williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/19/85)
> I believe that inertial reference frames are free from the > effects of gravitation/acceleration. In such frames, things > float a lot. And they don't fall. Or am I confused? Inertia requires mass, mass requires gravity, inertia requires gravity. All interrelated. Inertial frame is where things appear to be still, but actually drawn together through gravitational attraction. > Your statements could easily be mistaken. For instance, I > believe I can transform time and space between any inertial > reference frames that shared the same origin at time t=T=0 as > below: Etc.,etc.,etc.. Yes, you can mathematically transform space into units of time, like . . . lightyears. > So we have some who say: > Time is remarkably similar to a spatial dimension. The > two are formally identical when time is measured in imaginary > `units'. Any qualitative difference results from this > imaginary multiplier. > Those opposed are just saying: > Time is essentially different, because it does not > transform exactly as a normal spatial dimension. The spatial > dimensions are thoroughly confusable and lack unique > directions, whereas the direction of time is unmistakable; > furthermore, in special relativity, all transforms between > inertial reference frames will have some essential agreement > about where the future and past belong. > You could argue this forever, and all be correct. I guess a better way of putting this might be to say that time is a unique dimension. Unique in the sense that we exist in an inertial frame. > First, as mentioned by Kenn Barry, near black holes, space > can also take on the `one way, no stopping' MOBILE character of > time. You mean so that matter in this inertial frame is converted to energy within the black hole's internal inertial frame? The expansion is occurring in the " time " dimension, although to an observer within the black hole, time would appear to be spacelike? That black holes could develop inside black holes that would spew energy back into the outside inertial frame? I see nothing inconsistent here. We have observed this type of phenomenon. There are objects that spew great amounts of hot matter in a jet, which happens to be perpendicular to the black hole, and the expansion of time that might happen within. > Second, pick the frames of any two objects that are > floating off in opposite directions in space. In what way are > they seeking the same reference frame? Gravity. 90 degrees out of phase with the expansion, which is the result of gravity effects of an inertial frame 90 degrees out of phase from our own. > 1) Quantum gravity will lead to an understanding of wave > function collapse once the gravitational energy of the wave > function is included. [This argument is due to Penrose.] This is likely. > to > 2) The spread of the wave function describes the branching > of the universe. This is the "many-worlds" interpretation of > QM due to Everett and Wheeler (with some substantial > contribution by Bryce Dewitt). This is a means of analysis. John Williams < How does it feel to be part of a continuous function? >