[yor_on (OP)]

I better start with a answer 

"You're making an issue of something that can be seen in everyday life.

Someone in a car driving past you will say they waved to you at (x1',y1', z1', t1') and crashed at (x1',y1', z1', t2') using their space and time coordinates, whereas you claim these events occured at (x1, y1, z1, t1 = t1') and (x2, y2, z2, t2 = t2') in your frame.

Can you see the difference?

There is a difference in the space interval you both measure between these two events, and so you could view it as a space contraction of some sort. Special relativity takes it a stage further with the introduction of a time contraction between events, between different frames."
==

Do you agree to this answer, or is there something you would like to add to it, or subtract, or, well?

In one way this make perfect sense. In another it makes me look at everything with new suspicion Also it, to me naturally, lifts up the question of 'speed' and how to define one?

Are we all Lorentz contracted?
If so, are we then differently Lorentz contracted as defined from different speeds?
Simultaneously, with it all being a real effect?

And who/what defines the speed?
Does the universe have a gold standard for 'motion' or not?
It seem to need it for this to be true? And if so, where and, can we use it?

Or am I just bicycling in the great younder

[simplified]

If Einstein was right,then let's see your very fast travel to Sun.We see your reduced length and travel.However you do not see your travel.You see only contraction of distance from Earth until Sun until length of your body. []
   Length of your body = distance from Earth until Sun  []

[yor_on (OP)]

Yes, and it works too The only thing I want to understand, and I guess you too is how it 'works'. We have too much evidence for it working to ignore it. and any real 'time dilation/Lorentz contraction won't be seen until you speed up like a muon. And at those speed the hard radiation should punch holes in any ship. For me it's the question of how to see the universe and my place in it that makes me pursue this question. Pompous to a fault, huh

Anyway, as I think of it now it seems to me that we're constantly Lorentz contracted, as well as time dilated Okay, saying that we are constantly 'time dilated' might seem a little to much, but if we consider a 'time dilation' as something that takes place between frames of reference, then we should be doing it . That we won't be able to confirm that 'dilation', as we could with the twin experiment, doesn't change the facts. What you might want to argue is that as most everything in our universe is moving uniformly it isn't before 'something' accelerates this 'time dilation' takes place. But as far as I understand uniformly moving frames are 'time dilated' too and so, as soon they are moving relative us, there have to be a theoretic 'time dilation' taking place.
==

My reasoning builds on me looking at it as a relation. In the twin experiment none of the twins at any time will find their own 'time arrow' to differ, which to me makes it a relation. Any relation is defined by needing at least two components that are in 'communication' if you like. The rest becoming a question about how you define 'communication'. Me, I do it by assuming that all objects 'communicate' distance and size being no hindrance to that, just as I assume gravity to be 'everywhere'. The thing defining a meaningful communication to us is light-speed, as expected in 'gravity waves' and lights 'propagation'. To the universe I'm not sure, I can't speak for that one, but we have entanglements and tunneling proved, and used, by nature.
==

If you understand it differently I would like to know how you see it.


And as a Lorentz contraction is one thing that only seems to express itself at those other 'frames of reference' you observe we definitely should have a awful lot of different 'contractions' taking place simultaneously from any of those frames 'observing' us.  You might want to argue that this is only a 'conceptual idea' and that in 'reality' there are no such thing as what I describe, but then again, that argument I as easily can use too, and about the exact same. Proving time dilations and Lorentz contractions by comparing 'frames of reference'. and that's the only way proving one that I know?

