/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14810059
Time dilation is the observed fact that given some reference frame clocks in motion tick slower than clocks at rest. Consider cosmic-ray muons for example.

>>14810059
>no speed limit in our universe.
Can cars drive 1,000 mph?
10,000 mph?
20,000 mph?
1,000,000 mph?

No.
Because by the very fact of being a thing, anything being any thing, is limited by exactly what that thing is and it's thingness.

A car cannot travel 1,000,000 mph because the car is made of stuff in the universe and it requires energy to move stuff, and even with tons of energy you can't move a car that fast, just because material is hard to move faster and faster.

For the same reason nothing in the universe can move 999999999999999^9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 mph, or twice that squared

>>14810079
>Time dilation is the observed fact that given some reference frame clocks in motion tick slower than clocks at rest.
I put my old clock under water and it started to tick much slower

A sand filled hour glass is a good clock. I flipped one over once and then picked it up and started shaking it back and forth and back and forth. I dialated time

>>14810059
>arc length of our world line through real 4D
This is too much pseud even for /sci/

>>14810110
This post just filters brainlets on this site. If you really think about it then mby you get the point.

>>14810134
alright pseud, arclength of the world line kek

>>14810059
>Clocks just measure the arc length of our world line through real 4D euclidiean space time.
I don't know what's sadder, your pathetic attempt to sound like Time Cube or your pathetic attempts at baiting.

>>14810079
They only appear to tick slower, its not literally slower. Its mostly just a trick of perspective, sure it would seem like that a clock in a relativistic vehicle would have a much longer distance between its two signal plates. But in fact in reality the relative distance between the two plates never changes. Momentum is always conserved so the photons in the moving reference frame clock are never taking a longer path than the would stationary. Time dilation is the fact that should they drive past you at relativistic speed, they would *look* like theyre stretching things out but in fact, they're not.

>>14810397
no they literally tick slower. that's why cosmic ray muons live way longer than they would if they were at rest.

>>14810385
Sure this is a bait.
The fun part is that everything I said is correct in GR.
The sad part is that you retards can't even distinguish pseud from actual physical theory.

Hell you can derive proper "time dialation" from using the arc length formula for a euclidian 4D space time.

>picrel

>>14810417
Do they? Or do they have more momentum than otherwise predicted? And don't interact with the atmosphere like an electron would at the same velocities.

I'd really like to see a muon accelerator or a space-ground based coincidence detector to get some better data. Thing is that plenty of cosmic rays are heavier and lighter than muons, yet we don't see the same penetration depth.

>>14810471
So can you explain what a 'world line' is in GR?

>>14810471
>world lines are the proper time elapsed along the world line
Thank you wikipedia for that extraordinarily elucidating definition.

>>14810079
Time dilation isn't actually observed. You can't experimentally prove it.

>>14810059
>/sci/
>think
HAHAHAHA

>>14811207
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

>>14811241
We know that the half life of radioactive particles is partly affected by electromagnetic forces, such as in the observed effect of sunspot cycles on the half-life of radioactive elements. It's possible that muons decay slower the closer they are to the atmosphere.

>>14811246
>We know that the half life of radioactive particles is partly affected
This is wrong.
> It's possible that muons decay slower the closer they are to the atmosphere.
This is also wrong.

>>14811216
This paper is fascinating. I never quite thought about it like that, but you're right that time dilation would cause a substantial "increase" in the time atop mountains if true.

>>14811241
a calculator is not evidence

>>14811267
One possible explanation for the strange changes in half life is humidity, which is a factor at altitude. Maybe that could explain the results.

4chan won't let me link it so look up Air humidity and annual oscillations in 90 Sr/ 90 Y and 60 Co decay rate measurements by pomme et al in nature.

>>14810643
Relativity predicts them to last as long as they have been observed to. There's more data than just cosmic incidence.

>>14811772
>listen to my opinion because i am too iq to figure out how to beat simple wordfilters
s o y g o y f a g g o t r e t a r d

>>14810079
It is not observed fact. It is wishful thinking delusion.

>>14810059
You are wrong because space time is a delusion.

>>14811759
>time dilation would cause a substantial "increase" in the time atop mountains
>substantial
not particularly, even at the top of Mt. Everest you'd only experience an extra 33 microseconds per year. Do any non-atomic clocks even have the precision required to measure such a change?
also the proposed experiment is bullshit since it's trying to use a relative unit (a sidereal day) to prove that the length of a day in absolute units (seconds) is constant.
the author of the paper completely fails to understand what time dilation even means.
>This conclusion is also consistent with our reason – given the millions of years that the mountain has been around, the summit of Pico del Teide should by now be several minutes in the future compared to the land at its sea shore base. And yet they are physically connected.
no shit, time dilation is not time travel. The mountain simply experiences more time because all matter-matter interactions involve forces mediated by particles that travel at the speed of light or slower.
>To believe that time dilation is real would require us to assume that walking up the mountain is the same as walking into the future - the land would have to form a bridge between two points in Einstein’s dimension of time.
Relativity does not predict you will advance 1.7 days into the future by climbing Mt. Everest at all and I have no idea how the fuck the author came to this conclusion.

>>14810397
Now imagine the clock moves to the right 500,000 mph
The light doesn't slip away?

Imagine there was a train that could travel insanely fast, (side note, train around the world nuclear powered in vacuum tunnel time travel,?) And it was full of a long straight line row of mecjanical robot arms holding ping pong paddles, and you toss balls in between them, and they are positioned like the plates, horizontal, and then the train goes to a crazy speed, the machine making the paddles go up and down and up and downz make the ball In between them go up and down, and when you have the paddle apparatus traveling very fast to the right, what happens to the balls in between the paddles; if you marked the balls with different colors, and plotted their position in space, relative to the paddles, and relative to absolute space

Does light travel through the vacuum of space like lightning looks,? Or maybe it looks more like that traveling through material?

Spacetime is Lorentzian, not Euclidean, firstly, and time dilation (variation of the 1-velocity) is required to preserve the normalization of the relativistic 4-velocity as the 3-velocity (ordinary velocity in 3D space) varies. Everyone is stationary in their own rest frame so they see their own 3-velocity as a constant zero leading to a constant 1-velocity (rate of clocks) accounting for all of the 4-velocity. Howver, when you compare "relatively" to another frame that is moving with some non-zero 3-velocity, the 1-velocity has to decrease to maintain the normalization of the 4-velocity. This decrease in the 1-velocity is the time dilation which makes clocks tick more slowly. It's complicated why relativity maintains the 4-velocity but it's easy to understand why the three velocity going up means the 1-velocity has to go down. In a Euclidean tolopgy, there would be no distinguishing 1- and 3-velocities but the 4D Lorentzian topology is such that distance in one dimension is imaginary (in the sense of the imaginary number i=sqrt{-1}) relative to the other three. Thus, in 4D "Lorentzian" spacetime we have a different type of velocity in one dimension. Onme should read about the spacetime interval, the lightlike interval (null interval), the spacelike interval, and timelike interval.

tldr: The 4D Euclidean shape is a tesseract but the universe is 4D Lorentzian shape which is a hypercone rather than a tesseract.

For me, it was the Lorentz aether theory that helped me wrap my head around GR and time dilation. Going really fast increases the communication lag between all the atoms in your body (since these processes are driven by the exchange of photons, which travel at a fixed speed), and gravity/acceleration also increases the communication lag, therefore the processes in your body (or any "absolute" clock, atomic or non) will slow down accordingly.
basically the doppler effect, time dilation, and "lorentz contraction" are inherently indistinguishable. If there were beings made entirely of sound waves in the air, they would also experience time dilation and "lorentz contraction" as they approach the speed of sound. (Unlike in GR, if they went supersonic, they would not travel into the past--they will have discovered an "absolute" frame of reference, the air. But GR forbids 2-way FTL so it's a moot point, LET and GR yield the same predictions as long as you don't break the assumptions of GR by introducing loopholes that allow 2-way FTL, a phenomenon which has never been observed.)
Fun fact: if LET is true and there really is some aether, "wind" in this medium would cause spurious "gravitational" lensing. i.e. it will look like dark matter.

>>14811846
>Spacetime is Lorentzian, not Euclidean, firstly, and time dilation (variation of the 1-velocity) is required to preserve the normalization of the relativistic 4-velocity

Nope, Spacetime being Lorentzian is just an illusion. Our "proper" time measurement just measures arc length in euclidian space-time.
The fact that the speed of light is constant is also just an artifact of our measurement. Take a string in 2D for example (space on the y axis and time on the x axis). An observer in his non-moving reference frame measures the arc length of some other "moving" string. He comes to the conclusion that some second string can never be faster than the "speed of light" because the arc length of the moving string can never be shorter than the space it tries to traverse. While on the other hand, if you change reference frames to the second string, the time he measures is just the "distance" he traverses in the real euclidian time dimension. If he is on an orthogonal path to the time axis he measures no time passed and infinite speed through space. Ergo, he is moving at the ""speed of light"" and experiences infinite ""time dilation"".

>>14812295
>Spacetime being Lorentzian is just an illusion
Then explain why rotations in spacetime are hyperbolic instead of circular.

>>14810397
>They only appear to tick slower, its not literally slower.
No shit retard everyone already knows this, that's what relativity is all about.

>>14810087
>nothing in the universe can move 999999999999999^9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 mph, or twice that squared
You can if your mass is inversely proportional to your velocity, light itself has "mass" but it's so small that it might as well not exist, it's practically immeasurable

>>14813295
>light itself has "mass"
No. Photons have exactly no mass.

>>14813303
Not mass in a traditional sense, but neither any of the other subatomic particles, their mass is measured in energy, as long as you mass is small enough such that it matches your velocity and energy you can go at any speed you want

>>14811882
>communication lag between all the atoms in your body (since these processes are driven by the exchange of photons, which travel at a fixed speed)
So instead of assuming you would be time traveling, would it be better to assume you're body would have trouble functioning?


You can't have 2 facing mirrors horizontal ping ponging light between them, while they are continously accelerated can you?

