/sci/ - Science & Math

It's everywhere.
Everything is submerged in it, floating forever.

when you look up, you see the past. when you look around you, you see the present. when you think about yourself, you can determine the future.

also helium was first found on the sun, and then on earth.

>>7077860
Just like that ass, it's out of this world.

How it appears to relatively 'expand' but is likely an illusion of time and space becoming more and more similar.

>>7077860
It doesnt have any depth without relativity

>>7077860

It's not empty. There's really no such thing as "empty space". Space is filled with itself, which is something, since it warps in the presence of mass. And it's filled with virtual particles. And then neutrinos zipping through it constantly. And that's just the space that has no baryons in it.

>>7078114

eh, 6/10

>>7078202
>all relativity producing objects a re independent of space

It's curved.

>>7078206
We are all refreshed by your unique point of view, thank you.

>>7078183
Does this statement have an scientific basis, or is it just something you came up with yourself?

>>7078221
We were all only slightly refreshed by your overused joke. You're welcome

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

>>7078238
This is the kind of comeback a fat kid with aspergers would think was super clever.

>>7078206
>>7078221
>>7078238
>>7078796


all the samefag, pls kill self

>>7078988
What kind of schizo argues with themselves on the internet

>>7078992

>Welcome to 4chan

In the Milkyway there's estimated to be 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting a star in a suitable zone for life. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. The odds of there being intelligent life elsewhere seems pretty high to me.

>>7078992

So we have this problem: we can't go very fast. If we try to go fast, it just takes fucktons of energy, and ain't nobody got time for that. So what do physicists do? They say, well shit if matter can't through space fast, we'll just fuckin' TAKE SPACE WITH US. Enter the Alcubierre drive. Goes through space fast by making the space in front of it smaller, making space behind it bigger, and not actually moving through space all that much.

>>7079253

Also, it would break causality just like every other FTL drive, but less than 5% of those that frequent /sci/ know why, or even what that means.

>>7080856

>it would break causality

All I know is that it has something to do with time travel and an FTL drive would create a time paradox.

>>7080856
>causality

Prove to me that things dont just happen randomly and the entire history of the universe is then recalculated and re-projected to us in the new form that allows for everything to still appear to have linear consistency.

>>7080856
> implying causality is an axiom

does space exist?

or does space not exist?

>>7080936

I cannot do this.

Also, this is not causality.

Causality would have a problem with a man killing his great-great-grandfather, as this would mean he is not born, and so cannot kill his great-great-grandfather, and so is born, etc.

Paradoxes that allow a person to both be born AND not be born, causality has a problem with them. All FTL methods allow them, including Alcubierre drive.

>>7080941

That's not what axiom means, but I get you. If causality is no big deal, and it's no big thing for it to be broken, then we live in a universe where anything happening for no reason at all is perfectly fine.

We're not even talking spontaneous existence failure, which for any object or system is a miniscule but non-zero possibility; we're talking throw all odds out the window, causality doesn't exist, despite seeming to exist in all human observation ever made.

Still not possible causality can be broken. Observation would suggest it's tremendously unlikely, though.

Didn't Einstein say quantum entanglement violated causality, yet its been proven?

>>7081088
Or locally causality is an emergent property

>>7081092

If local existence is special, then all bets are off.

Nothing so far to suggest that, though.

>>7081088
Observations are objective

>>7077860
if you have nothing in space, then you don't actually have nothing.

all you have is an interference pattern than ends up with all waves in that local section of space adding to an amplitude of zero.

theoretically, all space could be entirely filled with all sorts of waves always, those waves are just in pairs that cancel each other.

learned that in physics this year.

>>7081090

Not sure about causality, but it definitely violates special relativity, as information is being transferred between the two particles at faster than the speed of light.

If you didn't have a brain, space would not exist.
Space is defined by a persons senses: How it looks, feels, shit like that.
If you didn't have your senses, then space ceases to exist, and everything is as if nothing ever existed. All life is a projection of your mind, and only exists because your mind says it does.
I'm really tired.

>>7078224
You know, "420 Blaze it, all day, every day"-science. Weed 4 President.

>>7080941
Best last words

>>7081157

I agree with you, which is why I think you must have meant to say, "observations are subjective," which is nonsense in this context.

Observers disagreeing about the rate time passes or the order events occurred doesn't suggest neither of them are right; it illustrates special relativity. Both of them are right.