Does this mean that I doubt those two? Nope, it just mean I don't see how it works, and using math doesn't help me here. If you have a final definition why I only should consider them at some times, and not at other I'm all ears, well, eyes at least

The question I come back to in all of this is how 'real' they are. We definitely expect a time dilation to be real, how about the Lorentz contraction? I expect it to be real too. But where exactly does this 'reality' exist? Only in the eye of the beholder? What is a mirage then, if this is 'real'?
==

To affirm a 'time dilation' only when leaving the same place of origin, and only proved as when arriving back at that same origin, is to me just a way of conceptualize something that should happen between all frames of reference. To assume otherwise makes 'time dilation' a magic thing, only applicable under certain circumstances, and also extremely 'local', if defined that way? Why would the universe only time dilate you relative your origin, and only when leaving the same, coming back? That doesn't make sense to me?
===

So how do we define it. In the muon example the time dilation is what we as observers will see, whilst from the pilot seat of the muon no time dilation takes place, only a Lorentz contraction. As you can see you need both effects to make sense of it, looked at this way. The Lorentz contraction because of that, from your frame of reference as the 'muon pilot', your own 'time' can't differ. And that's perfectly logical as long as we define the time dilation as taking place 'everywhere' you can be in that moving frame, relative the Earth. Then you won't notice it, but you will notice the Lorentz contraction doing the same work as the 'time dilation' will do for the Earthly observers.

[simplified]

Illusion is not science.If we see your length contraction,then you see our lengthening.

[yor_on (OP)]

You are thinking of two uniformly moving objects meeting right? And that they both are expected to see the other ones clock going slower and their ship being 'Lorentz contracted'?
==

Using that we should expect that if placing two clocks, one on Earth and one in our 'muon ship' we both would see the others clock go slower than ours. But here we have defined one of the frames as 'inertial' when we make that example, namely Earth. But I agree, in any uniformly moving frame relative any other uniformly moving frame, it seems to me that it is up to you to define who is moving and who is 'inertial' relative who. As long as the universe doesn't have a gold standard for defining who is moving relative who. If we would find such a gold standard though? What would it tell us, that all objects move relative each other? Can you see how murky such a argument becomes if used?
==

There is one more argument you can make to differ it, that the 'muon ship' is accelerating relative Earth as it 'falls'. That one I find suspicious as I see it as the 'muon ship' following a geodesic, and looked at that way there is no difference between it falling to a planet or 'falling' in deep space. In fact Einstein himself defined gravity's potential to exist even when not measurable, which some didn't like at all. But I like that way of looking at it, as I see gravity as something permeating all there is.

"...what characterizes the existence of a gravitational field from the empirical standpoint is the non-vanishing of the  G^1ik, not the non-vanishing of the [curvature].  If one does not think intuitively in such a way, one cannot grasp why something like a curvature should have anything at all to do with gravitation.  In any case, no reasonable person would have hit upon such a thing.  The key for the understanding of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass is missing."

And

"as Einstein later recalled, the thought occurred to him while writing this paper that a person in gravitational free-fall doesn’t feel their own weight. It’s as if the gravitational field does not exist. This is remarkably similar to Galileo’s realization (three centuries earlier) that, for a person in uniform motion, it is as if the motion does not exist. Interestingly, Galileo is also closely associated with the fact that a (homogeneous) gravitational field can be “transformed away” by a state of motion, because he was among the first to explicitly recognize the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. As a consequence of this equality, the free-fall path of a small test particle in a gravitational field is independent of the particle's composition. If we consider two coordinate systems S1 and S2, the first accelerating (in empty space) at a rate g in the x direction, and the second at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field that imparts to all objects an acceleration of –g in the x direction, then Einstein observed that

…as far as we know, the physical laws with respect to the S1 system do not differ from those with respect to the S2 system… we shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system...

This was the beginning of Einstein’s search for an extension of the principle of relativity to arbitrary coordinate systems, and for a satisfactory relativistic theory of gravity, a search which ultimately led him to reject special relativity as a suitable framework in which to formulate the most fundamental physical laws."

"Here's the modern physicist's list (again, not sweating the fine points):

Spacetime Structure;  Spacetime is a 4-dimensional riemannian manifold.  If you want to study it with coordinates, you may use any smooth set of local coordinate systems (also called "charts").  (This free choice is what has become of the General Principle of Relativity.)

Principle of Equivalence; The metric of spacetime induces a Minkowski metric on the tangent spaces.  In other words, to a first-order approximation, a small patch of spacetime looks like a small patch of Minkowski spacetime.  Freely falling bodies follow geodesics.

