/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10943664
Are you are theoretical physicist or just an amid reader who got this info from reading some non fiction science book?

>>10943664
Also
>God is real
>The soul is real
>God loves you

>>10943680
Computational physicist geared more towards the theoretical side, and philosophy of science is my hobby.

>>10943664
> le reddit space

>>10943664
Let me chip in
>25% of people can't build muscle

Just lol at getting this pompous about science

>>10943664
>Faster-than-light communication
But, what if I have a string that is one light year long and I pull it to ring a bell on the other side? How about if I move a shadow across the moon in 1/8 of a second?

>>10943664

okay

So, basically anything mainstream science says is right?

I have a question though. We all know looking back at history, that many scientific results (and thus theories and assumptions) have been proven wrong by later data. Which domains of science would you consider susceptible to such revisions in the future? Do you see anything in the current understanding of the universe that could literally be turned upside down by later discoveries?

Surely you don't think we reached the end of scientific discovery.

>>10944099
Established theory remains accurate. Newton's laws did not suddenly give wildly incorrect results when relativity was discovered. See the relativity of wrong article linked in the OP.

daily reminder

>>10944039
Its old pasta

>>10943680
This is a recurring post here. We call them "copy pasta."

Welcome to 4chan(nel) and I hope you enjoy your time here.

>>10943664
>ftl communication
Look up "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" and let your mind be blown.

>>10944075
>But, what if I have a string that is one light year long and I pull it to ring a bell on the other side?

The "pull" would propagate along the string at less than the speed of light.

> How about if I move a shadow across the moon in 1/8 of a second?

How will you use that to communicate faster than the speed of light? Be as specific as possible.

>>10944075
There are no rigid bodies.
Projections would still move at most at light speed, since the photons have to travel to the moon first.

>>10944123
>black hole
Wait, I don't study physics, but isn't still a mystery how the black holes' laws work?

>>10944151
>since the photons have to travel to the moon first.

Or, since he is using a shadow, not a light beam, the absence of photons.

>>10944148
>would propagate
Bullcrap!
>How will you use that
Idk. You're the smart one. But that shadow would be faster than light. We could have optic switch boxes all over the cosmos and normally closed logic gates powered by starlight and broken by shadow.

>>10944075
>How about if I move a shadow across the moon in 1/8 of a second?
We now magically reify "shadow."

Tell me, in what way would sweeping a shadow across the moon give you an advantage of sweeping beam of light across the moon?

>>10944151
So what? I can move bunny ears across the moon in nothing flat.

>>10944162
Because light must travel and shadow only has to block it.

>>10944161
>>would propagate
>Bullcrap!
Well, boys, he destroyed my position with his carefully worded rebuttal. I'm going to live on /x/ now.

>Idk.

Then it doesn;t really help you much as an example.

>You're the smart one.

Thank you, I believe you are correct there.

>But that shadow would be faster than light.

You are reifying shadow, this is an error.

>We could have optic switch boxes all over the cosmos and normally closed logic gates powered by starlight and broken by shadow.

Yes, but to communicate faster than light your have to send a signal BETWEEN them faster than light. Your shadow does not do that (nor would a beam of light sweeping across the moon) -- you are sending a signal from (I assume) the Earth to the moon, at the speed of light, and causing it to be received across the moon at different times. The only communication happening there is from the origin of your shadow to the moon, moving at light speed.

>>10944156
>Or, since he is using a shadow, not a light beam, the absence of photons.
True.

>>10944165
What?

>>10944167

>>10944165
No you can't. It just looks to you that way.

People standing on the moon wouldn't observe anything at all of your actions.

faster than light communism

>>10944167
>Because light must travel and shadow only has to block it.

"Shadow" has no existence on it's own -- it happens when you block out the light.

Say I am standing on the Earth, and have a light shining at the moon that I am going to block to make my shadow-signal. A stream of photons is constantly leaving my light, heading moonwards.

Now I throw a blanket over the light, or something, to create a shadow.

All the photons that left the light before I threw the blanket over my light are still heading moonword. The last photon to get past me among them. That last photon and his photon buddies will arrive at the moon, after traveling there at the speed of light, and the "shadow" will fall.
Meanwhile on Earth, the super-bright light I am using has quickly burned through the blanket, and light shines out again... and the shadow does not instantly end on the moon, it persists until the photons shining the the charred remains of my blanket arrive, after having traveled there at the speed of light.