And if not ping ponging; then no matter the speed to the right these 2 facing horizontal plates are traveling; they will emit EM waves up or down; and the light will go up or down, faster than the plate can move another unit of space to the right, right?

>>14810059
>Dude Weed LOL.

>>14813318
wat

>>14813358
All the elementary particles are just point sources of energy and the fluctuations of that energy and the resulting interactions between them is what causes the illusion of matter, they don't have mass, which is why they're measured in electronvolts which is then mathematically converted into "mass" through mass-energy equivalence, photons are no different to electrons, it's just a fluctuation of energy, it imparts some energy or "mass" onto things but it is simply so small that it might as well not be there, which is why it can travel so fast and behave the way it does, there's just so many photons in a space at any given moment that the cumulative energy is what gives the illusion of light and, by extension, sight.

>>14813515
wow, that's an impressive density of wrong shit right there

>>14813543
>no argument

>>14813552
arguing with that would be like nailing jello to the wall

>>14813564
Maybe you should try getting an argument.

>>14813611
Maybe you should try getting deez nuts. In yo mouf.

>>14811207
>Time dilation isn't actually observed.
>>14811825
>It is not observed fact. It is wishful thinking delusion.
Fucking hell people, stop presenting your delusions as facts. This isn't /pol/ or /x/. GPS systems use time dilation.

>>14813627
How am I supposed to find your tiny nuts inbetween all the photons

>>14813636
>The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971,[1] Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

There is no expansion of the universe, it isn't physically getting bigger. It just takes more and more time to move in space because the notches on your ruler are getting stretched apart. This is a consequence of the speed of light being constant, rather than increasing to match the ruler.

>>14813644
I know but people calling 'time dilation' 'wishful thinking delusion' in 2022 need something more practical as an example I think.
They're like those people who don't believe in quantum physics when it's used everywhere in modern everyday life technology.

>>14813666
Fair enough. There are people who refuse to believe in anything they can't see or touch or lick. These people are idiots and possibly demons in human form.

>>14813666
>believe in something which doesnt agree with gr for the vacuum energy
why should I? the theory is obviously incomplete with spooky shit like entanglement and virtual particles breaking all the symmetries

>>14813696
>I don't understand something therefore SCIENCE WRONG

>>14813712
but the science is literally wrong

>>14813057
Not that diffucult to show that constant acceleration of a moving string in euclidian space time leads to hyperbolic behaviour if you look at it's arc length.
>picrel

@14813712
lmao btfo brainlet
doesnt even knoq about cosmological problem

>>14813726
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to an omniscient being

>>14813810
Your mom's omniscient

>>14813874
Yeah, she's pretty awesome.

The Earth attracts the Moon because the Earth has Gravity
Simple as

>>14813057
>Then explain why rotations in spacetime are hyperbolic instead of circular
Celestial bodies are moving forward, they aren't stationary

>>14811833
giga retard cope

>>14813636
>This isn't /pol/ or /x/. GPS systems use time dilation
It's the sagnac effect not time dilation fucking retard stfu

>>14813636
What's funny is that time dilation was first predicted by people who still believed in aether. Why modern aether schizos get so triggered by it is beyond me.

>>14813648
shit would look the same if the speed of light was changing and not constant.

y'know, relatively speaking

>>14813690
bearing false witness is one of the oldest things people are not supposed to do, so watch your tongue with the demon accusations you fuckwit subanimal.

>>14817149
>bearing false witness is one of the oldest things people are not supposed to do, so watch your tongue with the demon accusations you fuckwit subanimal.

Fair enough, but there are people who refuse to sex in cheeks they can't see or touch or lick. These people are idiots and possibly demons in anal form.

>>14810385
Source?

>>14816960
>What's funny is that time dilation was first predicted by people who still believed in aether. Why modern aether schizos get so triggered by it is beyond me.
Because most people think of time as being the absolute objectiveness of an ideal imaginary invisible clock continously perfectly ticking;

But what is meant by time in these physics scenarios is Velocity and how it is effected.

If a person walks 100 yards in 50 seconds,

And then turn around, and sit on the hood of a car, which drives them back 100 yards in 10 seconds

That is what is meant by time dilation;

The gravity field is traveling hoods of cars of various sizes and strengths traveling various directions at various speeds; the interaction of which with matter, '"'alters the matters "time"""

>>14810059
Didn't they prove time dilation with quartz balls or Smith?

>>14818214
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Just one example. Relativity's been tested to hell and gone.

>>14818207
^^^^^
This is the correct interpretation though right

>>14818706
I think so but I'm biased

Clocks inherintly, as muons, use light to measure time.

Of course the measure gets fucked up if their speed is near c. This doesnt mean c is ultimate speed nor that einstein is right.

>>14818254
Atom clocks use light.

Find a device that uses superluminal effects and vòila, you find no dilation besides in your neovagina

>>14820253
>muons light to measure time.
False.
>This doesnt mean c is ultimate speed nor that einstein is right.
Only if you rewrite theory to fit the observations. Proper science makes predictions and then checks if the prediction is correct, and relativity's predictions that time dilation is a feature of spacetime were empirically proven correct and aether's failure to predict muon decay without post-hoc theories empirically refutes it in favor of relativity.
>>14820260
Muon decay does not use light yet behaves the same way, and FTL doesn't exist. Your argument is invalid.

>>14820280
A muon decays to an electron. Both muon and electron have electric charge. Electricity propagades with light=em radiation=photons.

Muons measure: with light.

>>14820294
>A muon decays to an electron.
>Both muon and electron have electric charge.
Electricity propagades with light=em radiation=photons.
All are correct and all are irrelevant, because muons do not measure time with light.

>>14820300
They do as they get bombarded with light corpusceles i.e. photons. If they are bombarded enough, they split to an electron and the remain particles. If they go near c, it kind of spares some time and this we can see from earth.

Imagine playing dodgeball, run or be standstill? I'd run. But eventually some hits me. But only after you are already down, being too slow.

>>14820302
You're thinking of protons, not photons. And muon decay is not caused by protons or photons. It occurs spontaneously, in the absence of anything else, and is caused by the weak force, not electromagnetism.

>>14820325
Even "weak interaction" has at most speed of light, no more.

So all in all, muon decay is accompanied by the speed of light, thus it must be a "light clock".

Therefore muon decay is just as bad measurement device as atom clock what comes to this problem.

>>14820280
Where does light come from, how is it generated?
In what form is it before its generated?
How is it always moving so fast?
The slow motion playby play of it's generation
And then how it propagates so fast in a b line or wiggling wave

>>14820377
>Even "weak interaction" has at most speed of light, no more.
Because the "speed of light" is actually the "speed of massless particles" or more precisely, the "speed of causality".
>muon decay is accompanied by the speed of light
This is a meaningless statement.
>thus it must be a "light clock".
There is nothing happening in muon decay that is analogous to a light clock or communication latency because decay is a spontaneous event that occurs in an instant.
>Therefore muon decay is just as bad measurement device as atom clock what comes to this problem.
Therefore, there is zero empirical evidence backing up the claim "time is absolute", but much empirical evidence backing up the claim "time is relative".

>>14811207
Don't ever post here again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

>>14820510
>atom clock that uses light
Come to say when you invent a device using superluminal interaction

>>14820518
>Come to say when you invent a device using fictional technology

>>14820520
Yup. You cant use devices now as they obey einsteins unproven limit

>>14820522
>einsteins unproven limit
Einstein's limit is empirically proven as no information can make a round trip faster than light, therefore, c is the speed of causality.

>talking about relativity
>not using rapidity, which can become infinite
>instead use linearization of rapidity that's only accurate in small neighborhoods
>wonder why it's limited
nmgi

>>14820532
Thats just because we haven measured a particle that exceeds it.

Einsteins theories fall apart if we found one

>>14820495
c is not speed of causality, its just speed of light and em/weakstrong interaction.

You cant measure photon mass, not cause they dont have mass, but thanks to einstein: you measure with a light using device.

The max limit of c is just a postulate, that follows from other postulates of this failed theory.

Should a coordinate system move more than speed of light, say V>c, light could go from point a to point b, if they are side by side looking from the direction of the motion. This would give lorentz factor an imaginary result.

This of course NOT mean that there cant be such a coordinate system, it just tells us that light cannot be a measurement device in there.

Einstein was wrong.

>>14820567
Light could not*

>>14820567
>c is not speed of causality
It is.
>not cause they dont have mass
Photons are massless.
>The max limit of c is just a postulate
This is wrong. See >>14820541
>light cannot be a measurement device in there.
Then use some other natural process that is extremely reliable.

>>14820552
Perhaps the reason we haven't observed these mysterious FTL particles that would make Einstein's theories fall apart is, perhaps they simply do not exist.
Of course, these mysterious particles actually wouldn't make Einstein's theories fall apart at all because Einstein's theories make falsifiable predictions about the nature of two-way FTL if it exists: an arrangement of FTL transmissions or travel can be used to send messages or passengers any arbitrary distance into the past.

>>14820570
Rapidity is just other way to implemwnt this. Its nothing physical, just a mathfag notation.

After some device is found, einstein falls apart. They already found that grpup velocity in plasma can exceed c. If id use that to measure time in aeroplane, einstein falls apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/physicists-broke-the-speed-of-light-with-pulses-inside-hot-plasma/amp

>>14820603
It would go to past. The einstein math is just wrong when we deal superluminal speeds.

It could SEEM that it sends it to past...if we measure with subluminal device

>>14820691
It wouldnt go*

This board seem to fancy the einsteinian view too much it fails to see outside einstein little box what could happen if there were superluminal speeds.

>>14820688
>sciencealert
Yet another pseud falls for pop soience memes. Like pottery.
In reality, group velocity is not real motion and cannot transmit information. This is as retarded as claiming that quantum entanglement is FTL communication (although let's be real, you probably fell for that pop soience meme as well.)

>>14820691
>>14820696
>It [wouldnt] go to past. The einstein math is just wrong when we deal superluminal speeds.
This is an infalsifiable claim.
>It could SEEM that it sends it to past...
even if we measure with tachyons.

