0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Try another example Sim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'quantity of motion'. Are you imagining the apples containing 'frozen motion'? So if motion is 'time' and matter is 'motion' in some other state, what is gravity?
Assume that SpaceTime is a whole thing, whatever that means. Like some blob of jelly, in that blob we have four properties we can see. Length, width, height, time. Those four are needed everywhere.
We already know that 'gravity' can operate outside SpaceTimes boundary's.
If nobody had heard Einstein, would the information exist? Yes, on the conceptual plane it would
As I see it there's a lot of stuff we define conceptually. Time dilations, entanglements, how we think it works on a Quantum level etc. And it has a 'reality' too, even though sometimes at a right corner to what we see normally. the 'reality's' clash, don't they If you're a convinced QM you will defend that 'reality' above all others.
Alright, i'm struggling with this... i have no physics training, so i am trying to take it all in..So, this work of Pauli, Hiesenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger, means that even if time is considered as static and eternal, and everything in the arrow of time is responding to its past and its future, there is still the problem of what determines its behaviour? What a 'measurement' or an 'observation' is? That even if awareness of the past and the future of a boson or fermion was possible, the Uncertainty Principle would still prevent you from knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle at a particular moment?
You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. 
Quote from: simplified on 07/02/2011 17:32:29If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. This all goes back to how to define what we talk about I think Here's my definitions.1. Gravity is a property, not a 'force'. That means I can look at 'space' as if it was a 'topology' having dips and heights and even 'swirls' and stuff, a little like a 'fluid'.2. Energy is also a property, having no existence until a 'interaction' is being made. The relations of this interaction will define the energy, and photons red/blue-shift is the perfect example of such a relation.3. Relative mass, momentum, potential 'energy', are also properties, only expressing themselves in a interaction. That means that although you may count on them, having them 'defined', they do not exist. And to prove that I use 'atoms jiggling' in that spaceship.Because if they were true as anything more than a relation to something else, in this case 'speed' then they should get 'stored' in that spaceship.==To change it you will have to move outside what you measure, and then define the relations as being true on 'another plane' not reachable for mere humans. Which then may be true, I'm inclined to think it is, but to me there should still be something expressing those properties in 'real time' from the 'frame' that experience it e.g 'a speed'. Or we have a universe in where only 'interactions' count, and the rest becomes our framework for explaining and wanting to make sense of how those 'interactions' occur. And that we do inside a causality chain we either call 'times arrow' or 'entropy'. In fact it is our acceptance of that causality chain that makes us expect that there have to be something making sense in this universe, isn't it? So if some spaceship speeds away in space relative us on earth. When does it get a 'gravity'? Only in the acceleration it seems to me. Does the ship 'store' any additional energy as measurable by those on that ship? Not as I know, no additional jiggling perceivable. Does it do so from any other frame of reference? Nope, no signs of 'glowing' radiation, as I now off?==In fact, that is wrong, from a frame of reference meeting that ship you will see light from it as being compressed/more energetic. But it is as true, that you from behind that ship will perceive it as 'stretched'/less energetic. So?
Well then, use your math. Define all your variables clearly, so that we can understand them, then prove your idea.==(Sim, that doesn't mean that you can assign 'x' a property of 'tachyons', or 'gravity' for example, without defining how you come to this conclusion. So you need to build every statement clearly and with proofs.)
Axioms do not need proofs
QuoteAxioms do not need proofsSurely, axioms become axioms only because their proof has already been established, at least to the satisfaction of those who accept their axiomatic status.