>>10944075
>How about if I move a shadow across the moon in 1/8 of a second?

Are the drops of water being sprayed here moving at the speed of a drop of water flying through the air, or at the speed of the "beam" of water panning sideways.

>>10944172
>light speed.
No faster than light.
An exaggerated example is if I point a rifle at one star and another. My "aim" travels parsecs. Most bodies are reflecting light. It is a simple matter to make shadow and move it light years with the flick of a wrist or crank or whatever.>>10944173
>>10944194
Try harder. The other dude is is a better interlocutor. If I throw a ball at you, it takes some time. But If I don't throw the ball, that shit is instant.

>>10944201
You are no match for me.

>>10944202
>My "aim" travels parsecs.
Reifying "aim" is as wrong as reifying "shadow." Nothing travels between those two stars because you aim your rifle from one to the other.

If you disagree, then explain how that can be used to send a signal faster than lightspeed between the stars? Don't worry about the technical specs, just give me the theory of how you'd do it.

>>10944202
>Try harder. The other dude is is a better interlocutor. If I throw a ball at you, it takes some time. But If I don't throw the ball, that shit is instant.

So lemme get this straight -- if I am shining a light on the moon -- let's say aiming a laser at the reflectors or something. If I block the beam and create a shadow, you imply that arrives at the moon instantly?

If so, what happens to all the photons that were halfway there when I cast the shadow?

If not, then how is the shadow "traveling" faster than the speed of light.

>>10944202
>But If I don't throw the ball, that shit is instant.

But I can't KNOW it instantly. The ball takes some time to get to me. Photons that allow me to see the ball take a lot less time to get to me, but still take time.

You cannot communicate with me faster than light by not throwing a ball, because the evidence that you have not yet thrown it comes to me at the speed of light.

>>10944222
>You cannot communicate with me faster than light by not throwing a ball, because the evidence that you have not yet thrown it comes to me at the speed of light.

Forgot to add -- you similarly cannot communicate with me faster than light by not throwing photons.

>>10944213
>Reifying "aim" is as wrong as reifying "shadow."
but relations are real

>>10944213
I can move a shadow puppet across a wall and it is just an upscale. I know nothing of it but and/or nand/nor.. oh, what's those things that came after transistors? A lack of a signal can be considered a signal. There could be a network. Of course we would need travel capabilities and cooperation from the neighbors. It could be done.. if it could be done. Same as we do now but bigger.

>>10944154

but their mass in accounted for in the yellow bracket (you are right that the pic is misleading about "understanding" - we don't even understand a lot of stuff going on in yellow)

>>10944217
>you imply that arrives at the moon instantly
No. I do not. You have to move that absence to another location. I can't talk to you man. You make me nervous. Maybe someone else can explain.

Retard may have a point if we could discover what it is.

>>10944234
The lack of a signal can't travel faster than the speed of light, because the information that there's no longer a signal can't propagate faster than the speed of light. It's a super simple concept I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

>>10943685
based and Truthpilled

>>10943664
based post, good sir

>>10944123
>dark matter
Souls, reincarnation network, virtual magical constructs and Akashic records
>dark energy
A source of energy to maintain the dark matter constructs

>>10944235
Thanks

>>10944143
It's a correlation that cannot be used for ftl communication.

>>10944099
>>>10943664 (OP)
>okay
>So, basically anything mainstream science says is right?
Yes. That's one of the reasons why they are mainstream. Not because of (((da jooz))) or the leftist media, despite what /pol/fags and other anti-scientific propagandists say.

>>10946047
I'd nuance it to anything that is well-established within mainstream science. Pop-sci and journalists don't properly distinguish between established science, tentative new results and wild speculation.

Once something is established and supported to the degree that QM or relativity are established, it will never be proven wrong.

>>10946056
>Pop-sci and journalists don't properly distinguish between established science, tentative new results and wild speculation.
Not on a timely manner. But they eventually change. If not, pop sci today would be the same of the 80s or 90s.

>Once something is established and supported to the degree that QM or relativity are established, it will never be proven wrong.
I wouldn't go far to say that. They are really hard to be proven wrong for the mainstream public because they are scientifically hard to be proven wrong. If they are actually proven to be wrong, it would definitely take more time than we would like it to take, but eventually it would be established as the norm.

