Thread:Toph's Fanboy/@comment-681745-20120622201003/@comment-3338975-20120622211117

And for when you do have time, I'd like to have your opinion of the following hypothesis of mine concerning the basics of quantum relativity (the first pargraph is merely an introduction to my understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity, as the basis of the logic of the second paragraph):

The theory of relativity assumes that there is no absolute standard by which one may judge the position of an object in space-time, and that instead one must always consider the object's spatial-temporal coordinates relative to another point in space-time. Because of this, there is no real difference between an inert object and an object traveling at a continuous speed, except for the standard of reference one happens to be measuring its space-time co-ordinates relative to. And it is for this reason that the velocity of one object moving away from another moving objects is traditionally added together with the velocity of that object when they are moving in the same direction relative to the same point, and that the velocities subtracted from one another when they are moving in opposite directions relative to said point. However, at any given point in the universe the speed of light remains the same, regardless of whether or not it is emitted by a moving object relative to one's chosen point of judgement, which is where Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity enters into the mix. The closer an object's speed approaches that of light, the more time slows down, spatial measurements shorten, and the mass of the object increases as measured from a point exterior to said object in order to compensate for the additional speed that would otherwise be given to the emitted light beam. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity goes on to say on the basis of this that there can be no observable difference between inertial motion and free fall due to gravity, and that therefore the relative accleration of an free-falling object's velocity over time is equivalent to the curvature of space-time relative to a given body of matter.

The quest for a quantum theory of relativity demands that space-time itself be quantized and not continuous, as the general theory of relativity assumes. The overall principle of relativity requires that an object's position in said discontinuous space-time field of coordinates ultimately be only considered relative to an another space-time coordinate arbitrarily set as (0,0). If the speed of light emitted from an object moving in said discontinuous field is to be equivalent to that emitted by an object resting at one point in the field, then the effects of said discontinuity must increase for the object the closer it gets to the speed of light as measured from the arbitrary point set as (0,0) in order to compensate for the additional speed that would otherwise be given to the emitted light beam. On the basis of this, there can be no observable difference between the warping of a gravitational field over time and the expansion of the inert universe as a whole, and that therefore the relative accleration of the decay of an object's gravitational field over time is equivalent to the curvature of the universe as a whole as measured relative to a given body of matter. This would account for the seemingly one-directional nature of time, as the greater distance one moves a body of matter in any three dimensions while leaving the fourth co-ordinate set as zero would increase the warping of the gravitational field of said body, thus ultimately entropizing the field's content in relation to the "stable" fourth co-ordinate regardless of the direction chosen relative to the arbitrary (0,0) point. Or so I surmise.