Gravitation = Curvature

A gravitational field due to matter exhibits itself as curvature in spacetime.  In other words, once we subtract off the first-order effects by using a freely falling frame of reference, the remaining second-order effects betray the presence of a true gravitational field.

The third feature finds its precise mathematical expression in the Einstein field equations.  This feature looms so large in the final formulation of GR that most physicists reserve the term "gravitational field" for the fields produced by matter. 

The phrases "flat portion of spacetime", and "spacetime without gravitational fields" are synonymous in modern parlance.  "SR" and "flat spacetime" are also synonymous, or nearly so; one can quibble over whether flat spacetime with a non-trivial topology (for example, cylindrical spacetime) counts as SR.  Incidentally, the modern usage appeared quite early.  Eddington's book The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1922) defines Special Relativity as the theory of flat spacetime.

So modern usage demotes the uniform "gravitational" field back to its old status as a pseudo-field.  And the hallmark of a truly GR problem (i.e. not SR) is that spacetime is not flat.  By contrast, the free choice of charts---the modern form of the General Principle of Relativity---doesn't pack much of a punch.  You can use curvilinear coordinates in flat spacetime.  (If you use polar coordinates in plane geometry, you certainly have not suddenly departed the kingdom of Euclid.)"

I find Einsteins picture easier to relate too.

[yor_on (OP)]

In fact I didn't know this when I started to wonder about gravity, neither did I realize that modern physics treat gravity as a 'localized' phenomena. To me gravity has to be everywhere, in some weird way it's 'space' to me. And one simple reason for treating it that way is Inertia. If you want to treat it as a local effect you will need to free inertia from gravity, alternatively expect it to be non-existent in 'a flat portion of SpaceTime' without any measurable gravity. Or you do as Einstein.

[simplified]

Excuse me ,dear! If you are very fast traveler relatively of Earth and Sun,then you are traveling in gravitation field of solar system.Gravitation field of solar system slows down your time.Your gravitation field does not slow down time of Earth and Sun,because it is tiny.

[bardman]

And who/what defines the speed?
Does the universe have a gold standard for 'motion' or not?

There is no "standard" for motion, observers define speed. It is only possible to define relative motion. That is, you must choose an origin and describe the motion relative to it. The origin can be moving with respect to another origin, that is how Lorentz formulas work. One of the fundamental principles for our universe is that there is no preferred perspective, all laws of physics hold in inertial frames. (Inertial frames are non-accelerating) Thus, a speed is different for every observer and each speed is equally acceptable if the point of view is taken into account.

Illusion is not science.If we see your length contraction,then you see our lengthening.

This is not true at all. Two frames moving with respect to each other experience a length contraction and a time dilation of the others frame. Suppose you were in the first frame, you would see the length contracted for the other frame because it is moving at v. Now, if you are in the other frame, the first frame is traveling at -v, where the minus sign only indicates direction. The direction is irrelevant and thus you also see a contraction of the other frame.

[yor_on (OP)]

Yes Bardman, that's how we define it. But do the universe do so too? When I think of a universe with 'motion' I can't help presuming a principle defining it. It might be 'relative motion' that does it, and if so I feel both length contraction and time dilation being real phenomena, with our whole idea of 'fixed or not fixed distances' becoming a sort of cosmic joke being put upon us.

And if that is true then light being a static phenomena, although a constant 'c' to us, also becomes possible to me, and that puts me in a very weird universe, does it not?

The other way to see it is that motion have a 'gold standard', although none that we can measure directly. In that case we introduce a way of defining who is moving relative who for the universe, although not necessarily for us. You might view it as a question of ' how do a universe 'expand' ' too, if you like. I do
==

You might also look at it this way. If there is no 'zero movement' unless defined relative something else, then all uniform motion is a true 'zero motion', unless defined relative something else. And so all uniform motion should be exempt from time dilation and Lorentz contraction, unless you can prove it to 'move' by comparing. And in a black box scenario you can't. That will then mean that as soon as you stop accelerating the universe's 'skewed room time geometry' will instantly become the one you see from any inertial 'unmoving' frame, aka Earth.

