/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14984046
Because it is so. Nowadays there is no explanations possible and probably never will be.

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate?
Because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.
>Why does the speed of light have to be the same in all reference frames?
That's how the experiments have turned out.

>>14984046
Asking the wrong question - the speed of light is the same in all reference frames because that's the fundamental nature of reality. The interesting stuff is all the phenomena that result from that nature.

It's like asking "why is momentum conserved"? The answer is "because it is" and what is interesting is the consequences of that (like Newton's Laws).

>>14984101
>>14984117
It's true because... It just is ok?

>>14984046
Much like dark matter, it makes the equations work if time dilates.

Time dilates because time is trans.

>>14984046
because I will it.

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate
Because it's heckin' valid, okay?

>>14984126
Yes, exactly. Like all physics.

>>14984126
Because that's the fundamental nature of the universe we live in. You're hitting "but why?" bedrock here - first principles territory.

Why is energy conserved? Because it is. And everything that follows with regards to work and energy is a consequence of that.
Why is the limit at which information can propagate the same for all frames of reference? Because it is. And everything that follows with regards to how matter and energy relate and how electric and magnetic fields relate and why Maxwell's Laws are what they are and so on are a consequences of that.
Why does 1 plus 1 equal 2? Because it does.

>>14984126
Not a single case yet observed that breaks this law. When you find one you can write a paper about it.

>>14984046
this shit makes no sense
if i'm on the rocket ship, the earth moves away from me at the speed of light
I should get old and the earthling should remain young

>>14984046
It doesn't,op. And it's never been proven. It's just something Einstein said.

>>14984046
Before Einstein, time would just cope and seethe. Then he invented dilation, and now that's all time does.

>>14984046
The question should be, why is space time described by Minkowski geometry (ignoring gravity)

/sci/ggers never talk about how c is empirically an anisotropic velocity in spatial dimensions. Why? Because they intuit it to be objectively false despite having an extremely limited dataset contrary to the mountain of evidence saying otherwise, and some refuse to grapple with the idea at all. They'll shriek that you're a pseud and retard until their fingers have been typed to the bone and their blood vessels have long burst.

The best part is that c is not anisotropic at all, but you can torture /sci/ggers all day with the fact that they are incapable of proving that it is isotropic, and that the massive amount of evidence DOES imply that it is. The real point I'm making is that only a scarce number of people are willing to say that we assume light to work a certain way, and that we actually are still not certain at all. No, 99.9% of the mind militia will march on and diligently dictate dogma because big brained boy said something sophisticated simply.

>>14984212
You physicists really believe that the reason something is true is we haven’t found a counter example

>>14984655
What does anisotropic mean in this context?

>>14984657
How else would you test how reality works? That's literally the scientific method.

>>14984657
Only for instrumentalists

>>14984101
>Because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.
Bullshit, this is just a cope invented to explain away michelson-morley results that proved the planet isn't ot moving and therefore flat (or some other explanation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLEhw7upzFE

>>14984649
associahedra

>>14984709
Why are you talking about a 135yr old result? A hell of a lot more experimental tests confirming the exact same result have been performed since then.

>>14984716
Hmm could you elaborate?

>>14984657
Yes. What else?

>>14984749
That’s like saying the Riemann hypothesis is true because we haven’t found a counter example

>>14984753
It's almost as if physics isn't the same as maths.

>>14984757
It’s almost as if “truth” and what is true doesn’t depend on what you majored in in college

>>14984780
Wow, that's deep. Go build us a free energy generator while you're at it.

>>14984794
I think that’s your job as an engineer though? Like how a mathematician’s job is to study connections between number theory and geometry, etc? Either way, admittedly neither of those alone tells us a whole lot about “truth”. However, saying something is true just because it’s true, is stupid, and that’s essentially what you’ve done.

>>14984738
yes, i could

>>14984818
Would you be willing to do so?

>>14984803
Well unfortunately for you that's how the universe works and no one in the real world cares about your "truth"

>>14984827
1. What truth? I didn’t say any “truth”
2. Yea that’s how the universe works, so it is certainly part of the truth. What is your point exactly?

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate?
Because Space and Time are adjoined into one entity and gravity warps space-time which can cause objects to move in space towards a center of gravity, or the motion of objects to warp in terms of time.

>Why does the speed of light have to be the same in all reference frames?
I forget but there was a really good proof of it that somebody already made. I think it has to do with the observed laws of electromagnetism, which is relevant because that's the category which light falls under.

