 'bends' in a acceleration then that is what I might call intrinsic change, belonging inside a frame of reference, possibly? It depends on how you want to restrict a 'frame of reference', to what scale? Is there a scale in where a acceleration intrinsically disappear?

Do you think it can exist?

[yor_on]

If time is 'interwoven' into SpaceTime then what are our other degrees of freedom? They too must be a definition you can't split out, would you agree to that? Not only relativistically. So when we split them to define speeds, time versus distance, we are describing a local relation of something, or a relation relative me observing, but not a objectively 'globally true' relation representing all observers measurements.

So why do we insist on being able to split them? If they're not splittable?

[yor_on]

From locality's point of view you can imagine it as a 'block universe'. In it you have some representation of what becomes a minimalistic block to us, representing 4 'dimensions', the arrow and three other degrees of freedom. The 'blocks' can only be defined through the observer as I suggest for now.  That means that you need a observer dependence for it to beget a 'existence', and so it also should mean that we're just as 'unsplittable' from SpaceTime as any other thing we find to exist in it. When you find something to exist through a observation or experiment, and find others to agree, through observations and experiments you have a definition of existence that makes sense to me.

So, even if the 'blocks' as such is observer dependent they also is what allow us to exist.

[yor_on]

But each 'block' is then, as I consider it, its own definition of locality. And that thinking goes back to 'scales', and 'frames of reference'. In such a universe the 'blocks' becomes our minimalistic definition of what is 'true', all comparisons between them becomes translations of 'locality's reality', and expressed as relations. So a block is something having a length, a width and a height, we at some scale finding it invariant locally, 'propagating' in time, but one way only.

[yor_on]

I said that I could see why Einstein preferred arithmetics and algebra describing it. It has a importance to me in that what we call geometry in Einsteins universe then could be considered a secondary effect from that algebra. We have geometry and we use it, it exists, but from the universe's side?
==

This is me thinking of the universe as a 'whole thing', containing us all. And it's truly tricky to define what that should mean considering locality. But I have this feeling that Einstein considered the universe as in some way being the 'absolute same' for us all, as some container keeping us inside.

[yor_on]

It's like the idea(s) of 'dimensions', degrees of freedom, to me. If I start by assuming that there are a infinite combinations of degrees of freedoms, then what makes Einsteins container? And what hinders different 'sets' of freedom to coexist? You could argue that because we're the ones measuring, being conscious observers, we have the last word in defining those degrees of freedom. And that's true, but only true for us. Instead of something coming from nowhere becoming a universe you can, adopting this point of view, argue that a 'birth' of a universe is the observer(s) defining its/their environment/container. And there we have 'constants'

Instead of something out of nothing, you now have 'something' (slightly less, depending on possibilities/probability) containing a 'universe', coming from a multitude of possibilities.

[yor_on]

To me it's about what those dimensions means?

We use three spatial degrees of freedom and one temporal called the arrow of time. The arrow has only one way to go, and so has those dimensions, they are directly coupled to the arrow. You can't have any degrees of freedom without it. And I think Einstein is right in that they all goes together, and that you can't dissect one, ignoring the rest. The arrow becomes meaningless without those spatial dimensions.

[yor_on]

Assume that the arrow really can move backwards, what would it do to the spatial dimensions? If we think of a Big Bang and inflation/expansion we now have a environment that 'disappear'. What will it do to our idea of logic? How would you build a 'observer' able to draw conclusions?

[yor_on]

There is one way though, but that is assuming logic and causality chains to be a limited description. Because what we have would then be more to a quantum computer. Something that in itself contain all possible combinations and answers simultaneously. Then what we call the arrow is somewhat of a symmetry break from that.