GENIUS FORUMS

According to relativity theory what happens in A's frame of refference is not exactly what happens in B's ifthey are travelling at different velocities with respect to each other.
An object in A's frame of refference is not the same object in B's frame of efference.

Here is an exmple.
A rod moving away from B in B's frame of reference will contract relative to B but does not have in A's frame of reference.
Further ,in B's frame of reference (FOR) the rod will gain mass if it is being accelaratd as it contracts more.

Now black holes form when you have sufficient amount of mass in a small enough area (space).
According to B the rod must reach the conditions necessary for making it a black hole the faster it moves since it contracts (occupies less space) and gains mass from whatever force is causing it to accelerate.
Eventualy ,(if the laws of physics are the same for people in different frames of refference as Einstein postulated), the rod should form a black hole and subsequently reak whatever havoc black holes reak in B's frame of reference.

But what about the "same rod" in A's FOR .
It does not meet the conditions neccesary for forming a black hole and so will not do the same things for A that it does for B.
To properly illustrate this imagine B sees the rod/black hole pass A.
As black holes do it will swallow up A. so according to according to B ,A will stop existing or at least die.
According to A no such thing happens.
How can we resolve this descrepancy.

One way out is to say there is a second time dimension on which A and B do not occupy the same instant along it.This would mean that the two FOR's would not need to be comparable.

Another way out is to say that As the rod contracts for B the space quanta over which the rod occupies will get smaller (according to B).
This would mean that the rod will still cover the "same amount of space".
In fact the space quanta would get even smaller to account for the increase in mass caused by the force causing it to accelerate so it should occupy more space quanta than before keeping in mind that they are smaller than other regular unrelatevised space quanta.

Now what do i mean when i say space smaller than space.
To solve this problem i would postulate the existence of a "substance" more primitive than space-time.
I will call it primitive-space-time or PST for short.
It would consist of different types of nodules that when in certain arrangements would form time or space .
Dilated time or dilated space would consist of different functions or arrangements of these nodules.

[This might suggest that here X = X logic fails here. but that is another topic for another thread for another time]

PST is not a dimension else we would be stuck in an infinite regress of explaining what this PST dimensions dilation would mean and so on.

One last way out is that B's FOR constitutes a totaly different univerese from A's.
That would mean that it would not make sense to compare the two.
Each view points frame of refference would be a different universe.

Up to now i have been talking relativity .Now we get the chance of linking Quantum mechanics with it if we realise that there are interpretations of quantum physics that already make use of multiple univereses, namley the "many worlds" interpretation.

According to the MWI univereses branch off from each other after every event.
But according to the above universes branch of after a view point changes its FOR (by accelerating for example).
If we marry the two it would have to meen that a change in a viepoints FOR constitutes an event (surprise).

What then is a viewpoint?

A viewpoint must be a unit of matter since space and time are then defined *later* to eplain a FOR.

If it was something made of parts eg a proton (made of quarks) , the different parts would not excelerate at the same time due to inertia.so it has to be an indivisible quantity meaning there is such a thing.

But there are events that do not comprise of a change in FOR of a view point that still result in formations of different univereses and there are changes in viewpoint that must *destroy* other univereses such as the one in the previous FOR.

Firstly we need to redefine "a view points change in FOR" to cater for these other events in The MWI that do not proceed from a change in FOR as we have previously defined it.

Second we have to reformulate the MWI to cater for the destruction of universes that occur when view points change FOR.

Maybe we could brain storm these issues here.

What do you think?

I think if something contracts until it can't contract anymore it would become a plasma. Third person perspective would see a flash of light. I don't like relativity, I don't like time travel. I'm pretty sure that they can be explained by the Aether as something else.

Just to change this from a physics thread to a philosophy one:

If a universe is destroyed (from a view points FOR changing or leaving it) doesnt that imply that X = X logic is bieng violated?

Does X = X logic proceed from conservation laws?

Universe = universe = nothing when FOR changes.
Doesnt that mean it was always nothing if X = X logic is to be followed rigourously?

I might not be able to reply soon since i am ofline over the weekends.

What what.

chikoka wrote:Just to change this from a physics thread to a philosophy one:

If a universe is destroyed (from a view points FOR changing or leaving it) doesnt that imply that X = X logic is bieng violated?

Does X = X logic proceed from conservation laws?

Universe = universe = nothing when FOR changes.
Doesnt that mean it was always nothing if X = X logic is to be followed rigourously?

I might not be able to reply soon since i am ofline over the weekends.

That logic violation is what started the Universe in the first place. But I don't think that you could eliminate all of the matter that is here. But if you could, then the violation would start the Universe up again. It's never nothing.. nothing doesn't exist here.. maybe over there, but not here.

Shut your mouth and open your ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r5ciL0WgLE

1456200423 wrote:Shut your mouth and open your ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r5ciL0WgLE

It has some aspects of what I have been working on, and some other aspects that seem a bit over technical for nature.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

1456200423 wrote:Shut your mouth and open your ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r5ciL0WgLE

It has some aspects of what I have been working on, and some other aspects that seem a bit over technical for nature.

I am sure it's just a coincidence. Carry on.