🚀 go-pugleaf

>      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? >