>>10946094
At most they'd be proven incomplete. Which we actually already know they are. Newtonian mechanics is also not wrong, just incomplete. These theories are accurate and will remain accurate for as long as there is a civilization around to use them.

>>10943664
Faster-than-light is possible. Just slow the light down.

>>10945296
A lack or signal is a signal. And it can be moved. It is even a simpler concept of working with angles over long distances. Nothing is moving faster than light except the signal. Like the rim of a wheel moving faster than the hub, when they are the seme thing. At the same rotational speed, a larger wheel is faster than a small one.
>>10944224
We are not talking. I can't change your beliefs.

>>10946187
If you flick that shadow from point A to point B across the moon, how will A use that to send a message to B?

>>10943664
good list

>>10943664
>> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
>2019
>thinks space is flat

>>10944099
>We all know looking back at history, that many scientific results (and thus theories and assumptions) have been proven wrong by later data.

No, they have mostly been extended or made more accurate. Rarely have an accepted scientific theory been proven wrong.

>>10946199
Im spitballing. Already admitted being a dummy. I imagine you can interact with (to simplify) two points far from signal but close to each other. And bounce from there. Really just a colossal microprocessor. We won't have a way to set it up in reality. Maybe if we had help.

>>10946371
So your point is basically "OP is wrong because idk lol". Well done, excellent reasoning.

>>10943664
Is the expanding univese theory true or false?
Is the Big Bang theory true or false?

>>10946558
Better than your point. "Things heavier than air can't fly." "Boats must be made of materials that float." "It isn't possible to break the sound barrier." "Electricity is just a useless novelty." "Nothing can done with semiconductors." I can go on forever. Technology isn't progressed by naysayers. Lots of it happens in a garage, basement, or by accident.

>>10943664
>Moon landings happened
IF YOU BELIEVE..THEY PUT A MAN ON THE MOON (you might be a brainlet)

>>10946618
None of that has ever been established science.

The first two were pre-scientific, the third was a suspected but unconfirmed technological (not scientific) limitation, and the last two are societal implications, not science. If you want to argue, please understand what the conversation is about.

>>10946959
It is not me, who doesn't understand. I have an arsenal of I told you sos under my belt already. I can't stop you from being a faggot. I am not talking about anything actually breaking the speed limit but a ratio of movement that can happen faster than light. Any dumbass should understand. To better understand string attached to bell, we can make it a solid linkage. Gravity is instant. We cannot make light year long linkage but, if there is equipment that can detect patterns in gravity fluctuations and any way at all to manipulate gravity in the slightest, this is another possibility. I have read Einstein and hawking. You just shit post at me. You think I know nothing because of language skills? Are you a linguistic determinist or just a bozo? Why I can't say that we are currently prescience?

>>10947087
If you think you can transfer an FTL signal with a long stick, rope or chain, you're not even performing at a first year undergrad level. Reading "Einstein and Hawking" (pop-sci, I guess) is not a viable substitute for an actual education.

You forgot that light water uranium fission and LFTR are safe and necessary.

>>10946726
Please provide evidence that humans did not go to the moon

>>10948514
>If you think
You have no understanding of what I think and some of that may be my fault. it is the largest of faggots to say "this is what we know and we are not capable of anything further."

>>10948947
The greatest triumphs of physics have been finding fundamental restrictions on what is possible. Carnot efficiency, for example.

We also know that the universe will protect causality, which means FTL communication is impossible.

>>10948947
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but you do genuinely believe you can transmit an FTL signal along a long rope or stick, no?

>>10949032
Of course not. I demonstrate that there are ways to bend the rules. Someone greater than we may find a way to capitalize on that. There is a popular example of paper cut with a blade at a certain angle where the cut happens faster than light. Nothing is really moving that fast and a cut really isn't a thing.
>>10949030
The "math" holds up in what I say. I must be a poor communicator. We don't need to talk.

>>10949052
Well, the fact that certain things move faster than light (like a shadow across the moon) does not mean FTL communication is possible. If it can move faster than light, it cannot transmit information.