>>14820700
Untrue. I can make timings when i measure the group velocity. As i know it goes 1.3c

Of course, if you send light pulse, the information goes speed c in to the distance. But my clock has neglible separate distance.

>>14820495
>Therefore, there is zero empirical evidence backing up the claim "time is absolute", but much empirical evidence backing up the claim "time is relative".
Time is absolute and relative. Both are not explicitly given to animals born on earth. Monkeys had to climb over much time towards the light of truth to understand this

>>14820706
Only, if you use einsteinian failed math.

If you accept all theories that man has done then of course "weird happens". But nature is not weird, so no weird happens.

>>14820707
>if you send light pulse, the information goes speed c in to the distance.
So then you already understand that there is no FTL and that your group velocity clock is just a regular photon clock just like the atomic clocks you've dismissed as evidence of time dilation.
>>14820710
>Only, if you use einsteinian failed [sic] math.
You misspelled "empirically verified".

>>14820495
>there is zero empirical evidence backing up the claim "time is absolute",
What do you mean by time?

Absolute time is a metronome that exists outside the universe

Relative time is, moving around in the universe makes your metronome change

>>14820717
There are already FTL in substance. Cherenkov radiation. It would just be that, even with ""vacuum"".

Also, no causality problems. Some superluminal coordinate systems just are different systems to subluminal systems: what come to speed of light.

This is very simple problem, if you rethink it from start. But if you are unwilling to even think about FTL nd physics without gamma factor, then dont, but dont you dare to even theorize what would happen at FTL.

>>14820720
Do you do drugs?

>>14820720
Cherenkov radiation doesn't travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s and therefore isn't FTL.

>>14820731
>>14820734
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

Lets take for example this "paradox". Yes, if you use einstein equations, you get some weird thing like negative time difference.

But if you don't assume einstein, then there is no paradox. Humm, thought choice.

What comes to the fact that cherenkov radiation is less than c in vacuum,is just a cope: its more that c in the substance. And no, no paradoxes happen.

Well would, if you'd assume einstein equations but with c in substance not c in vacuum.

I tell one thing: "vacuum" too is a substance.

>>14820688
>Rapidity is just other way to implemwnt this. Its nothing physical, just a mathfag notation.
No. It is the correct way to talk about the change of positions in relativistic spacetime. It is not the same thing. Speed is the linearization of rapidity for small Euclidean neighborhoods, which is why you get these weird effects.
>refraction
If I point a laser pointer to the moon, then quickly move my hand 180°, the laser dot is suddenly almost instantly on earth. Way faster than light. Woah.

>>14820778
This is your master plan? It too needs to assume v<c. This is nothing. Just math circlejerk.

Using theinverse hyperbolic functionartanh, the rapiditywcorresponding to velocityvisw= artanh(v/c)where c is the velocity of light. For low speeds,wis approximatelyv/c. Since in relativity any velocityvis constrained to the interval−c<v<cthe ratiov/csatisfies−1 <v/c< 1.

>>14820770
No, it's still less than c. It's the electromagnetic wave propagation that's less than c in a medium but the speed of causality remains unchanged.

>>14820800
Its not speed of causality for FTL particles, so stop giving it that name. Its speed of light and speed of causes that uses light as force mediator.

It loses all meaning of causality factor if and when we accept that FTL particles exist in "free "space.

>>14820808
Except there are no, and can be no, FTL particles.

>>14820808
>just call it something else than what it is so I'm not wrong
Except you are wrong. Speed of causality doesn't change in mediums and you don't change the value of c in Einsteinian equations when not in vacuum.

>>14820812
Einsteins theories are philosophically uncapable to decide that. He got some imaginary number as a result and thought that his ideas must be always valid, even they just say that light can't past through gates A and B, if those gates are side by side,and moving with V>c.

You can only bet there is no FTL particles. You can never proove it.

>>14820821
Einsteinian equations cant comprehend velocities that of exceeding speed of light.

This doesnt not striclty mean there cant be such particles.

>>14820825
Relativity is the second most thoroughly tested theory in the history of physics. Nobody's "betting" that there's no such thing as FTL. It's a proven fact.

>>14820832
You can test it 10^googleplex times with velocities less than of speed of light.

But...One single FTL particle just voids its validity. Its a bet. Not a fact.

It philosopically equilevant that there cannot be a star bigger than UY Scuti.

And Im pretty much helpless to say otherwise as i dont even have a god damn telescope

>>14820844
It's mathematically impossible for anything to move faster than light. It's a consequence of the math of relativity.

>>14820844
>One single witch flying on a broom just voids the validity of conservation of momentum, therefore conservation of momentum is wrong.
Sir you are lost, this is the science board, not the philosophical fart-sniffing board. That would be >>>/his/

>>14820792
I think you forgot to take your meds. Do it now.

>>14820862
And math of relativity sucks ass when FTL. And not even that, its just wrong thereafter.
>>14820863
As if they could grasp the idea. If your theories aren't valid with simple philosophical thinking, your theory sucks ass

>>14820869
Start to cry, theoretical cuckboy. But your definition gives nothing new for the subject.

All i see function(v/c) , assume v<c

>>14820870
Reality does not care about what you think is simple and rational or not, it does as it pleases. And that is why nobody gives a shit about philosophers.

>>14820870
In 4-dimensional terms, going FTL would mean hyperbolically rotating your velocity vector through more than infinity.

>>14820907
If you hide your head into a hole, no wonder you dont see the truth
>>14820919
Yeah but as with regular relativity shittery, this just is due we assume c as a cap.

>If you hide your head into a hole, no wonder you dont see the truth,
says the dude hiding his head in a hole while chanting that empirically proven theories must be wrong because witches flying around on brooms would void the validity of conservation of momentum.

>>14820952
It's not an assumption. It's a consequence of the math.

>>14820969
The math is just an assumption. The transformation is a work of a man.
>>14820968
Conservation of momentum is more solid law than relativity

>>14820990
>Conservation of momentum is more solid law than relativity
Relativity is as equally empirically proven as conservation of momentum.

>>14821007
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107963/what-if-photons-are-not-the-fastest-particles

Yet it would scrap more theories than relativity if found erroneus. Thus conservation of momentum is more solid piece in physics base theories

>>14810059
The term "magic" used to describe counter intuitive things isn't an argument. Magic isn't real. If something works in a certain way it isn't magic. Even if the thing is literally acausal or random, it still is not magic.
Relativity has been confirmed through many experiments. What causes you to dislike it?

>>14821015
Lets experiment sonic boom with 100 000 subsonic airplanes: no sonic boom, who would have guessed. Thus the theory of speed of sound as a barrier is solid.

A jet fighter rolls in. Bloody antisemite.

>>14821010
>Yet it would scrap more theories than relativity if found erroneus.
False. It would only scrap the laws of conservation, all of which are founded on the assumption that momentum is conserved, and literally nothing else. By your logic, any laws founded on the assumption of conservation of momentum must be rejected because if we detected witches flying around on brooms, that would show that momentum isn't conserved.

>>14821020
See
>>14821017


And conservation of momentu fail would give conservation of energy fail. Free energy, or energy sucking void.

>>14821027
>14821017
Irrelevant. As shown by your logic, we must reject conservation of energy because by your it assumes that momentum is conserved, which would be proven wrong if we observed witches flying around on brooms.

>>14821020
Noether's Theorem says fucking what

Tachyons are not a problem as long as they come from far enough in the future so that they are destroyed before they reach us in the "now", by whatever mechanism is sensible. As long as they remain on the boundary of what we call the future there is no room for any kind of paradox. FTL is only fucky when it jumps that boundary.

How does light always travel the same speed perfectly every time?

>>14821817
It doesn't, but mathematicians sleep better at night thinking it does.

>>14821823
Counterexample?

>>14821828
Light's speed is different depending on the medium. I'm sure you can find an experiment on youtube demonstrating this with water or a prism or something.

>>14821831
The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant.

>>14821864
Vacuums are an abstract thing that don't exist in real life. Space contains matter.

>>14821007
>Relativity is as equally empirically proven as conservation of momentum.
This can be construed in multiple ways.

>>14821831
>>14821864

>Light's speed is different depending on the medium. I'm sure you can find an experiment on youtube demonstrating this with water or a prism or something.
The "Speed of light" is a misconception that has turned a complete non-issue into one of the biggest pop-sci mantras repeated relativists. They think it's something traveling when the reality of the matter is that it's simply a phenomena induced to exist depending on the conditions present (the medium as you say). No medium, no light. It's like saying "speed of a shadow". I see those too, and they move...along with the light. They are as phenomenal as the light, they even are observed to cause things like light does.

"c" is bullshit because:
a. To imply "Light "in a vacuum", or imply that such a thing is possible is a contradiction. The light would negate it being a "vacuum" in the first place. This "vacuum" couldn't exist and if it were a true vacuum then there would be no "wave", no energy, no medium for light to propagate in. It couldn't exist, it's incomprehensible to imply it could.
b. The "constant", is really not constant at all. It changes depending on the medium. It also "ceases to exist" when the conditions aren't there to induce it to be the phantasmic dazzle show dubbed "photons", when it's the equivalent to splashing a pond that was...already there in the first place. You're just observing what was already there...being splashed about in a coherent fashion and then calling that a discrete thing in and of itself, and saying it "has a speed". The "speed" is completely irrelevant to what's actually occurring.

>>14821866
In intergalactic space the mean free path of a photon is greater than the hubble length. Vacuums exist.

>>14811802
exhibit a

>>14821817
>How does light always travel the same speed perfectly every time?
>>14821823
>It doesn't, but mathematicians sleep better at night thinking it does.
>>14821828
>Counterexample

Is there any example of a type of medium or material that propagates, or propagates energy through it the same speed every time? Water, air, metal?

If a mechanical arm hit a large metal cube, with the same force and energy multiple times, the vibrational energy would propagate through the metal the same velocity each time?

And if the robot hand hit the metal cube with a different force each time, it would propagate through the metal the same speed, but with different energy?

>>14821889
mean free path can be as big as you like under pretty much any circumstances as long as you never bother to specify the photon's frequency.

>>14822237
Em waves can't be measured from the side right, they can only be measured at their point of collision with the detector.