You still have the possibility of 'skewing' it by invariant mass of course, but not by 'potential/momentum/relative' mass as I see that as non-existent in any uniformly moving 'frame of reference', until 'interacting' like colliding. All uniformly moving objects has an infinite amount of potential 'relative mass/momentum', simultaneously. Same as 'potential energy' do, as defined by invariant mass and the interaction they create, when colliding for example.

Am I right?

If you accept this statement you will need to accept that 'speed' also becomes a meaningless attribute for uniform motion, as it does not exist in our black box, no matter if we, when observing, find something to change 'position' relative us. The only time you will be able to define a speed will then be relative a non-uniform, non-constant, acceleration. That as all constant acceleration then is equivalent to a 'gravity', which then in our black box will mean that you can't differ it from a heavenly object (planet:).

[yor_on (OP)]

So which of those two ways are truest?
Both I would say. To me it's a question of 'relations'. Without any relations speed does not exist, and the black box scenario is one where there exist no outside relation that you can 'use'. So does it mean that speed exist if alone in a universe? That question seems meaningless as it assume something existing there, if that is so you have already introduced 'distance' and to observe it you've introduced 'times arrow'. Those two combined will give you the possibility of speed, even though that there is nothing to compare it against. So does that mean that 'speed' exist by itself? Well, as I don't think such a universe is possible to make sense from I find it difficult to imagine.

The really interesting question to me is why we never find our 'measurements' to change, no matter our 'speed' or 'mass'. The universe may 'contract' but our measurements and durations stay the same.

[yor_on (OP)]

Does this make it easier to understand though? I have to agree with Sim there, it doesn't. Myself I think and expect that it should be no difference between a uniform motion and a acceleration, I've made arguments for that elsewhere here on TNS. But for arguments sake, let's assume that it actually matter if it's a acceleration or not. What would it make time? A 'field' that when 'compressed' slows the 'compressed' travelers time? And a Lorentz contraction would then include? A whole universe? But only mine??

Mine universe?
What about 'yours' then? As I 'compressed' mine, actually compressing my whole universe, but yours never noticed? And what would it make of three 'travelers' 'compressing' their universe's relative each other?

What kind of existence does that make?
==

Add to that, that in this case it will only be an acceleration that can do it. If I use the arguments presented above. That really would make 'speed' a very weird thing, wouldn't it? And an 'acceleration' even weirder as we would have two kinds, the constant and the non-constant. Speed as such can't have a meaning except 'locally' inside the same ''inertial' frame of reference' if so? Earth I was thinking of there
==

And to that you can add that I'm not sure where/if cut offs for 'frames of reference' are? Where do I draw the line? And how? We say that Earth is a inertial frame of reference, don't we? What about the molecules, atoms? They may all 'speed away' at the approximate same 'speed' as our Earth, and solar system, and galaxy etc. but they do have 'speeds' of their own too, don't they? Shouldn't that make them into 'frames of reference' too? it becomes a very 'flowing' concept to me, all depending on where I define my 'system'.

[yor_on (OP)]

One simple solution is to redefine the idea of 'speed' so that it works. To do that you need to redefine what a distance is, or time, or both. We don't really know what this universe is, we thought we did, and up to Einstein it all made 'sort of sense', as from our Earth-bound perspective. But with Einstein came a revolution in the way we saw light and time. And with it 'time dilation' and 'Lorentz contraction'. So those days we live in a 'split reality', one in where we although accepting Einsteins ideas still cling to what we know from our own history on Earth, using descriptions we know to be true, like speed and distance. And we still try to make them fit those new ideas.
==

So what is uniquely unchanging in your new universe?
Your own 'frame of reference' I would say.
Does that include mine too?