>>14984844
> I think it has to do with the observed laws of electromagnetism
This is correct. When you work through Maxwell's equations you can show they have a constant wave velocity independent of the reference frame. It was what gave Einstein the idea for special relativity. However all that does is switch the question of why is the speed of light constant to why are Maxwell's equations true.

>>14984046
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

>>14984657
Functionally, yes.

>>14984844
>Because Space and Time are adjoined into one entity
if thats true sending reflections back in time is as simple as sending reflections back in space.

https://youtu.be/Qd77OXWC1eg

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate?
It doesn't.
>Why does the speed of light have to be the same in all reference frames?
It isn't.

>>14984922
but Einstein said so! GPS!

>>14984909
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The dimension of time can only be traversed in one direction.

>>14984922
It does and is

>>14984922
take your meds

>>14984929
and *it is

>>14984924
>2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The dimension of time can only be traversed in one direction.uh - b-b-b-b-buh muh spays tym buh muh Eynstyn, muh mynkouski spays muh general relatyvity!

>>14984930
I won't, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

>>14984922
1) Special Relativity is also a classical theory so I don't understand that point at all.

2) That pic is just a standard space-time diagram and relies on the fact c is a constant and v can't exceed it. So in otherwords it needs SR to be true for the equation to be true. Brilliant.

>>14984942
>1) Special Relativity is also a classical theory
No, it's not. It absolutely abandons the classical emission model for light (source-independent, observer dependent) which is what we observe for every other classical type of wave (fluids, sound, etc).

>2) That pic is just a standard space-time diagram
It's literally not. The x and y axes both represent position.

>and relies on the fact c is a constant
The speed of sound is also constant. That doesn't mean you can't exceed it.

>>14984948
Are you retarded? The speed of light is a fundamental constant. The “speed of sound” is just the wave speed in a given medium. They are on completely different levels.

>>14984955
>Are you retarded? The speed of light is a fundamental constant. The “speed of sound” is just the wave speed in a given medium. They are on completely different levels.
Proof?

>>14984962
Those are definitions, within particular physical theories. Look them up if dumpy don’t know them.

>>14984975
if *you don’t know them. Sorry, autocorrect somehow

>>14984975
>Those are definitions, within particular physical theories.
I don't care about theories and definitions. I care about facts and experiments.

>Look them up if dumpy don’t know them.
You're the one who thinks SR is classical and doesn't know what a space-time diagram is.

>>14984983
Okay then look up the experiments lmao

>>14984986
>Okay then look up the experiments lmao
The experiments all support the classical emission model of light.

>>14984983
Anything that isn't quantum is classical.

>>14984983
Also, what is a space time diagram, if not a diagram of space time? Seems pretty straightforward lmao

>>14984989
Wrong.

>>14984989
>Anything that isn't quantum is classical.
don't make up your own definitions retard. relativity and QM are modern physics.

>>14984990
>Also, what is a space time diagram, if not a diagram of space time? Seems pretty straightforward lmao
You'd think.

>>14984046
It's actually not true. I was testing this the other day with my friend. We both used stopwatches, and I ran as fast as I could. I'm sure you can guess the outcome. A lot of people in the science field these days are basically just religious wingnuts.

>>14984994
That's the actual definition numnuts. Christ, you're a fucking retard.

>>14984994
> classical theory refers to theories of physics that do not use the quantisation paradigm, which includes classical mechanics and relativity.

>>14984988
How does that translate to “SR is bs”. Please elaborate

>>14985004
Here you go.

>>14984046
Real science is about making measurements and then explaining the implications of those measurements. So there is no "why" the speed of light has to be constant in all reference frames; it simply just is. But as a logical consequence, spacetime must contract as an object approaches the speed of light, or else the universe would not be self-consistent. And indeed, experimental evidence shows that time does indeed dial 8.

>>14985011
An actual source, cool. Thank you, I’ll look into this

>>14985011
Refute them all these then: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

>>14985025
He did. Read the paper.

>>14985028
kek

>>14984117
>It's like asking "why is momentum conserved"? The answer is "because it is"

That's a really poor example. Momentum is conserved because the laws of physics don't vary with location, and so by Noether's theorem, you have to have conservation laws. It's a deep result that can equivalently come from a couple of different areas of mathematics.

>>14984749
Would you accept if we prove a counterexample must exist, but we can't provide it exactly or, in even more extreme cases, the counterexample is strictly unknowable. Because this is something that happens in math

>>14984046
Time is a tranny and Einstein helped it transition

>>14985025
>baez
lmao

>>14984869
>>14984844
The thinking is backwards here - c being a constant is the fundamental principle at work and that leads to Maxwell's equations having the form that they do.