When the size, of the detector is altered, it's area, nanometers, micro meters, millimeters, cm, inches, in extremely large
pitch black rooms and vacuums, how do differenet detectors recieve the bodyness of light?

>>14821755
There is really no travel backward in time. This result is due failed einsteinian physics

>>14822367
even if we agree that the behavior exists, it's not really "time travel." It's merely that the apparent departure of the object occurs after it arrives. That's not an inherent quality of the world or causality (it always leaves before it arrives), it's an error with the instruments (you receive visual data of it leaving slower than it moves).

Pilpul physics makes everything as hard as it possibly can because that makes phycisists seem more relevant than they are. Many of these solutions aren't philosophically challenging when viewed with common sense.

>>14822475
Not as so. The antitelephone paradox we get if we still insist to use einsteinian math even if we know we have FTL particles.

Einsteins eqs loses predictibility after V>c.

But it may appear that causality breaks if we use light clocks, atom clocks as measure devices.

But this is an apparent effect, outside of our limited instruments, philosophically, no effects to backward in time happens.

>>14822367
>failed einsteinian physics
There's no such thing since GR is empirically proven and backward time travel requires introducing nonexistent forms of matter.

>>14822502
It's like you don't even know what General Relativity predicts or what the antitelephone is. No time travel is involved. The paradox of the tachyonic antitelephone is that from certain frames of reference, ftl communication/travel breaks causality and you can observe events caused by events that are yet to happen. It doesn't really break physics but (predictably) breaking the speed of causality breaks causality.

>>14822172
>>14822254
Answer these please

>>14822754
Empirical proof loses credit if there is found new FTL particles. >>14822755
c is not speed of causality if we find FTL particles. Stop being so söyboy. The effect is same that wee see in cherenkov radiation, but with vacuum space.

Its just a sonic boom but with light: luminal boom.

>>14822755
Breaking of causality imply time travel. But time travel is due naïvely applying ftl particlea to einsteins equations that only accepts subluminal speeds.

Let me say gamma(v)=1/sqrt(1-(v/100mph)^2)

Try to make something with speed of 130 mph... i guess its hard

>>14822999
It's not time travel. It's about observing events before their causes. SR doesn't actually let you talk to a past version of yourself with FTL communication. It only predicts that certain observers will see causality breaking events but no time travel is actually occurring.
Man, it's almost like everything you said in this thread was taken out of your ass and you don't actually know anything about the subject.

>>14822947
Sorry to burst your bubble but aether isn't real.

>>14820603
>perhaps they simply do not exist.
>he doesnt understand quantum entanglement
We already know there are, some us do anyway

>>14823341
Not sorry to burst yours, but relativity is schizo retardation. Imagine being stupid enough to think that time is the relative variable and not the speed of light, especially when all the proof exists for anyone to find if they look. The only reason to believe this absurd nonsense is because it can get some prediction correct that can also be derived by Lorentz aether theory. Real retard hours up in here

>>14823430
How do they define time?
When they say time changes, what are they saying changes?

>>14823341
>Sorry to burst your bubble but aether isn't real.

Not according to the same crackpot who said the opposite after he came up relativity.


>>14823472

>How do they define time?
It has no ontology. It's made up. Reified to whatever standard desired. Here we like incrementalism of spinning spheres. How they do that though? No one knows.

>>14823472
Time is that thing which separates events which occur at the same place.

>>14823510
>Time is that thing
Yeah, you know the thing.

>>14823430
If relativity is so absurd, why do modern LETfags always reverse engineer it like they had to do to explain gravity? Can you fags explain why muon decay is affected by time dilation yet, or do you have to make some unfounded assumption about a muon's composition? Or are you still coping and saying it's just a (((coincidence))) that muon decay is correlated with the time dilation predicted by relativity?
>>14823477
That "crackpot" made more successful predictions than you ever will.

>>14823530
I already posted a paper by Doug Marret that explains it dingus. In fact he has an entire website

>>14823530
That "crackpot" made more successful predictions than you ever will.
The only successful prediction he made was when he admitted the existence of an aether, but that it would also be undetectable. The rest of his made up accurately described gibberish revolves around:
a. The speed of light (there is no actual proof of light having a speed let alone "traveling" in a conventional sense
b.Space having the ability to "curve/warp" despite the fact it has no properties to do such a thing.

Combined with time, the subject of no ontology forms the model "spacetime": The model that doesn't explain shit, let alone how space or time even exist. It's incomprehensible fantasy made up by the dualistic materialist mentality of the chosen people.

>>14823553
>there is no actual proof of light having a speed let alone "traveling"
Jesus christ this dude is even worse than an aethertard.

>>14823575
Well it depends on how you want to conceptualize what speed is Generally people see it as the rate at which an object is moving against another object. Light is an aether perturbation so when it is part of something as opposed to being a separate something moving away or towards in relation to something else, speed isn't really an apt description in its conventional sense. In this regard light moving is an illusion of sorts if that makes sense.

>>14823540
That absolutely moronic paper refutes itself, see >>14811833.
If you're going to refute relativity, step 1 is "read a motherfucking book."

>>14823608
I can prove beyond any doubt I am correct. You cannot so your post is quite ironic. Start with the Greeks psued while you are creating new imaginary 8nvosoble matters because your equations don't work simpleton.

>>14823618
You can't prove anything because you're wrong.
>you are creating new imaginary 8nvosoble matters because your equations don't work simpleton.
Stone, meet glass house.

>>14823618
>I can prove beyond any doubt I am correct.
Please do so. I would love to see it.

>>14822254
>Em waves can't be measured from the side right
At least in theory, It should be possible to measure photons indirectly through their gravity. This would make them lose some energy like when they climb a gravitational well or when they travel through expanding space but I don't think that's technically an interaction. At least it's not like light traveling through some medium like water or when it's reflected on the surface of a mirror where it is absorbed and emitted again.
>>14822367
Which direction is "backward in time" is relative, just like which direction is "forward in time" is relative, because that depends on gravitation. From its own frame of reference it's probably not traveling backwards in any meaningful way.
>>14822502
For such a paradox to manifest the signal has to cross from somewhere in the past to the "now". Like I said, as long as crossing that boundary is impossible tachyons don't cause any paradoxes. They would always remain on the future side of the hypersurface of what is "now", just like non-tachyonic matter remains on the past side. It's a hard barrier.

>>14823123
No, you put huge dildo in your ass and then spit it out us here and say BEHOLD, THE TRUTH.

Causality this and that. No. It wont break. Its just einstein was wrong. His math is unapplicable to ftl. Things wont happen before their cause happens. You are full of söy, spoonfed by jewish physics

>>14823815
There os no hypersurfaces or any that gay stuff. Tachyons are just ftl particles, causin cherenkov radiation in vacuum space until they slow down to below c.

>>14810059
time doesn't exist

>>14823905
then why doesn't everything happen all at once?

>>14810059
>OP doesn't know about the four simultaneous days
>>14823905
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

>>14823897
>causin cherenkov radiation in vacuum space
I could get behind the idea that they're what we're calling quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, vacuum energy, etc.
>until they slow down to below c
Even ignoring all other problems that doesn't work for the same reason you can't accelerate past c. Doing so would require infinite energy. They'd *speed up* as they lose energy, not get any slower.

>>14823540
>In the Sagnac effect, rotation is ultimately with respect to the fixed stars (aka absolute space)
Rotation is with respect to itself, since a rotating object contains two or more opposing velocities with a centripetal force binding them together, forcing them to travel in a circular path. In reality, the sagnac effect is just the simple fact that the detector is moving away from the photons travelling down one path, and toward the photons travelling down the other.

>>14823575
>This is traveling from point a to b
Vs.
>Until the conditions at point a and b are adequate enough to induce it to exist..it doesn't exist

One implies traveling, one implies no traveling whatsoever. But none of this still takes away from the fact that there is literally no empirical evidence of light traveling/having a speed. Feel free to prove me wrong.

>>14813784
>@14813712
Go back

>>14824285
>there is literally no empirical evidence of light traveling/having a speed.

>>14823510
>Time is that thing which separates events which occur at the same place
So how is time applied to moving objects?

>>14823815
When happens when light is being created straight away left to right;
And a detector approaches perpendicularly

>>14824333
So you're saying there is? What is the evidence?

>>14824591
The fact that the sun and the earth are in different places yet still the sun's light gets here from over there.

>>14824642
>The fact that the sun and the earth are in different places
They're in "the universe"

>yet still the sun's light gets here from over there.
It's being perturbed into existence. Without light, matter wouldn't even exist. There would be nothing to vibrate and prop it into existence in the first place. We're effectively a bubble in what is the suns atmosphere. The light is "already here", it doesn't have to travel it was always there being perturbed into existence, earth into existence.

>>14824669
Literal schizobabble.

>>14823990
This only if your brain still uses einstein. Dont use it at ftl. Dont use gamma with c.

>>14824520
A gravity detector sensitive enough would measure a change in the gravitational field as the photon/EM wave travels past it - even if it does so perfectly perpendicularly. The challenge here is making a detector that is sensitive enough to do that for photons of realistic mass/energy. If you consider a super-energetic relativistic photon that's almost a black hole (kugelblitz) then detecting it should be pretty easy. Although I guess it might be possible that the total system of such an instrument plus photon is massive enough to cause gravitational collapse, possibly even in either case (massive detector/light photon vs. massive photon/light detector). There is some other interesting case where this happens, but I can't remember right now. I haven't calculated this. It's just theoretically possible to measure.
>>14824905
We already know that accelerating matter takes as much energy as predicted by Einstein because we have built machines that accelerate particles almost up to c. Why expect Einstein to be wrong in the FTL case?

>>14823879
Can you even read? There is no time travel involved. The paradox stems from what you can observe. Not from what actually "happens". Tachyonic antitelephone doesn't predict being able to interact with the past at all.

>>14824935
>>14825059
Einstein must simply be wrong as his equations goes haywire and gives odd negative time or imaginary numbers as results when v>c.

Our observations might go haywire too as they are based on devices that in depth bases in electromagnetic effects that have c as information speed.