>>7077860
FTL travel is possible
It is being kept secret
We have many Nieghbours

>>7081440

Except it doesn't, because it doesn't transmit information.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics

>>7082227

>it is being kept secret

the secret is: neither our planet nor anything on it is worth traveling lightyears to see.

shhh, don't tell anybody; it's a secret.

If you think objects move 'through' space then please go back to school.

>>7078183
>time and space

Bad.

All there is.. is change. Things change. We observe this change and measure it.. Time. There is no fundamental Universal thing labeled 'Time', it's just a construct made by us to record change.

All there is.. is change. Without change, there would be nothing.

>>7077860
Mostly theory bullshit that nobody really knows is true until technology advances to the point where we can actually go to space.

>>7081520

You seem to suggest that existance begins and ends with our perception of it.

Notice, however, that a lit candle burns lower with the passage of time even if no one is in the room to observe it burn, and trees in isolated forests grow without anyone observing them do so.

How do you account for these phenomena?

>>7082257

>when the twitter generation tries to philosophize.

Black holes are actually very advanced civilizations who need huge amount of energy to survive.

>>7080856
Obviously, you dont know what you're talking about if you think it would break causality.

The only problems that arise with FTL from the standpoint of SR is that light viewed from a reference frame moving FTL appears to break causilty. In an alcubierre drive, since the space behind the spacecraft is stretched, there is no reason to think that this would put the craft in a space-like frame of reference. Plus, I trust the researchers at nasa that have solved einstein's field equations much more than you

>>7082257

It's true that we measure time by changes, and we measure other changes by time, but this does not suggest there is no time any more than it suggests there are no changes.

If you want to substitute all uses of the word, "time," with, "the observed rate of change," for some phenomena of your choosing (for example, you could choose the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels, which is what atomic clocks do), you certainly can. The word, "time" is used because (and is useful because) it is independent of matter, as temporal effects appear to be. That is, while time is influenced by gravity, which is a property of matter, time also seems to exist independantly of matter, and so it's useful to have a term for describing it that is not based on matter.

>>7082257
>free will exists please respond

>>7082307

>Hi, I'm part of the 95%

Good to see you. Now, please go here:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php

And scroll down to "Causality," and then please read it.

>>7082338
>confirmed for not even having taken an undergrad physics class with basic SR
>linking to a site that contains no mathematics, which in SR is just algebra
>"RELATIVITY PROVES THAT FTL IS TIME TRAVEL

pls explain in technical terms why I'm wrong, and if you can't, please kindly exit life

>>7081077
>All FTL methods allow them, including Alcubierre drive.
[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Causality_violation_and_semiclassical_instability

The conjecture does not prohibit faster-than-light travel. It just states that if a method to travel faster than light exists, and one tries to use it to build a time machine, something will go wrong: the energy accumulated will explode, or it will create a black hole."

>>7078112
when you look anywhere you're seeing the past. it takes your brain time to process what's going on and by the time your brain processes the information that you'll perceive is "now", it'll already be "in the past".

>>7083375

Please be more professional. I'm being respectful to you, you can be respectful to me.

>pls explain in technical terms why I'm wrong

Certainly. It has to do with the breakdown of simultinaity at a distance (you can wiki it), which is the way that the order in which any two events occur is not absolute, but is relative to the observer *unless* those events are causally linked, meaning the disance between them in space is less than the distance between them in time.

If I happen to observe the first light from two distant supernovae, and do the math and determine that the light from each reached earth at the same time and
both stars are equally distant from earth (and for simplicity, the stars are somehow both at rest relative to earth), it would seem I have proven that and the explosions happened at the same time. And to an observer on earth, that is true. But because the distance in space between the events (the distance between the two stars, measured as the amount of time it would take light to cross that distance) is greater than the distance in time between the events (in this case, zero), the events are not causally linked. And because of this, there is no objective way to say. Frames of reference could be found which would allow an observer (traveling a significant percentage of c) to find that one explosion happened first, or the other, and they would all be equally right.

None of this explains why all FTL violates causality, but I'm getting to that. The above is kind of needed as a primer.

