The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
31
32
[
33
]
34
35
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
360562 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #640 on:
01/02/2014 11:57:18 »
So, am I right in that if we take one perfectly spherical evenly distributed point mass, then try to define its 'gravitational direction' it will point inwards? And what happens as you scale it up?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #641 on:
01/02/2014 12:01:34 »
What will happen if we place two point masses aside each other in a formerly 'flat space'? Will they 'interact'? In what way? By force?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #642 on:
01/02/2014 13:10:36 »
It's strange isn't it? Whenever we get mass we find that 'gravity' final direction must be inwards, and what is it about this inflation we hear about? Directed 'outwards' is it? in each point? No origin to it, is there?
Is there a 'origin' to the directionality of gravity, ignoring mass
Nope, no 'origin', unless we use mass, and 'constant uniform accelerations'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #643 on:
01/02/2014 13:14:09 »
I leave energy aside, because I still don't know how to define that, and I probably never will.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #644 on:
01/02/2014 13:16:31 »
'Energy' makes sense to me from a 'container model', a container in which we can define some magnitude of 'energy'. But without a container, what is 'energy'? If the inside is the outside?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #645 on:
01/02/2014 13:26:09 »
So we have 'gravity', and then we have all other types of accelerations, becoming inertia. Which one covers the most? Gravity or inertia? If all types of gravity can be related to inertia, what would it make of Earths gravity? And what does Earths gravity need to exist? I think it needs mass, it needs a arrow, it needs a way of communicating over frames of reference. Is there anything I'm missing? Does it need a vacuum? Don't think so. And 'frames of reference' should be read as distances, measured locally.
=
Then again, a atom is 99.99 ~ vacuum?
I'm not sure I can ignore a vacuum for it?
«
Last Edit: 01/02/2014 13:29:14 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #646 on:
01/02/2014 13:32:05 »
Why does mass consist of so much vacuum? Because the 'bits' we're made of doesn't have the ability to clump together? Or are those 'bits' excitations? If they are, what makes them continuous and consistent? Forces
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #647 on:
01/02/2014 13:41:10 »
That makes us into some sort of ghosts, doesn't it? Being continuous coherent excitations in a field, dressed as 'matter' or fermions, using bosons. But a field demands a objective reality to me, a defined SpaceTime having limits, or you can let it build from local constants. If you do that you need to define how frames of reference comes to be, and 'dimensions'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #648 on:
01/02/2014 13:45:51 »
The point is that you can't have a 'objective' description of a Einsteinian SpaceTime. You can only have a local. If you do like me then you will define the local description as the 'objective', then it just becomes trying to see what is equivalent for all 'local' frames of reference. Constants, properties and principles/rules. That makes a field the result of information. Locally defined.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #649 on:
01/02/2014 13:53:41 »
The only 'displacements' existing for Earth uniform acceleration is in time, am I not right? And if we define a arrow the way I do, then it exist. Purely local definition, but so is all other definitions I've seen, making sense to me. So each point mass making up a earth, has one direction inwards to some 'center', even if unmeasurably so, and one timelike direction, using a local arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #650 on:
01/02/2014 13:59:39 »
The 'sidereal universe' we define normally is a container. I don't think anyone will argue against that? A container containing regimes and forces. The reason I ignore that part is that I'm wanting to define locality, and that should be some ideal point mass when it comes to gravity. And I also want a universe to be built from locality, so the 'sidereal universe' we started from in physics is to me becoming more unreal, as I burrow myself down in locality
It would be a nice SF.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #651 on:
01/02/2014 14:02:57 »
It just needs a reason to how frames of reference can co-exist, to become 'real', doesn't it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #652 on:
01/02/2014 14:08:16 »
A dimension is a archetype. You start from a archetype as a sheet or plane, then use it as a Lego, to build more dimensions from, you twist them against each other, somehow glue them together, to define three room dimensions. and to that we add a time dimension, or a local arrow. I've never liked archetypes, and I don't think this is the way dimensions comes to be. I think they are a result of local constants, communicating. Those constants, properties etc, create the dimensions we find. To me they become limits, just as as 'c' is another.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #653 on:
01/02/2014 14:10:09 »
But without a outside, it's a limitation of measuring that define what is real to us. The geometry too.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #654 on:
01/02/2014 14:14:12 »
heh, I don't like archetypes, do I? But I do like constants, don't I
Ah well, we need some rules, don't we?
Unless we want magic?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #655 on:
01/02/2014 14:21:29 »
If we apply this on strings, or loops, then we just move it one step further down in scale, don't we? Instead of a sheet, we use a string, or a loop. But, what if there is a background of constants, and what if there is no arrow to it? one equivalent local background, scaling up to a multitude of localities, communicating over frames of reference, and a local arrow, using 'c' for 'meaningful communication'. Information might be different, but meaningful communication should to me be everything obeying 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #656 on:
01/02/2014 14:28:35 »
Your lifespan is a meaningful communication, isn't it? You can't change that one, doesn't matter if everybody rush past you time wise. Your life span will be the exact same relative your wristwatch. That's meaningful to me
And if 'c' is a local definition, so is that lifespan.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #657 on:
01/02/2014 14:40:10 »
The closest to this concept might be loop quantum gravity. In it the quanta of the field builds 'spacetime', according to Carlo Rovelli. Well, where he speaks of quanta, I want to define a frame of reference
Maybe it's all the same, a reductionary approach to locality, or maybe not? It depends on what you think exist there? A background, or loops?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #658 on:
01/02/2014 14:44:14 »
Without a arrow, I don't see how I can 'split' the extremely small into loops, or anything? To me it becomes 'dimension less' as a arrow is needed, and meaningful communication, to build that SpaceTime? So you got yourself a nice mystery in that something timeless, as I see it, creates a (local) arrow, and distance. And from that now is able to introduce 'relative motions', and accelerations.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66646
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #659 on:
01/02/2014 14:54:48 »
You could say that what consist of a background is whether you presume it to exist some blueprint for how things should behave or if it is the things themselves that become the blueprint. I use a blueprint of constants, that I define from a strict local outlook. That becomes a background of sorts, but as I also expect the local arrow and 'c', as I set them equivalent, to expire (disappear) around Planck scale, this 'Background' must become 'distance less' and so 'dimensionless'.
It's a matter of personal taste if that is a 'background' or not? I call it a background though.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
31
32
[
33
]
34
35
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...