Thus I conclude that Einsteins corrections might be useful in cases v<=c ,as our instruments do indeed have c as information speed. But this is just one point of view.


In my point of view, coordinate systems arent equal. You can equalize them with einsteins correction terms when v<c but not when v>c.

This just doesnt exclude FTL existence possibility.

>>14824935
What comes to accelation with EM. The position when a charged particle with speed v, almost c, take a hit from one charged particle, is not where we think it is. The charged particle has went very large distance when the EM wave hits it.

This is simple geometry yet multiple physicist for over a decade hasnt figured this out.

>>14825192
what? its completely explained by relativity that everything being waves is why it seems like things hit out of time when in reality its just a delay due to the fact waves have to propagate in an arc.

>>14825197
Yeah, but this is not natures law. So FTL particles do can exists

>>14825059
Actually, strictly absolute relativity does indeed predict that FTL is time travel. It doesn't just look the the order events are occurring in is relative; it literally is. So, for example, warp drive is automatically a time machine: GLASS-z13, the oldest known galaxy in the universe, is exactly 329.8 million years old in our frame of reference, so if we could use a warp drive to travel to GLASS-z13 at Warp 10 (instant travel), we would arrive in a galaxy that is 329.8 million years old. But from GLASS-z13's point of view, the Milky Way doesn't even exist yet. We could* trace our trip back to where the Milky Way will be born, and arrive before it exists.
*not literally, since the universe would be entirely unrecognizable.
This implies that either FTL is impossible, that time travel is possible but time paradoxes still don't exist (e.g. conservation of history), or that you can triangulate the velocity of a rest frame by using FTL communication.
Despite what aether schizos tell you, the latter doesn't really break relativity all that much. In fact, the only prediction of relativity that this breaks is relativity's prediction that there is no rest frame. This is the non-crank way of permitting FTL while forbidding time travel--see also doubly special relativity which is theoretically falsifiable using matter that actually exists (the crank way would be to say that a purely hypothetical particle proves that space is full of some magic fluid we can't observe but it totally exists, trust me dude!)
>Is there a resting frame in the universe? A proposed experimental test based on a precise measurement of particle mass
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.05252.pdf

>>14825258
It exists even they have not yet received photons to see it. But if you sen ftl things, yeah, then they realize it must exist.

>>14825258
I never understood the level of idiocy it takes to think "if we cant observe it it doesnt exist!". Most things in science today werent observable only 200 years ago. Do you think viruses, electrons, bacteria, water vapor, radio waves etc didnt exist 200 years ago because we couldn't observe them? The very thing you are prompting (spacetime) can't be observed. Are you too dumb to understand this contradiction?

>>14824901
Whatever you say, conspiracy theorist.

>>14825316
>I never understood the level of idiocy it takes to think "if we cant observe it it doesnt exist!".

Now imagine if they applied the same level of thinking that they do for their imaginary black holes to light. Maybe they would then figure out what it truly means to be a shadow chaser (given that a blackhole is literally a shadow caused by the interaction of light).

>>14810059
But the forward facing spin effects lorentz contraction of arc lengths so the clocks on different routes disagree.

>>14825184
Negative time isn't odd at all. It's exactly what you'd expect from a tachyon if you think about it. Imaginary energy/mass might sound weird, but why not. In the end it's a mostly arbitrary distinction like which is matter and which is antimatter. I don't see how that rules out FTL particles or why they can't exist without changes to relativity. That's just "muh non-physical" cope like a lot of other things have been in the past.

>>14825316
>>14825741
Literal schizobabble.

>>14825316
>Do you think viruses, electrons, bacteria, water vapor, radio waves etc didnt exist 200 years ago
Obviously they existed since unlike aether, they have been observed.
>The very thing you are prompting (spacetime) can't be observed
Unrefutable proof that aetherfaggotry is mental illness.

>>14826646
>Obviously they existed since unlike aether, they have been observed.
>Love doesn't exist

>Unrefutable proof that aetherfaggotry is mental illness.
You have no proof of this magical place that doesn't exist. You can't put space in an experiment, it has no properties to be tested (or falsified). You're left with "Distance: the measurement", which still doesn't make it the "thing that is measured". Likewise with time. Time is your standardized measurement used for comparing things that actually do exist, it's a tool for your experiments in the first place. You can't just reify it as a real phenomena/modality/"thing"/object to be put into an experiment. Well you could, but that would make you certifiably retarded as it would be contradictory to even performing an experiment with a time
Combining the two into a fancy description/model is never going to explain shit, it is also never going to make what is allegedly being modeled come into existence. Both space and time are not objects to be discussed in the first place, but that doesn't stop schizo pop-sci weenies from talking about them endlessly.

>"Dude space just curves bro, and I can't even explain how"
Cool story bro. I'm not even going to contend it because it's an accurately described imagination. What meaning it has? Who cares? You probably couldn't explain that either could you?

>"Light has a speed bruh, I swear on my diploma that would be completely worthless were there not actually any evidence for it"
Why of course you would. But you're never actually going to show me proof of it because...well your diploma would be fucking worthless since a large portion of physics is based on this psychosis. You have to believe in "c" because at this point relativity is nothing but a belief system. "c" is basically your original sin.

>>14810059
You wouldn't be able to shitpost without time dilation, since all clocks in orbit have to be programmed to be corrected due to the Earth's space-time dilation.

>>14827072
>Combining the two into a fancy description/model is never going to explain shit, it is also never going to make what is allegedly being modeled come into existence. Both space and time are not objects to be discussed in the first place, but that doesn't stop schizo pop-sci weenies from talking about them endlessly.
Ridding ourselves of the "philosophy" part of natural philosophy is how we got into this mess.

>>14827072
nobody thinks space is a literal substance except aetherfags, so you might wanna stop throwing rocks in glass houses

>>14810059
>op seething, coping and [time] dilating

>>14827125
I came here to shitpost and sneed, and I'm all out of Chuck

>>14827125
It is due to the sagnac effect psued

>>14826646
>>14826621
imagine being too stupid to understand his post. Literal NPC tier subhumans here

>imagine being too stupid to understand his post.
>Literal NPC tier subhumans here

>>14827430
>nobody thinks space is a literal substance except aetherfags
Whoever thinks of space whatsoever is a fucking retard because it's not something to actually be thought about. Bad news for relativity since it's half of the equation of their nonsense.

>so you might wanna stop throwing rocks in glass houses
You might want to actually explain what space is instead of being yet another one of the billions of morons who can sit there and tell me all day about "what it isn't". It's NOT substance...Cool story bro that sure explains a lot.

>>14829666
ok retard

>>14810059
Nuh uh

Haven't read the last 30 to 50 posts, gonna in a bit, wonder if it's good

>>14833621
Pretty good aside from the schizoid relativists.

>>14813070
Yeah well retards still act like the speed of light isn't constant across all reference frames and then take phrases like "time dilation" too literally.

How you can read the OP and call me a retard at the same time is beyond me.

>>14833779
Time dilation happens to matter, not light (?)

>>14834293
No, it happens to light too. Photons don't age at all.

>>14834774
At least according to the model. It's not like you can actually test that.

>>14834791
The obnoxious part about relativity is none of it can be empirically tested. They can massage their models to predict anything post-fact, but setting up an experiment is beyond their power.

>>14835349
What do you mean? Time dillation is an experimentally confirmed phenomena. I was talking about the age of the light which you can't test.

>>14836100
Time dilation: my clock shows bad if go near speed of light

Retards: thatsswhy you cant go faster harr harr

what would a photon "see" if it were capable of doing so

as in, at light speed, wouldn't the entire universe be length contracted into a singular point
is the universe all a singularity to a photon at light speed?
And yet it still has a finite speed

>>14836106
in its "point of view" its instantenously arrived to places. it sees everything from in front, nothing (except ftl particles) from behind but has no time to compute what it saw.

>>14836106
>wouldn't the entire universe be length contracted into a singular point
More like a flat sheet. There are 3 dimensions and only one of those contracts.

>>14836145
>>14836261
ah alright, that makes much more sense

>>14821868
recommend some books to read regarding the subject

>>14836597
https://esotericawakening.com/a-new-concept-of-the-universe-walter-russel

>>14837092
>esotericawakening.com
mmm, credible

>>14836145
people literally believe this

>>14837128
more credible than anything you idiots ever post here

>>14810059
speed through the time dimension of your euclidean 4d reality is proportional to kinetic energy. not hard

So the light from my little flash light travels as fast as the light from the sun. Slows down when going through water then speeds right back up to match the speed of sunlight.
There is no aether but there is quantum foam that has the same properties as.
Mass warps space which is the absence of matter, which makes light travel in a arc.
A gravity wave is something that travels through space which is nothing,like a rock dropped in water which is something. So a wave of water is the same as a wave of nothing. A wave of water isn't A property of the water moving ,the wave is its own property which can move through nothing.

>>14810059
>Clocks just measure the arc length of our world line through real 4D euclidiean space time.
you have ten seconds to explain what the fuck you just wrote

>>14810095
>I put my old clock under water and it started to tick much slower
Water is affecting your clock. Use a waterproof clock.

>I flipped one over once and then picked it up and started shaking it back and forth and back and forth.
That's not a good clock.

>>14838577
He thinks clocks measure proper time. Of course they don't and this has been confirmed over and over.

>>14838389
>Slows down when going through water
Not really, it's not moving any slower, it just takes more time as it's absorbed and re-emmitted by the water molecules. Absorption and emission is not movement. It just seems to be going slower on the macro-level where we can't see it ping pinging back and forth between molecules.

>There is no aether but there is quantum foam that has the same properties as.
No, aether is a proposed medium for light. It turns out light doesn't need a medium. Quantum foam are fluctuations of spacetime in which matter and antimatter are constantly being created (so-called virtual particles). They really have nothing to do with each other.

>Mass warps space which is the absence of matter
No, space is a dimension of the spacetime manifold, which contains plenty of matter.

>A gravity wave is something that travels through space which is nothing
No, see above.

>>14838921
>space is a dimension of the spacetime manifold
Or put another way, space is that thing that separates events which occur at the same time.

