An essay in futility, too long to read :)

yor_on · « **Reply #17640 on:** 27/02/2021 17:10:52 »

Can't be right. You're nowhere close to match a whole universe.

yor_on · « **Reply #17641 on:** 27/02/2021 17:14:41 »

It would be a lot easier if we could refer to those as optical illusions or just delusions. You still see a lot of people finding it impossible to accept.

yor_on · « **Reply #17642 on:** 27/02/2021 17:15:38 »

and how come it is frame dependent. Locally it shrinks, globally it doesn't.

yor_on · « **Reply #17643 on:** 27/02/2021 17:20:22 »

and ''c' and your clock is also frame dependent. That you can test it experimentally at any time, anywhere, doesn't change that fact. And if you want to be honest, so are all constants. Locally defined.

yor_on · « **Reply #17644 on:** 27/02/2021 17:24:02 »

So what is your proper time then?
Frame dependent?

yor_on · « **Reply #17645 on:** 27/02/2021 17:25:52 »

And what is the distance?
Frame dependent?

yor_on · « **Reply #17646 on:** 27/02/2021 17:30:48 »

It's weird. You inside a black box with your wrist watch and some contraption to measure red and blue shifts of some light. Inside, and all measured when in relative motion.

You can accelerate and decelerate the box, but you won't find anything changing once in a uniform motion, and when it comes to time, accelerations shouldn't matter either. Locally nothing changes.

yor_on · « **Reply #17647 on:** 27/02/2021 17:35:48 »

But your universe does, not mine, yours.

yor_on · « **Reply #17648 on:** 27/02/2021 18:59:35 »

So. let's see.

Relativity states that you don't have a speedometer. There is no way for you to define your own speed.
You still expect yourself able to define a time dilation

and how you do it is by using your local clock and ruler.
For this your speed or pace of time doesn't matter.

a cm will be a cm, and a second will be a second.

yor_on · « **Reply #17649 on:** 27/02/2021 19:05:06 »

How do you define yourself accelerating gaining speed, getting closer to 'c'
you have to use stars, and blue shifts, as I think. Preferably what we call 'fixed stars'

What I would call a global approach

The other alternative is to define earth as 'unmoving' and then define speeds from that.

that's what I would call a local approach.

yor_on · « **Reply #17650 on:** 27/02/2021 19:09:24 »

Which one is correct.

Is any of them correct?

yor_on · « **Reply #17651 on:** 27/02/2021 19:12:12 »

What is a speed?

we know what a motion is, we can prove it existing, and from that your next step becomes defining speeds to them.

spelling

yor_on · « **Reply #17652 on:** 27/02/2021 19:14:01 »

You might also be able to use the geometry you find as a indication of how close you are.

yor_on · « **Reply #17653 on:** 27/02/2021 19:21:28 »

You only have two kinds of motion, accelerations including decelerations, as the local expression is the exact same.
A weight.

And uniform or 'relative' motion.

You're accelerating at one gravity on earth.

yor_on · « **Reply #17654 on:** 27/02/2021 19:24:09 »

Well, that's what gravity is in relativity. A equivalence to a uniform constant acceleration at one gravity.

yor_on · « **Reply #17655 on:** 27/02/2021 19:28:04 »

You don't know your speed, but from this we should be able to decide that you at least know your acceleration :)

yor_on · « **Reply #17656 on:** 27/02/2021 19:30:09 »

And it's local, well related to the mass you're at, you call it a weight.

yor_on · « **Reply #17657 on:** 27/02/2021 19:34:38 »

So how far can we take it? Is it only a constant uniform acceleration that counts as a equivalence?

yor_on · « **Reply #17658 on:** 27/02/2021 19:36:41 »

I don't think so, any type of acceleration will present you with a weight.

yor_on · « **Reply #17659 on:** 27/02/2021 20:04:27 »

Have a read. https://medium.com/@davidlevitt/space-itself-is-expanding-gravity-and-general-relativity-explained-6395aa2e4d69