Well, let's test it. If I make the same experiment as you in a constantly accelerating frame having a same 'gravitational potential' (Earth), will I observe the same as you? How about all uniformly moving frames? If I do, is that a proof for our individual 'frames of reference' originally being the same? Or is it so that we all should be defined different 'frames of reference' individually, but get them 'equalized' by joining this 'greater' frame of reference, as we might consider Earth for this question?
==

Do you find it a philosophical question only. Then I guess your point of view is that by defining a 'system' you lift up a 'part of reality' for inspection, and by using different 'cut offs' you create different 'systems', all valid from your 'systems' point of view. Looked at that way string theory has to be real, and loop quantum theory, as well as any other system that will give you a consistent and mathematically valid view. The problem with that reasoning that you can have several 'systems' simultaneously, inconsistent when compared, but valid in themselves.

[simplified]

Does this make it easier to understand though? I have to agree with Sim there, it doesn't. Myself I think and expect that it should be no difference between a uniform motion and a acceleration, I've made arguments for that elsewhere here on TNS. But for arguments sake, let's assume that it actually matter if it's a acceleration or not. What would it make time? A 'field' that when 'compressed' slows the 'compressed' travelers time? And a Lorentz contraction would then include? A whole universe? But only mine??

Mine universe?
What about 'yours' then? As I 'compressed' mine, actually compressing my whole universe, but yours never noticed? And what would it make of three 'travelers' 'compressing' their universe's relative each other?

What kind of existence does that make?
==

Add to that, that in this case it will only be an acceleration that can do it. If I use the arguments presented above. That really would make 'speed' a very weird thing, wouldn't it? And an 'acceleration' even weirder as we would have two kinds, the constant and the non-constant. Speed as such can't have a meaning except 'locally' inside the same ''inertial' frame of reference' if so? Earth I was thinking of there
==

And to that you can add that I'm not sure where/if cut offs for 'frames of reference' are? Where do I draw the line? And how? We say that Earth is a inertial frame of reference, don't we? What about the molecules, atoms? They may all 'speed away' at the approximate same 'speed' as our Earth, and solar system, and galaxy etc. but they do have 'speeds' of their own too, don't they? Shouldn't that make them into 'frames of reference' too? it becomes a very 'flowing' concept to me, all depending on where I define my 'system'.

That is right. Motionless gravitation field does not slow my time if I stand without motion on Earth.And such field does not exist.Because electrons and kernels of atoms create moving gravitation field relatively of me.It slows my time.  []

[simplified]

[/quote]

This is not true at all. Two frames moving with respect to each other experience a length contraction and a time dilation of the others frame. Suppose you were in the first frame, you would see the length contracted for the other frame because it is moving at v. Now, if you are in the other frame, the first frame is traveling at -v, where the minus sign only indicates direction. The direction is irrelevant and thus you also see a contraction of the other frame.
[/quote]I don't need Einstein's truth.I need my benefit. []

[yor_on (OP)]

Yes Sim, you want to define it from invariant mass, right? Or do you include motion? If we look at  the muons? they must be time dilated, and if you define it from their mass only, that mass is all to small without including motion. Also you will need an explanation why nobody ever notices their own personal time 'slowing down', as it then will be the only effect existing, if I got you right. That is, if you find the Lorentz contraction to strange to be possible?

On the other hand, shouldn't we all be 'time dilated' constantly, relative all other 'frames of reference'? If we should, where is the Lorentz contractions? Against that one might argue, as I did before, that it's only a acceleration that creates it? possibly also that in the twin experiment neither twin notice any time dilation, and only the moving twin noticing the Lorentz contraction. but then we come to the question of how 'time' differ between uniformly moving frames, knowing who should age slower? If we argue time dilation only from acceleration, surely there have to be some few objects in SpaceTime accelerating as I write, and as I understand 'frames of reference' this should 'influence' us, although we won't notice it.

Or am I wrong in looking at it as a relation between frames? Should I define it as something (a relation) only existing in its own 'frame' moving? That we then find the twins age differ is not a result of a relation between those frames, but two different relations versus motion and/or invariant mass inside each frame of reference? and with the universe using no 'gold standard' for it other than what happens inside them, frame by frame? That actually makes a certain sense.