>>14838921
>Absorption and emission is not movement.
So why do they say light travels and "has a speed" when it's not actually moving?

>It turns out light doesn't need a medium
>It turns out something travels in nothing
Impossible

>Quantum foam are fluctuations of spacetime in which matter and antimatter are constantly being created (so-called virtual particles).
This sounds like a massive rephrasing/rewording of "aether".

>They really have nothing to do with each other.
"Trust me bro"

>space is a dimension of the spacetime manifold, which contains plenty of matter.
"matter" being "the only stuff measurable and used to reify space as something that does something".

>>14839308
>space is that thing that separates events which occur at the same time.
>You know..the thing!

And it separates these "events" how?

>>14840690
>So why do they say light travels and "has a speed" when it's not actually moving?
It is moving, whenever it's not being absorbed/emitted. Can you ask a question that isn't loaded?

>Impossible
Because?

>This sounds like a massive rephrasing/rewording of "aether".
No, aether is a proposed medium for light.

>"Trust me bro"
Tell me what they have in common.

>"matter" being "the only stuff measurable
No, energy, space, and time are also measurable.

>>You know..the thing!
That's not what he said.

>And it separates these "events" how?
Two events at different locations are separated by space, which you can measure as distance. Do you actualy not understand this or are you pretending to be retarded?

>>14840690
You cannot possibly be this retarded. You would've killed yourself with a fork by now.

>>14840774
>It is moving, whenever it's not being absorbed/emitted.
Is light not an emission?

>Because?
It's a contradiction

>speed of light
>in a vacuum
How can it "be a vacuum" when you have light there, negating the fucking vacuum?

>No, aether is a proposed medium for light.
Well you sound like you're just re-describing it using "quantum foam". A bit misleading, especially when you can't even explain what space actually is that causes light to do what it does.

>Tell me what they have in common.
On is the coping mechanism for the other, based on a null result of some experiment that never proved anything.

>That's not what he said.
So what is the testable "Space" being spoken of? Or is this false reification?

>>14840779
>You cannot possibly be this retarded
You cannot possibly show me a property space has that allows it to "separate events". It's "curved", yet they cannot show how. And no, "distance" is not a property, it's a measurement.

>>14840924
>Is light not an emission?
Yes, it's emitted and moves until it's absorbed. What don't you understand?

>It's a contradiction
How?

>How can it "be a vacuum" when you have light there
Vacuum means no matter. Light is not matter.

>Well you sound like you're just re-describing it using "quantum foam".
No, my description of quantum foam said nothing about a medium for light to movein. It's about creation of virtual particles. Explain how one implies the other.

>you can't even explain what space actually is that causes light to do what it does.
I already explained what space is. Light follows a geodesic in spacetime like any other particle.

>On is the coping mechanism for the other, based on a null result of some experiment that never proved anything.
That doesn't explain what my descriptions have in common. You're just saying they're the same without any justification. One lie down, several more to go.

>So what is the testable "Space" being spoken of?
I explained it and he explained it. Don't ask questions that have already been answered. Respond to the answers.

>You cannot possibly show me a property space has that allows it to "separate events".
Space is 3 dimensions of the spacetime manifold. The dimensions are what separate events. For example, if two identical dinners take place at 8pm EST, in the same room, on tables that are next to each other along the equator and have the same height, then they are only separated by one dimension of space (along the equator). You can measure this separation as the distance between the tables.

>>14837092
walter is more of an elementals attitude.
I raise you "When Stars Look Down" by George W. Van Tassel which deals more with the fundamental interaction of black white red and yellow, the four quadrant representation of the magneto electric phenomena ie space time.

>>14838921
>it's absorbed and re-emmitted by the water molecules
That's not actually the mechanism of light transmission through media.

>>14841578
It actually is.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/133-physics/general-physics/general-questions/832-is-the-speed-of-light-constant-beginner#:~:text=Light%20moves%20slower%20through%20denser,the%20light%20gets%20re%2Demitted.

>>14841625
This has been known to be false for a long time. It doesn't even make logical sense. The article you linked is some astronomer doing answering questions in a very casual manner. You shouldn't take any of it as truth (especially because it's wrong).

>>14841656
How does it not make sense? This is 4chan and I'm talking to a retard who doesn't even understand what time and space are, so a simplified explanation is fine. I'm not going to teach him wave physics, but ultimately the answer is the same. The wave is slowed down by its interaction with the particles in the medium, secondary waves are emitted by the particles that cause destructive interference and changes the phase of the wave.

>>14841040
>Yes, it's emitted and moves until it's absorbed. What don't you understand?
The part where you can only tell me what it does when it's emitted and absorbed. You can't actually tell me what it does when it's allegedly "traveling" a specific speed without first telling me the properties of the MEDIUM it propagates through that allow that to happen in the first place (for how could you?)

>Vacuum means no matter
It means "no thing whatsoever". So how is light there in it? Because you redefined a word to your liking?

>No, my description of quantum foam said nothing about a medium for light to movein.
Just as only ONE theory of the aether claims "luminiferous". The one that was disproved with a null result that is.

>I already explained what space is.
You have described what space is using everything else...but space, leading me to believe that you're just trying to define a privation you yourself lack the "explanation" for (because it lacks the properties for you to define in the first place).

>Light follows a geodesic in spacetime like any other particle.
>[description that doesn't explain anything because it uses false reification for the model]
Cool story bro. Doesn't actually explain how light functions

>That doesn't explain what my descriptions have in common.
It does. It explains why you're using them in the first place. You believe there's no such thing as an aether, and the only proof you can show for it is description centered around a null result.

>Space is 3 dimensions of the spacetime manifold
Which is why I'm saying it has no properties. You're saying a Cartesian coordinate system is what influences objects. No, it measures them. Universe isn't extruding shit from nothing on an axis a like a 3d program.

>The dimensions are what separate events.
Measurements do no separate events. They describe the separation.

>you can measure this separation
This does not tell me what caused the separation, it tells me "separation" and that's it.

>>14841670
It's a wrong model of light transmission that only causes you problem down the line if you take it as true. Don't teach it.
At least with a Newtonian model of motion it provides you with very accurate description of motion for non-relativistic speeds but in this case the "absorption-emission" model only serves to "explain" why light does what it does but makes no accurate predictions about anything. It violates anything we know about absorption and emission of light and basically models transparent media as a laser gain medium.

>>14841694
[math]x^2 + x^2 = z^2[/math] What causes this?

>>14841965
Was supposed to be [math]y^2[/math] obviously. Too early in the morning.

>>14841695
>It's a wrong model of light transmission that only causes you problem down the line if you take it as true.
Don't care. It's fine for this context.

>>14842249
It matters in this context because you are trying to make the point that when light is traveling through a medium it's actually just moving normally through vacuum between absorption-emission events. You are arguing with a retard countering him with something that's agreed to be wrong.

>>14841694
>The part where you can only tell me what it does when it's emitted and absorbed.
No, I told you that it moves when it's not being emitted or absorbed. ESL?

>You can't actually tell me what it does when it's allegedly "traveling" a specific speed without first telling me the properties of the MEDIUM it propagates through that allow that to happen in the first place
This is just a circular argument, assuming what you were asked to explain. Why does light need a medium to move? Movement is just a change in location over time. That requires space and time, not a medium. You're avoiding the question again, so I can only conclude you lied about there being a "contradiction."

>It means "no thing whatsoever".
No, pick up a dictionary: https://www.britannica.com/science/vacuum-physics

>Because you redefined a word to your liking?
Amazing projection. You're the one redefining words.

>Just as only ONE theory of the aether claims "luminiferous".
You've been claiming this whole time light needs a medium to move. You're agreeing this is not aether?

>You have described what space is using everything else...but space
Right, that's how a description works. A description using the concept you're describing would be circular and useless.

>description that doesn't explain anything because it uses false reification for the model
What false reification?

>Doesn't actually explain how light functions
It describes how light moves and even predicts it to an incredible degree of accuracy. Something you'll never do because you're stuck in dogmatic preconceived beliefs and nonsensical semantics.

>It does. It explains why you're using them in the first place.
It's just gibberish you made up, and doesn't even explain what the descriptions have in common. If I describe a dog and a banana for the same reason, that doesn't mean my description of a dog is similar to a banana.

>>14842327
yo anon
nice arguments

now tell me, what happens after space has no qualities? what happens wen u relaize time has no qualities? whats use it to u scentificaly? i got an answer and wonder what do u see.

>>14842304
It's fine for this context. No need to go into wave physics.

>>14842810
Have you tried not writing like a faggot?

>>14841965
>>14841974
A mathematician.

>>14842327
>I told you that it moves when it's not being emitted or absorbed.
What you say and what the actual case is are two different matters then. No wave, no light and wave signifies hysteresis (due to a medium). Why else would it be a "wave" (of what since a wave is what something does). What is causing the hysteresis?

>>14842327
>Why does light need a medium to move?
*to be induced to exist.

>Movement is just a change in location over time
And "point a and b" don't move when light is induced to exist between them. Why would they move? The medium is already there.

>That requires space and time, not a medium.
space and time are excellent descriptions. The medium is the only way you're going to explain "how the light does that". It's like repeating "the grass is green" over and over again like it explains how it got that way. Any bum can describe.

>No, pick up a dictionary
Are you really trying to argue that a vacuum can be defined? You're delusional.

>so I can only conclude you lied about there being a "contradiction."
It's a vacuum or it isn't. There's "light" or there's "fuck all because I can't put it in an experiment". Don't present an absurd contradictory definition of a vacuum and not expect to be questioned.

>You're the one redefining words.
From nothing comes nothing you retard.

>You've been claiming this whole time light needs a medium to move
I have? Where?

>You're agreeing this is not aether?
Which theory of the aether?

>Right, that's how a description works
You lack the explanation. Things that don't exist in reality, even pure imagination can indeed be "described". Now explain it.

>What false reification
Space and Time as something that does something. Space has no properties and Time has no ontology. Good luck with your psychosis.

>It describes how light moves
But it never proves light moves

>preconceived beliefs and nonsensical semantics.
>Like space having properties and Time existing.

