[yor_on]

I told you. It's a weird universe.

[yor_on]

Maybe it's possible to think of it this way? A photon has the ultimate 'speed' existing inside our universe. And it doesn't matter what medium you define it from. Intrinsically it's always 'c'. So how would it be able to transfer any energy in a recoil by being emitted?

[yor_on]

It wouldn't be right though. Conservation laws seems to be about systems and how they act.

[yor_on]

As if this universe, which I prefer to define as infinite, still becomes one system, one being. When looked at from a distance.

[yor_on]

Don't ask me how to do that :)
It's impossible.

we still do it though.

[yor_on]

As soon as you want to define a magnitude, a size, to this universe you do it. You presume that the universe is something of a defined scale. Which leaves the question of what is 'outside' it.  Russian dolls.

[yor_on]

If you want it 'simple' you better avoid defining a size to it.

[yor_on]

In some mean this becomes just as abstract as symmetries and conservation laws. Do you really expect that by transferring your observation from earth to the furthest away star you can find, the universe will end? What do you expect? Will you see the same type of universe there as you did from earth? the same definition of time in form of stars evolution etc, surrounding you?

[yor_on]

I expect you to find no difference existing. And that places this in the same abstract category as conservation laws and symmetries, and 'c'.

[yor_on]

So what then differs such thinking from magic? Logic, we can set a logic to it. Without finding a logic it should be magical but as long as you can see some sort of logic to how this universe works it won't become magical. That the logic, or logic's, have little to do with how we once thought it 'worked' doesn't matter.

[yor_on]

And it doesn't matter, what you do. Be it Quantum mechanics or Relativity, or any other discipline. It's all 'inside' the same universe. Even under Planck scale.

[yor_on]

Which rather nicely brings us to the concept of ' emergence's '. something not easily back tracked, or possibly impossible to back track, from its origins. Thoughts could be seen as a emergence.

[yor_on]

Very abstract. Thoughts.

You still have them though.

[yor_on]

And so we might be able to see the universe, as a emergence. Think about being under Planck scale, looking for our macroscopic definition of a universe. You think you will find it?

[yor_on]

Even if a emergence is impossible to back track, it still should be related to a origin. If it is then there must be a logic existing there too.  And that logic might be a question of what time is, and entropy.

[yor_on]

Relativity describes the universe as a sort of 'continuum' consisting of four dimensions. Length, width, height and time. You need all of them in relativity to describe it, and they are part of each other.

[yor_on]

they really are, that's from where time dilation's and LorentzFitzgerald contractions come. Your universe 'shrinking'.

[yor_on]

And speeds. All types of them, uniform to accelerations.

[yor_on]

They contract your universe.

[yor_on]

Do you think that it is your speed forcing a universe to contract?