I think I'll use that one.

It make sense in that we do seem to have a unique 'unchanging' relation to SpaceTime, from our own perspective. We have our expiration date set, sort of no matter where we spend our 'time'. but then the universe uses some guidelines that it has to keep count off it seems, if I stop looking at it as relations between frames. But I still like the idea

==

I like this definition as it gives gravity its full importance. But it will need 'constants' defined for it to work. If I ignore invariant mass (for the moment:) and assume that gravity exist everywhere, then maybe that could be one? And then I will use invariant mass for defining 'gravity's potential' but not 'gravity' per se.

He

I do like it, it's a weird weird idea, and I'm partial to those

===

If you look at it from that point of view there is no need for the universe to differ between uniformly moving frames as each frame defines itself, in its relation to gravity and motion. The problem still being motion or 'speed'? But with each frame defining it there will be needed a constant. And we have it already, the speed of light in a vacuum. I like this one better and better. Probably my downfall waits just around the corner, but, so far so good

===

There is one big thing that needs to be explained though, and that is how it all 'binds together' into a seamless universe, including us all as we observe each other, still being unique for each one of us. But that one needs to explained in my older version of 'frames of reference' too. It's one of the weirdest things I know in fact. That we all find it the universe so seamless, when it infact seem to consist only of 'fragmented frames of reference' from the microscopic to the macroscopic, and all flowing into each other, creating 'reality'.

[bardman]

On the other hand, shouldn't we all be 'time dilated' constantly, relative all other 'frames of reference'? If we should, where is the Lorentz contractions? Against that one might argue, as I did before, that it's only a acceleration that creates it? possibly also that in the twin experiment neither twin notice any time dilation, and only the moving twin noticing the Lorentz contraction. but then we come to the question of how 'time' differ between uniformly moving frames, knowing who should age slower?

If we have two relatively moving frames (constant and one being 0 or not), then as I understand it, the time is always being dilated for both and both are being length contracted. Here is what I understand of the twin paradox.

If you end up with two equally aged people moving relative to each other, accelerating to the relative motion is a problem but suppose we ended up with equally aged people with motion relative each other, and they both die at the same age (their life is the same amount of time in their respective frames of reference after the position and time coordinates are synced) Each will have appeared to died after the other in the frame they are in. To a person who also synced up the time and position of the twins and had them moving at equal speed in opposite directions relative to that person, they appeared to die simultaneously, but after the time they did in their frames.

The problem with saying who actually aged more is that relative to each other, they both aged more and the only way to compare clocks is at the proper time, which means you read the clocks at the same point in space. This is impossible unless they turn (or one person turns) around and come back. Then acceleration takes effect. This destroys the formulas for constant motion. When the clocks are brought back to the same point in space, the times read the same and so the twins must have died at the same time.

[bardman]

If you look at it from that point of view there is no need for the universe to differ between uniformly moving frames as each frame defines itself, in its relation to gravity and motion. The problem still being motion or 'speed'? But with each frame defining it there will be needed a constant. And we have it already, the speed of light in a vacuum. I like this one better and better.

The Lorentz transformations were first developed to explain the fact that light moves constantly in a vacuum no matter the frame of motion. It couldn't be disproved no matter how hard they tried. Einstein later used it in special relativity. So yes, the constant of motion in all frames is light we use that as a standard.

Personally, the calculations are there, so for me light is the only necessary constant of motion. I don't need a standstill frame if I can just convert all other frames into my space-time coordinates.

[yor_on (OP)]

Quite pleased to meet you Bardman

And yes, you're right. And that's troubling me, sort of . The description you give actually define each 'frame of reference' as unique. But, let us now look at those frames.

1. where is the 'smallest' defined 'frame of reference' you can imagine?

I don't know, but, as I think of it, its limit should be above Planck size. It's not a planet, it's not a car moving relative a man. 'Frames' can be used all the way down to atoms as I see it. And to me they all will be 'time dilated' and 'Lorentz contracted' relative each other. In a way they are very similar to the idea of a 'system', and you have no limits there, except possibly Planck.