>>14843089
>Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>14841694
>You believe there's no such thing as an aether, and the only proof you can show for it is description centered around a null result.
I don't have to show proof that something doesn't exist, you have to show proof that it does. You won't.

>Which is why I'm saying it has no properties.
That doesn't imply it has no properties.

>You're saying a Cartesian coordinate system is what influences objects.
No, a coordinate system is just an arbitrary representation of spacetime. The laws of physics are independent from the coordinate system. Cartesian coordinates, spherical coordinates, whatever, do not have any influence, they describe the same events in spacetime.

>Universe isn't extruding shit from nothing on an axis a like a 3d program.
No one said this.

>Measurements do no separate events.
A dimension is not a measurement, it's what you measure along. If I say City A is 3 miles North of City B, that's a measure (distance) along a dimension of space (North-South). Get it?

>This does not tell me what caused the separation
Nonsensical question. Causality is a relationship between separate events. You're treating separation as its own event? Let's look at a simple example: a number line is one dimensional. What do you think "causes" two points on the number line to be separate?

>>14842810
>now tell me, what happens after space has no qualities?
It has qualities, curvature, 3-dimensionality, local density. We're back to loaded questions since you have no response to anything I said.

>whats use it to u scentificaly?
Gee, I don't know, the fact that it's used in literally every successful scientific theory?

>>14843142
>I don't have to show proof that something doesn't exist, you have to show proof that it does. You won't.
My sentiments on "space" and "time".

>That doesn't imply it has no properties.
Okay. Show me one then.

>No, a coordinate system is just an arbitrary representation of spacetime
So "what is space" now that we've gotten the "model of space" laid out of the way?

>they describe the same events in spacetime.
"Yes". So what is space/spacetime? You do realize that when you use the term "spacetime" you are specifically referring to the name of the crackpots model right? As in "spacetime" is part of those measures in which you spoke that have no influence.

>No one said this.
So what is space? You are using the same type of modeling system to "chart" this place which...goes unexplained.

>A dimension is not a measurement, it's what you measure along
What is this "dimension" then? What properties does it have?

>If I say City A is 3 miles North of City B, that's a measure (distance) along a dimension of space (North-South). Get it?
You're just reifying it right out of thin air and you can't even see how. You're delusional. What properties does "dimension" have? How does that explain anything? It's just another circular description.

>Nonsensical question
No. You're tilted. I'm going to ask it again and elaborate more. How is the "Separation" caused? You know what a "cause" is right? Stop describing the thing. Explain it. How does the separation happen?

>You're treating separation as its own event?
??? You are.

>Let's look at a simple example: a number line is one dimensional. What do you think "causes" two points on the number line to be separate?
A rock ape with a graphite stick and some parchment.

>>14843089
>Why else would it be a "wave"
It's not a wave, it's a wave function. It has wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior.

>to be induced to exist.
You're deflecting again. Why is a medium required for movement?

>And "point a and b" don't move when light is induced to exist between them.
No one said they do.

>The medium is the only way you're going to explain "how the light does that"
So far you have provided zero evidence of a medium for light or explained why you think it's necessary. You just keep repeating over and over that it is. This is just religious dogma, not science.

>It's like repeating "the grass is green" over and over again like it explains how it got that way.
Ask a question that actually makes sense and I'll answer it. Stop whining about your own incompitence.

>Are you really trying to argue that a vacuum can be defined?
You attempted to claim a vacuum is defined as "no thing whatsoever." When you realized that's not the definition, suddenly vacuum can't be defined. lmao. A vacuum is defined as a space without matter. Get over it.

>It's a vacuum or it isn't.
It's a vacuum with light in it. You could have saved yourself from a lot of embarrassment if you just looked up the definition of the term you're using. Now you've made a fool of yourself by claiming a contradiction where none exists. And you're doubling down on it. Ever been diagnosed with mental illness or a personality disorder?

>From nothing comes nothing
That's a good description of your posts.

>>14843089
>I have? Where?
Oh wow, more revisionist history.
>No medium, no light.
>This "vacuum" couldn't exist and if it were a true vacuum then there would be no "wave", no energy, no medium for light to propagate in.
>>It turns out light doesn't need a medium
>>It turns out something travels in nothing
>Impossible
>You can't actually tell me what it does when it's allegedly "traveling" a specific speed without first telling me the properties of the MEDIUM it propagates through that allow that to happen in the first place
>The medium is the only way you're going to explain "how the light does that"

>Which theory of the aether?
The medium for light. Why are you pretending to not know what this discussion is about?

>You lack the explanation.
Explanation of what?

>Things that don't exist in reality, even pure imagination can indeed be "described".
I'm talking about things that exist in reality, that are proven to exist by physics. You're talking about some dogma that denies physics. You will just keep asking vague, loaded questions because you have no knowledge and don't want any. You want to live in your bubble where you can pretend to know reality without doing the work of studying it. Pathetic.

>Space and Time as something that does something
How is this false?

>Space has no properties and Time has no ontology.
How did you determine this? It sounds like dogma.

>But it never proves light moves
But it does. The models in which light moves make successful predictions. That's how you empirically prove things.

>>Like space having properties and Time existing.
Not preconceived, determined by empirical testing. Not nonsensical, prefecture coherent and makes good predictions. You lose.

>>14843281
>My sentiments on "space" and "time".
Every successful scientific theory using space and time is more than enough proof. Your response? Oh, you have none.

>Okay. Show me one then.
Already did. Show me proof of aether.

>So "what is space"
Another question that was already answered. What a waste of time.
Respond to the answer, don't repeat the question.

>So what is space/spacetime?
Spacetime is the 4D manifold in which events lie.

>As in "spacetime" is part of those measures
No.

>You are using the same type of modeling system to "chart" this place
A place can be located within space by describing it by coordinates. But the coordinate system is arbitrary. You can use different systems to describe the same place. Where is the contradiction or circularity you imply?

>What is this "dimension" then?
It's the "directions" along which you can make measurements. Why do you only need to measure one length to describe a line but you need two lengths to describe a rectangle? Because they have different dimensionality.

>What properties does it have?
Nonsensical question. Properties like length are measured along a dimension.

>You're just reifying it right out of thin air
It's the opposite, completely concrete. There is no way to avoid the 3-dimensionality of space. Go ahead and try to describe a location in space with less than 3 coordinates, using whatever system you like. You'll always need three. Why is that? Shouldn't the number of coordinates be as arbitrary as the system itself? No, it's determined by the topology of the space itself. It's real.

>How is the "Separation" caused?
I already explained how this is nonsensical. Respond to my explanation instead of asking the question again. Don't have a tantrum.

>You know what a "cause" is right?
A cause is an event separate from the effect, so you're asking for a separate event that causes events to be separated. Pure nonsense.

>>14843281
>Stop describing the thing.
I won't stop describing reality accurately. Get over it.

>Explain it.
Explain what? You have to ask a coherent question to get an answer. Treating the separation between events as an event is not coherent. Try again.

>??? You are.
Where?

>A rock ape with a graphite stick and some parchment.
None of those exist in my example. Try again.

>>14843157
ah shoot i asked the wrong guy. >>14843281 dude the question was to u.

i am joining the debate
i am on ether side
>>14843427
>Spacetime is the 4D manifold in which events lie.
Can there be multiple 4D manifold, interacting with one another ? or is there just one manifold and everything happens in it? if i show you a useful physical model in which multi manifolds are used effectively to arrive at a solution, would you say its just a formality or there is essence to those multiple 4D manifolds.
Is the manifold you describe a mathematical abstraction or something lets say "real" ? ( I know this question is kind of murky and in precise )
>It's the "directions" along which you can make measurements.
Are those dimensions real ? do they have any physical property ?
do we agree that we are speaking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_quantities ?

>>14843858
selfposting
general campiang title: through the magento electric back to space and time
my current plan of attack:
1. establish "4D" mambo jambo in meters and seconds
2. bring down the understanding that we have discovered added dimensions to reality ie, that the derivatives of changing space and time cause electro magnetic phenomena
3. show that in electro magnetic side of reality those 4D mambo jumbo assumption fall down
4. bring back the fall of assumptions into meter and secs, thus breaking the mind of the 4D believer
5.???
6.profit

need gods blessing to accomplish the 4th step

>>14843866
selfcheked and posted
The main fall of the 4D mambo jumbo will come once the understanding of "the other side" will dawn on the fragile mind of the believer.
Once he has to face the reality of per meter, of per second dimensions he shall come to the light.
You see, the 4D mambo jambo reality sees and acknowledges the measure of meter and second but not of the per meter and per second.
Once the per meter and per second stand on equal physical reality as the meter and the second to the 4D mind. Then we shall see him seethe and curl in his 4D mambo jambo, trying to explain shit. But till then folks, we still got ways to go.

The elephant in the room here is that our current physics has no concept of the present moment or directionality of time, whereas our whole subjective existence is permeates around time. This is a huge divide. From a physics perspective photons don’t move at all. They exist in a space time that remains unchanged. Somehow humans travel through this space time observing one moment at a time. Unfortunately, while on this journey, we have created a physics model of the universe that cannot isolate the present without our subjective intervention. It can only describe everything at once, in effect. So the short answer is that photons don’t move and it is us that is moving in time. From a physics modeling perspective there is no short answer to the real question, which is: “why do humans move forward in time

>>14843920
>whole subjective existence is permeates around time
you might not see it in our current turbulent times ( we are much focused on linearity ) , but most of previous humans i believe were more concerned, and here you speak truth >around , with time cycles .
once you step into the per cycle thinking, u come to see the door behind the big elephant in the room, and the door leads into an infinite universe of physics with no finality. physics will never capture the infinity of nature. it shall remain a useful tool but nothing like the (()) trying to make out of it, a solution to all.
>why do humans move forward in time
somehow in our thoughts we can move backward in time
and once you realize the cyclic nature of any event, it opens up to you on a deeper level
please do consider that algebraic manipulations are just a childs play for the mind compared to the way a fugue moves your mind algebraically
( i know it sounds rubbish )

>>14843934 continued
please put first track on repeat and try to understand the ideas expressed the same way you would set up your mind to understand a lines of algebraic manipulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OUfBDIGhw

>>14843920
>photons don’t move and it is us that is moving in time
dope, brings thoughts of the "ain sof or" of the kabalists. ain-sof-or is no end light. light with out end. the dwelling place of god.