>>10943664
>FTL Communication is possible
no it fucking isn't dumb fuck. If there is no cap on the speed that messages can be sent, and the universe is infinite in size, we would constantly be receiving infinite messages from across the universe

>>10949069
That was a typo, I meant IMpossible

>>10949057
I thought we weren't talking. Show me the math smarty pants. If I slide a glass of beer down the bar at you, is each portion of the glass moving at the same speed? Obviously, I'm not quite /sci/ but i make a living out of circumventing highly educated retards telling people shit cannot be done. And I do it. If I had your education, I would use it for something other than faggotry.

>>10943664
>Climate change is real
No it's not.
All except this are true. Maybe except faster than light too. Who knows what we will encounter in the future

>>10949263
Muh brother.

>>10943664
>he Earth is round.
Stopped reading there.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eric-Dubay/e/B00J6L2FHA/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

>>10949270
>eric dubay
lol that yoga hippie?

>>10943685
cringe

>>10949275
Yah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrlr1ZAGz3U

>>10949253
Not the same, but I see two problems with your argument:
1. "Gravity is instant". It isn't. It's also limited by the speed of light (and, in particular, been equal to it in first approximation, as it can be understood in first quantum approximation as a massless spin 2 particle).
2. "If I slide a glass of beer down the bar at you, is each portion of the glass moving at the same speed? Obviously" That is obvious in classical Newtonian mechanics, but a difficult problem in special relativity, where the original concept of a rigid body doesn't work anymore. The simplest generalization is called "Born rigidity" (which just change length by proper length in the definition), but it's too restrictive (for example, it gives problem when used to describe the uniform circular motion of a "rigid solid").

>>10944123
>dark matter/energy
Literally aether-tier.

UHH WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN THIS. UHH IT MUST BE A NEW FORM OF MATTER THAT PERMEATES SPACE.

>>10949330
R u same person? I assume not. I approve this message.

>>10949288
This is some quality trash.

>>10949341
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6aB6WtNXn8

>>10949350
>Implying they didn't lie about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GkvxCV9_Gg

>>10949263
Yah. Stopped there to roll eyes. Such an obvious political wag that no reply required. Anyone with eyes can see decoys and counterfeit. Brainwashed lemmings can't see. That is 99 and a ninth of who will look upon your words. Good catch Anon.

>>10949330
Samefag: Gomen nasai. You identified yourself as unidentifiable. I wuz drunk because I can beat these brainlets with hands tied behind backs. You're okay. That's what we need. See the obstacles and finding a way around. I never claimed to have the answer but, hope to get the thinkers thinking.

>>10944099
Climate change data is skewed, and time will show many current scientists play by the rules for muh grant money. Obviously 99% of your studies will agree if they all use the same broken model and retarded assumptions.
Greta is a FAS faced tard that needs better parents.
CMM

>>10949334
What do you think about plasma cosmology? Aka fuggin magnets

>>10949330

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0dcbw4IEY5w

>>10944099
>Which domains of science would you consider susceptible to such revisions in the future?
String theory, psychology, neuroscience, CS.

>>10949430
Man! It is detritus. There's nothing to spalk of besides baloney.

>>10949538
string theory is very unlikely to be outright proven wrong, but it will likely be reformulated in a more general way

>>10943664
How do I get a gf like that but then bigger boobs?

The followers of Judaism always think they have reached the end of history in their understanding. Such arrogance begs for a reform of the scientific establishment.

>>10943664
Lost me at Climate Change, you Crypto-Fascist, cock gobbling, drooling puke. Prove it's happening, prove its a qualified threat, prove it's caused by humans. >Pol.

>>10943664
Good thread OP. Anyone who disagrees is a brainlet, except with maybe Newtonian mechanics (it's not correct or accurate at all)

>>10951102
>t. Brainlet.

>>10951124
It's literally not correct, calling me a brainlet doesn't change that, projecting brainlet.

>>10951151
What do you not like about Newtonian mechanics? What kind of gay are you?

>>10951151
Sorry. I was just thinking the last part. I didn't realize that I typed it.

You can actually travel to other worlds instantly using psychic energy. I have gotten close before.

>>10943664
Ok, thanks for the reminder

>>10952461
Maybe you are tapping quantum entanglement.

>>10947087
>Gravity is instant

If you have read anything on gravitational waves, you should know that gravity also moves at the speed of light

>>10952689
Do you think that water is a wave?