[ExI] QT and SR

Mike Dougherty msd001 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 00:51:48 UTC 2008

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually
> refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating
> so you have to be careful;  then you can have all sorts of pseudo forces
> operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, General Relativity
> tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent to them falling in
> a gravitational field. If they were falling toward a Neutron Star the lower
> one would be a little closer to the star and so puller a little faster than
> the one above
> and so the string would break even though some might say they
> are in the same frame of reference.

Since this is all theoretical anyway... I'd like to introduce the answer
that as these collections of spaceships, strings, molecules, atoms, etc
approach the speed of light the number of reference frames exceeds the
computational ability of the universe to "render" a consistent result.  From
some vantage point(s) there is a breakage, some there is not - after some
lag there is un-breakage explained away by "wave collapse" or some other QM
magic.  Perhaps when this breakdown occurs, there are different "laws" of
physics - much the same way our gas laws yield to statistical models in the
face of the overwhelming complexity tracking individual molecules (or maybe
something like the distributed model of examining protein folding - it's not
quite real-time, so what do we call the state of work that is in-process?)

Please feel free to school me for talking out of turn.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080807/f4e032cc/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list