>>14984199
There's likely "reasons" for these, though. As in, "if it weren't so, things would be too fucked for thought to evolve," or similar.
>Why is energy conserved?
Otherwise you'd get a runaway energy situation and we'd all be whatever quark-plasma is called.
>Why is the limit at which information can propagate the same for all frames of reference?
I'm sure there's some "everything's fucked" outcome if this isn't the case, but I'm having a hard time working through the gears.
>Why does 1 plus 1 equal 2?
How are you going to have rational thought in a universe that lacks rational relationships?

>>14984199
>Because that's the fundamental nature of the universe we live in
The fact that theories with classical time and space exist that are equivalent to both relativity and quantum mechanics disproves this statement, so it is merely dogma.

>>14984046
>Why
>Why
Wrong way to start these questions if you want empirical evidence.

>>14985011
then how come QFT works?
How come the results predicted by the standard model work?
They all assume Lorentzian metric structure?
Coincidence?

Im not sold on this

>>14985016
You should "look in" to actually studying some physics instead

>>14985011
> It assumes an absolute reference frame for a stationary aether
Page 32

I don't see where in the paper you've made this assumption.

You can lorentz boost into other inertial frames and you will find the same results as in your analysis.

In otherwords, what you have is consistent with special relativtity.

What is one equation that contradicts special relativity.

I think you're analysis is good, but it is consistent with special relativity.

You have a section on predictions but there is nothing concrete. Sorry It's very ethereal. You dont show how it's dependent on source. You don't show isotropy. You don't show how rotations affect things.

Predictions 4 & 5 are the same as special relativity.

>>14991108
>theories with classical time and space
holy fuck I can tell you haven't had to sit through and read Peskin & Schroeder, what a dense book.

Tong is a saviour

Tell me one thing you know about QM or GR

>>14991208
Your personal investment in the theory does not disprove a correct statement.

>>14991318
Tell me which theories are equivalent to QM and GR

>>14991378
SR:
Lorentz Ether Theory (Physical Lorentz contraction, offshoot of Lorentz's original conception of the Lorentz transformation)
Doppler theory (Voigt's original idea before Lorentz)

Evidence in favor of the latter:
The Prandtl-Glauert transformation in aerodynamics.
Aerodynamical analogs of spacetime (SR applied to air where c = speed of sound).

GR:
General Lorentz Ether Theory (LET extended to GR)
Refraction (Optical-Mechanical analogy to GR)

QM:
de Broglie-Bohm (Pilot wave theory, offshoot of Schroedinger's original conception of his wave mechanics)
Edward Nelson's Stochastic Quantum Mechanics (Schroedinger's equation derived from Newtonian mechanics + Brownian motion in an ideal fluid)

QED:
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SI extended to QED)

Bonus, Maxwell's equations:
Hydrodynamic electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations applied to turbulence in classical fluid dynamics)

Pastebin with links to papers (spam filter didn't like too many links):
https://pastebin.com/3299f5nJ

Looks like alot of academia NPC in this thread, lots of buzzwords repeating drones.

Here's why OP: Chemical reactions slow down the faster your whole body is moving, once you reach almost-C you're living in slow down mode down to a single cell, including your thoughts and brain.

>>14984046
It's just information delay dumbass

>>14984046
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnVq6gmatHU

You're welcome OP.

>>14991481
He's got quite the schnoz! haha

>>14984046
This doesnt make sense. From the spaceships perspective it is the Earth that travels away.

>>14991556
So the time on Earth should slow down for the people in the spaceship.

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate?
no.

>>14984753
>>14984757
there's a reason why this board is called
Science & Math

>>14991571
Yes. That is also true.
Weird, ain't it?

>>14984046
This is like asking why does an electron orbit around a nuclear, or why do neutrons have a neutral charge and protons a positive charge
who gives a shit why, why is utterly irrelevant, it is a fact of the universe, like how trannies deserve the rope and how OP is a faggot every time, indisputable, clear cut, pure FACTUAL STATEMENTS.

>>14991571
And it doesnt because aether is real, soience btfo itself. Theres only single reference frame, your speed is absolute.

>>14991712
>i don't know therefore no one doesn't. also trannies lol lmao amirite hurrr
Back to >>>/pol/ retard

>>14984046
It would be weird if there was no time dialation. You would, for example, be able to observe events like a car crashing into empty air and then a second car appearing minutes later crashing into the first one.