Recent content by yerty4235437y

thank you all for your posts, I need to think this over for a bit.

hmm, does that not still require an "ether" that the box and the weight inside the box move relative to each other to gauge the acceleration. If there is "stuff" / membrane / zero point to more through then it all makes sense, but if there is no "stuff" that enforces physics. Ok, let's try it...

alright, my brain just exploded. For the sake of discussion, while clearly not universal, if we came up with a way of agreeing the passage of time against the CMR, that we would have an external clock? On one hand we seem to say their is no clock, they all float, but you can't go faster than...

alright, but acceleration is a function of time and distance. If A loops out and back to B, let's say linearly to keep things simple, unless there is an external frame of position, then I can not accelerate through it, in my simple brain, for all the bits of relativity to make sense about...

if there is no external "clock" and you move away and back relativistically to me then your clock should be slow, but we are mirrors of each other? what am I missing?

ok, so if they are equivalent because they are both having the same movement relative to each other, then who's clock slows down? that I really don't get?

ok. what i am struggling with is, how does each party know which one is moving relative to the other. my thought experiment is not so much an orbit, but one where A and B intersect as A leaves B in a circle and re intersects and B on the loop back. From A's perspective did not B move and visa...

I can agree with all of that, but given we are talking about moving at c, if the distance was compressed it would be equivalent. In the same way light moves through ingress into a condensate and is "compressed / slowed down" on the way in, is it impossible that it could not effect the photon in...

1> is implicitly clear. And its relevance is that space can expand faster the c while the matter within it may not be able to. 2> I have been very clear, in the absence of a frame of reference...

And how is progress made beyond the conventional thinking?

while I may use the "wrong" words, I do know that a satellite and even people on top of a mountain compared to those in the valley will all struggle to agree on who;s atomic clock is correct. How do you rationalize inflation post bang in any other terms than I am already advocating?

1> I agree, in the absence of a frame of reference they are equivalent. 2> see 1, through what 3> the spontaneous existence or annihilation of something else should not effect the observation of the initial two objects relative to each other. 4> I beg to differ, that is the question I am...

I am not trying to argue the c can be beaten. I am arguing that space time can be compressed in the same way it can expand. That a compressed wave front can transfer state information, and that when the frequency reduces as the waves lengthen that the information could be propagated forwards...

if we have two particles, one is stationary, the other powers off in a circular loop around the other close to c. If there is no external measurement of time of position how do we know which one is moving or should experience time compression? what happens?

while it may well not be correct, the logical argument does make sense.