[yor_on]

If so everyone would have a 'room time geometry' that will contract and expand with 'potential gravity' created out of what we call 'matter' and 'motion', but not 'potential energy' that is a concept describing what 'might happen'. I'm using 'potential gravity' here as it seems a better description of 'magnitude and position' inside SpaceTime than invariant proper rest mass.

You can apply the idea of 'potential gravity' to both motion and invariant mass I think? As long as you think of it as 'geodesics' getting 'twisted/distorted' through matter and motion. Like the two dimensional surface with drawn lines describing 'gravity' that JP introduced. The lines there are what I call the 'geodesics' and when you accelerate you distort them locally. Well. that's the only way you can interfere in fact. And if you accept that 'SpaceTime' in fact is defined by your personal 'room time geometry' then what you see as 'distance' also must be a 'local definition', don't you agree?

[yor_on]

And 'frames of reference' is why i believe in a fractal reality too. As you can define them ad infinitum, from Plank size and up, and they should all 'locally' be slightly different as I think. As long as we think of our 'room time geometries' that is, not in form of 'distances' as those are mutable with potential gravity. And the way those 'room time geometries' glide into each other have to be similar to the idea of 'magnifying contracting' which then should make them into some sort of fractals.

[yor_on]

I'm getting mystic here huh?
Talking by myself, a sure sign of senility

[Geezer]

Go and take a nap. I'm sure it will all be perfectly clear in the morning  []

[yor_on]

ahem

Yeah )

Anyway, can I at least suggest a equivalence between light and our 'arrow of time'?

Will light leave you at 'c' on the Event horizon?
Will your wristwatch keep the same time against your heartbeats?
(probably not, but, that's humans for you, by my tentacle:)

Can we translate it into something defining 'events'
Well, a wave can be 'infinite' right? A photon on the other hand, isn't that a 'discrete event'?

What differs them?
==

And 'potential gravity' as I think of it, is just a 'metric', nothing potential about it at all. For you, the potential gravity you measure will have a defined position and magnitude. I should have found a better word for it really but it's so commonly used that that was what I remembered, da*n

[Bill S]

Some interesting points in the midst of your ramblings, there, yor_on.

I'm not entirely convinced by your "arrow of time" comparison with light.
Light is a physical entity, but the arrow of time may be no more than a subjective device which we use to make sense of what appears to us to be change.  The two concepts seem quite different.

a wave can be 'infinite' right?

What would an infinite wave look like?  How would you know it was a wave?

[QuantumClue]

Sure a wave can be infinite. If quantum theory is correct, then everything projects a very small wave function on everything. The wave function is a distribution of possibilities, beleive it or not, all over spacetime!

[Bill S]

The wave function is a distribution of possibilities, beleive it or not, all over spacetime!

OK, but is there a difference between a wave and a wave function - practically?

[Bill S]

Something odd happened to my post!  All this technology is ganging up on me. [:I]

[QuantumClue]

hi Bill, are we talking about a photon wave here? Because essentially, there is no difference.

When we talk about photons exhibiting a wave particle duality, the wave nature is a direct result of its wave function spreading the little tucker all over spacetime.

Physical waves on the other hand, like those in the water are quite different of course.

[yor_on]

As QC said it's mathematical definition firstly. And I don't really see how to prove that one physically as the wave is more or less a probability function seen that way, falling out in your measurement.

As for light and 'the arrow of time'?
Wouldn't I love to know that one

What I can notice though is that lights speed is a constant.
Your time as measured from/in your own 'room time geometry' can also be seen as a 'constant'.

That makes them interesting to me as an equivalence, well, sort of. You could also argue that radiation is the best 'clocks' existing. Getting closer to 'times arrow' than using radiation I don't think is possible?
==

And it works when measuring other 'frames of reference' from your own too. When you do you use the 'arrow of time' you have locally, aka 'room time geometry'. So maybe I'm right? I don't really know, but maybe?