>>14838904
Ok but how has it been disproven? The fact that clocks measure arc length makes intuitive sense.

>the speed of light is just a conversion factor
>There is no maximum speed, only the illusion of a maximum speed
>time dialation happens because the measurement of proper time of two world lines is different.

It also neatly explains length contraction. It happens because world lines pass at an angle to each other. Creating the illusion of length contraction.

>>14843858
>Can there be multiple 4D manifold, interacting with one another ?
Anything is technically possible. The better question is why would you think there are?

>if i show you a useful physical model in which multi manifolds are used effectively to arrive at a solution, would you say its just a formality or there is essence to those multiple 4D manifolds.
If it made better predictions than a single manifold.

>Is the manifold you describe a mathematical abstraction or something lets say "real" ?
It's as real as falling when you step off a building. It's as real as needing 3 coordinates to describe a location. I'm not aware of any other method of determining what's real than empirical testing.

>Are those dimensions real ?
Yes, they are inherent to the topology of the manifold we inhabit.

>do they have any physical property ?
They are physical properties.

>>14844236
>Ok but how has it been disproven?
A clock only measures proper time of something if it's comoving. A stationary clock doesn't measure the proper time of an something with relative velocity. That's time dilation.

>>the speed of light is just a conversion factor
>>There is no maximum speed, only the illusion of a maximum speed
It's the conversion factor between time units and space units, which makes it the maximum speed. If something traveled faster than c then that could lead to a negative time interval between cause and effect, i.e. causality-violating time travel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

>>time dialation happens because the measurement of proper time of two world lines is different.
That's not really an explanation, just a description of how to measure time dilation. It's also an admittal that time dilation exists

>>14843313
>It's not a wave, it's a wave function. It has wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior.
Cool description. And it is "wave-like" how? A wave is not something, it's what something else does.

>Why is a medium required for movement?
>movement
Again with implying the movement with no proof. Please substantiate your claims.

>No one said they do.
So what is traveling then? It cannot be an electromagnetic phenomena otherwise

>So far you have provided zero evidence of a medium for light or explained why you think it's necessary.
Because there is no other way. It wouldn't exist otherwise.

>You just keep repeating over and over that it is
You imply it's "wave-like". So there must be a medium.

>You attempted to claim a vacuum is defined
"No thing whatsoever". It is literally no specific thing, and yet still a subject matter spoken of to be referred to as "thing to be spoken of". Forgive me if that comes off as disingenuous, but that's why I elaborated later on.

>It's a vacuum with light in it
A contradiction.

>>14843347
>more revisionist history.
>quotes all the things physics proved.

>The medium for light.
Oh that theory of the aether. No. Now which aether theory do you want to move onto next?

>How is this false?
Neither have properties to perform a scientific experiment on. One is purely conceptual, technically both are.

>How did you determine this?
I'm not the one claiming they exist with no proof whatsoever other than a description of them existing.

>But it does.
It proves the medium induction has a maximum rate.

>>14843427
>Show me proof of aether.
Light induced to exist. Magnets.

>Nonsensical question.
Because you can't answer it?
"What properties does space have"
"How is the separation caused"

If you can't answer these then it must be imaginary.

>A cause is an event separate from the effect
relational to the effect, moron.

>>14843433
>I won't stop describing
Then it's pointless talking to you. You can't explain shit.

What if a photon has mass? So small that we can't measure it with anything we have. That would explain why it travels in a arc around mass (Gravitational lensing ) much better than warped space (since no one in this thread can say what space is) other than part of the spacetime manifold which is merely a mathematical model.

>>14845747
Photons can't have mass because that would break the gauge symmetry of the electric field.

>>14845747
>would explain (...) much better
Would it? Do you have a complete model that works better than General Relativity?

>>14845747
>since no one in this thread can say what space is
space is that thing which separates events that occur at the same time. you measure it with a ruler.

>>14845827
>would explain (...) much better
>Would it? Do you have a complete model that >works better than General Relativity?
No I don't, GR is lacking though, if you can't really define Spacs other than distance, separation of events, or its part of space time manifold.
If light waves and gravity waves travel through it ,waves are a property of something not something by itself. Sound Wave through air,water wave through water. No air no sound wave,no water no water wave.

>>14845883
>light waves
don't really exist. light is made up of photons which are excited states of the electric field.
>gravity waves
perturbations of the geometry of spacetime.

>>14845859
>since no one in this thread can say what space is
>space is that thing which separates events that >occur at the same time. you measure it with a ruler.
Ok,How do you warp or bend something that separates events that occur at the same time?

>>14845883
You don't need to know what exactly space is on a fundamental level for the model to work. And it works fine. It's not "lacking" if it doesn't explain something it doesn't need to.
Might as well say that Newton's laws of motion are lacking because they don't explain what the Higgs field is. A bit silly, isn't it?

>>14845883
>Sound Wave through air,water wave through water. No air no sound wave,no water no water wave.
You are just assuming that because some waves are analogous to other waves it means they be the same. You can make analogies between a wave in electric field and a sound wave in air but unless you show that they must share the property of traveling through a medium then the point is moot. So to use the analogy to prove your original point you must prove your original point in the first place. Might as well abandon the wave analogy completely because it doesn't help your argument.

>>14845974
Easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor

>>14845568
Time dilation and the speed of light are just artifacts of how we measure time (or how our physical laws work).
It's obvious that if we assume
equivalence of time and the 3 spatial dimensions (with the exception of a minus sign), then the only way our laws of physics can work without favoring one dimension over the other is if we assume our clocks measure the arc length of the 4D world line.

My fucking point is if we talk about time as the 4 dimension then "time dialation" does not exist. It's only real in a sense that our measured time is defined on the arc length of the world line.

Same thing with the speed of light. An outside observer may conclude that it is impossible to pass the speed of light, which is correct if we define speed as distance/measured time.
But if we instead define speed as spatial distance divided by the actual distance through the time dimension, then the speed limit of our universe is in fact infinite (photons for example).

>>14845670
>And it is "wave-like" how?
Reflection, refraction, diffraction, interference, wavelength, frequency, etc.

>A wave is not something, it's what something else does.
It's both.

>Again with implying the movement with no proof.
Another deflection. You claimed that a medium is required for light to propagate. Why can't you explain your claim? Is it because you have no idea what you're talking about?

>So what is traveling then?
Light.

>Because there is no other way.
The other way is without a medium. You were supposed to explain why you think a medium is necessary. You keep deflecting, so I'll chalk this up as another lie until you show it isn't.

>It wouldn't exist otherwise.
How does that follow?

>You imply it's "wave-like". So there must be a medium.
Why?

>"No thing whatsoever".
You just said a vacuum can't be defined. Make up your mind. It can and your definition is wrong, so not only are you contradicting yourself, both contradictory positions are wrong. You're a clown.

>A contradiction.
A vacuum means devoid of matter and light is not matter. No contradiction there.

Ever been diagnosed with mental illness or a personality disorder?

>>14845670
>>quotes all the things physics proved.
Physics heavy proved any of your gibberish, why did you perturbed you had not said light requires a medium to move?

>No.
Then why are you claiming light requires a medium?

>Neither have properties to perform a scientific experiment on.
Literally every scientific experiment is performed on space and time. You couldn't be more wrong. Now answer the question: how is it false that space and time are things that do something?

>I'm not the one claiming they exist with no proof whatsoever
The proof is that every successful scientific theory uses them. And you deflected again. How did you determine that time and space "have no ontology?"

>It proves the medium induction has a maximum rate
There is no evidence for or need for a medium. The models work perfectly fine without it. Why do you think a medium is necessary? You can't answer this can you? It's dogma.

>>14845670
>Light induced to exist. Magnets.
How does this prove aether?

>Because you can't answer it?
No, because properties like length are measured along a dimension.
>"What properties does space have"
Already answered. Respond to the answer instead of repeating the question.

>"How is the separation caused"
Nonsensical question. A cause is an event separate from the effect, so you're asking for a separate event that causes events to be separated.

>relational to the effect, moron.
OK? That doesn't even contradict what I said.

Thanks for conceding to every point I made in that post.

>Then it's pointless talking to you.
I agree, you have no point.

>>14810059
there is no such thing as space time and each discrete wave of matter is a three dimensional hologram which we percieve and stufy, these so-called "particles are multidimensional structures as the higher dimensions are required for the lower ones, it's non-hierarchical. that means their spatial relation is a static one. ah but what about counter-space, awwwww shit.

>>14846397
no

studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

>>14823420
he's talking about particles

also quantum entanglement doesn't do ftl information transfer idiot

>>14846210
>Time dilation and the speed of light are just artifacts of how we measure time (or how our physical laws work).
The same could be said of literally everything.

>My fucking point is if we talk about time as the 4 dimension then "time dialation" does not exist.
That doesn't follow. GR predicts it and it's observed. You're saying GR does not treat time as the 4th dimension of spacetime?

>It's only real in a sense that our measured time is defined on the arc length of the world line.
So it's real.

>But if we instead define speed as spatial distance divided by the actual distance through the time dimension, then the speed limit of our universe is in fact infinite (photons for example).
No.

>>14846771
yes it does you fucking imbecile, it is instant mouth breathing fucktard

>>14846771
fucking morons on this board never know wtf you are talking about even on the most basic level any child can jewgle. This board is laughing stock confederacy of morons. Why are you even in a thread where you dont know jack shit about the thread topic acting like you do? Seriously kys worthless sack of shit evolutionary dead end

>>14846771
>he's talking about particles
What do you think is being "entangled" in QE moron? Watermelons? Holy fucking shit you are one stupid motherfucker

>>14847986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

>>14848064
>wikepedia
you are literally retarded. no wonder you are a moron, you get your information from other morons

>>14848078
Shoulda read the article. Sad.

>>14847993
>schizo reads a bunch of retarded popci and chimps out