2. Your definition seems to put all 'time dilation' on acceleration? Or am I reading you wrong?

If we assume that, then it seems to me that all Lorentz contraction should disappear in a uniform motion. So then your 'speed' won't contract your SpaceTime, as long as you don't assume Doppler to be a contraction too? If you do, are there any experiments testing that idea?

3. As I read you you support my view of all frames getting time dilated relative each other, even in a definition of that happening only in a acceleration? If we now assume that we share this SpaceTime, which we seem to be doing then comes the question of 'time'. One explanation is that 'time' is an illusion, defined through some sort of entropy.

Against that you can point out that all 'frames', when 'joined', seems to become the exact same, which to me seems to hang on two definitions. And here's a funny part, it's not 'acceleration', but 'motion' that seems to define it? And invariant mass (stress/tension of space). If 'entropy' adapts this way, what does that say? That we have a 'same entropy'? That can't be right if we look at the twin experiment, or can it?

I could presume that there is a 'gold standard' for 'entropy', as defined from your measurements inside your own frame of reference, as well as defined by the way anyone sharing that same 'frame of reference' will be able to do the exact same experiment, getting the same exact results. and the best 'thing' about such a definition is that it actually seems valid for all kind of motion, accelerating or not, as well as for any other definition for how gravity can come to be, as invariant mass.

I have some more argument but I need to wake up first

[yor_on (OP)]

And it's the fact that we have two contra dictionary statements that made me think of it as defined by relations inside those unique frames. It makes it easier for me to define what a time dilation is.

It's not something defined between 'frames', and we do not need to give it some unique name like 'entropy' if we use my idea. It will just be a 'same' arrow of time, defined as a 'gold standard' in each 'frame of reference' you make.

That it will differ, as when we look at the twin experiment, just confirm SpaceTimes game rules. But it will still, as proved by you joining my frame, be the exact same 'frame of reference' for us both.

But when we try to join those frames, that's when I find the problem. But, that problem exist any which way you look at SpaceTime. You will always need a explanation how 'disjoint frames of reference' can give you this 'whole seamless SpaceTime'. And that one is described by 'c' always being 'c' as I think of it. That's also the limit of 'meaningful communication' as we know it, also defined by the way each frame will be unique, although 'the same' when we 'join up'.

[yor_on (OP)]

Inside each frame there is one thing we can change as I see it, loosely defining a frame as for example the rocket you might be riding, or Earth. We can 'expend energy' transforming one state to another. And that's it, whatever you do is 'expending energy'.

So, discussing relativity, the only thing I know you can manipulate is this 'energy'. And the 'energy' you find will be the direct result of the interactions made. Those interaction can either be seen as 'something' manipulating on a object like 'forces', or as 'relations', then also defining that object. Even though this sounds like I might imagine everything being a illusion, I do not.

I'm just trying to find a description that will work with what we observe. And there 'relations' allows for a greater span of effects than what defining it as 'objects' does. That way I can define a 'spin' as a relation, a super positioned electron will also be the result of your observation of relations. But then we come to the way it 'join up' into matter, if we from a QM perspective could be described as the result of 'relations', how can we be 'solids'? To make that jump I'm lending from Chaos theory and their 'emergences'. Also it has to do with 'time' I believe. the 'arrow' we see have a relation to our macroscopic reality, Einstein called it SpaceTime, meaning that you should not expect it to be 'split' into 'quantum's'. QM does just that, although accepting Einsteins Relativity they try to prove that it all is 'quantum's', and a lot of it seems to make sense. Now you can choose either one, or both, but if you choose both you need a explanation for how one 'flows' into the other. And that I will define as 'emergences'. also I think 'constants' is what defines 'SpaceTime' and that they, just like Plank scale, exist 'on their own', as observed from inside our SpaceTime. I'm not sure we ever will be able to know what's outside 'SpaceTime'. We don't live there, we're in here, trying to look out. But I'm sure that the more 'constants' we succeed to find the better we will define where 'here' is.

Pompous to a fault