Recent content by yoron

You could possibly also think of it as 'emanations in a field', that, when measured classically by a local meter stick and clock always gives you 'c'. The probability of that being a '100%' following a few ground-rules. Each 'emanation' though can then also be thought of as being 'still'. Don't...

try a 'field' :)

Heh, depends on where you look at it from, doesn't it? Whatever a 'electron' now might be :)

Lovely answer. One might want to add that a electron also can be defined as a 'standing wave' around some nucleus to show how, well, ridiculous it becomes to call it a equivalence to a classical spin. At least from where I look at it.

It's not a contradiction, it's a logic bound to mass, speed, and 'time'. If you define 'c' as a local constant, then define time as connected to your local measurement of 'c', as per counting oscillations of some 'light clock'. Then locally measured 'time' never stops, neither does 'c'. And as...

It's a really interesting thought. or thoughts. Assuming that 'time' exist everywhere locally tested and defined, a 'correlated system' then, in some way, should need to 'interact' some other way to be seen as 'instantaneous'. We have four dimensions normally, three of them belonging together...

Pleased to meet you Peter :)

You lose me there, How do you differ between a flat space and a flat space time? As long as there is curved space included you mean? = To me space is time, so even when flat time is existent? ( Minowski spacetime and manifolds? Da* :)

Yes, I was thinking of a flat space time, as the universe at large. binary stars should become one nice example of a curved space time with gravitational acceleration, shouldn't it?

Will definitely need to reread this later Peter, but it was a very nice explanation of your thoughts. Seems there is a difference between uniform motion and a gravitational acceleration though. I don't think there is a coordinate system in where a uniformly moving object, measured by another...

I don't know Peter. Can you define the difference between inertia and inertial mass? And gravity and gravitational mass so I can see how you think there? = Don't read me wrong please. This have been a puzzle to me for a long time, and even made me consider that a Higgs field 'might' describe it...

"Second, gravity is not a result of a Higgs field. Nonzero rest mass is, according to the Standard Model of particle physics. But nonzero rest mass is not the same as gravity; it's not even the same as being a source of gravity. The source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor, and objects with...

Yes, I know :) But if you let a moment of doubt into it you will see that I write "And that is what gravity does to you too as I read it" What I do there is to connect it to the idea of Higgs particles. I've had, and still have, a lot of doubt in the view that 'gravity' is a result of a 'Higgs...

I was thinking of the equivalence principle Peter, between a constantly accelerating, uniformly moving spaceship, at one gravity versus a planetary gravity at one G. Ignoring spin.

Two things. As I remember Einstein at first found the idea of gravitational waves slightly improbable. Actually I think he changed his mind several times on that issue. So? If he wasn't 'sure', why do you need to be? As for singularities there can be no doubt, if you by that refer to 'dark...