>>7083508

But obviously the order of some events *is* absolute. If firing a gun is an event and the bullet hitting a target is another event, no frame of reference should allow the bullet striking the target to occur first, because the gun *had* to be fired in order for the bullet to travel. And because the distance in space between the events (as measured by the amount of time it would take light to cross that distance) is less than the distance in time (bullets travel slower than light), indeed, all observers will agree that the gun was fired first. There is no frame of reference that can be found which would allow the firing of the gun to have happened second. The order of causally-linked events is absolute, and this is always true, because no bullet can travel faster than light (uh-oh).

If a bullet *could* travel faster than light (imagine one tipped with a tiny Alcubierre drive), then it follows that such a bullet could strike a target at some distance in less time than it would take light to travel that distance. This means that the event of firing the gun and the event of the bullet striking the target would not be causally linked, and so a frame of reference could be found where the gun was fired *after* the bullet struck the target. This is what is meant by a violation of causality.

A causality violation leads to nonsensical scenarios and unresovable paradoxes. It is every bit as problematic as the notion of killing your grandfather before your father is born, which means you don't exist, and so don't kill your grandfather, and so do exist, and don't, and do, and don't, etc.

In storytelling, such problems can be easily ignored. In reality, they cannot.

All FTL breaks causality, because all FTL takes events which, to avoid being nonsensical, must be causally linked (like a starship starting its trip and that ship arriving at its destination), and makes them events which are not causally linked (which means you could arrive before you departed).

>>7083508
>>7083511
>Please be more professional
>respect

I don't respect a person that immediately insults "95%" of people in his first post. I don't respect you because you most likely are not a professional. I don't respect you mosts of all because you don't know what you're talking about but insist you do

You realize that special relativity is basic shit compared to General Relativity. One uses algebra, and the other uses differential geometry. The thoughts you just described in your posts are conclusions derived from SR, and an alcubierre drive is a result derived by GR, which reduces to SR in special cases.

I don't know the finer points of the operation of the alcubierre drive, and obviously neither do you, since the only thing you do is keep repeating that >FTL VIOLATES CAUSALITY.
Again, I trust the professionals that publish papers more than I trust you.

fuck you

>>7082266
What if the unconscious acts as a filter that determines every aspect of the stuff we observe, doing extremely complex calculations and measurements while we're unaware of such processes, before we get aware of seeing the things the unconcious constructs for us to observe?

Ayyy

>>7083511
Causality violations may break common sense, but we've already built devices that function (including one you are indirectly using to receive this post), based on theories that state they must exist and happen. Not that any of these theories state that they are common, but they predict they must exist.

Your mind may not like it, but that doesn't prevent them from being a thing. The universe isn't always as tidy and intuitive as we might like it to be.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf

>>7083636
Ftl doesn't violate causality IF time isn't linear. You can't say otherwise, but I can't neither backup my statement, by trying to prove that time isn't linear, because we can't prove out statements without the empirical data needed to do so because that's not posible today. We can't free ourselves from the realm of theory in this field, sadly. You aren't the bearer of thruth, nor I.
...

Too tired to explain this shit, maybe tomorrow if thread is alive by then.

>>7083636

Is there some part of my post you would like to disagree with? Would you like to disagree, for example, with the notion of the relativity of simultaneity? If so, you can read about it here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Or would you like to disagree with the notion that events that occur at a greater distance than the amount of time between them are not causally connected? If so, you can read about light cones here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

If you agree with the above but not the conclusion (which is not my own. I am not a physicist and did not come up with any of this, I merely had it explained to me until I understood it), then please take it to someone whose knowledge of physics you trust and let them talk with you about it.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with NASA. NASA says that this method of FTL is not ruled out by our current understanding of physical laws, and that is true. That it would seem to violate causality is also true. So either causality can be violated (which would suprise us), or our understanding of this aspect of physical laws is inaccurate (which would also suprise us), or both.

You clearly dislike me, or dislike what I have to say, or the way I say it. Please don't ignore what I say just because of those reasons. People you don't like can still be right, and you don't have to like them to learn from them.

>>7082285
interesting..

>>7083688
>So either causality can be violated (which would suprise us), or our understanding of this aspect of physical laws is inaccurate (which would also suprise us), or both.
1) If causality can't be violated, our understanding of physical laws is wrong, for it says it can, and must, and thus we would be surprised.

2) On the other hand... The idea that our understanding of physical laws is inaccurate, shouldn't surprise us. We, indeed, assume it, as our laws are self-admittedly incomplete. Never mind the fact that we've turned the entire standard model on its head at least four times in the past forty years alone, thus, it's safe to assume, we're way off base about some stuff.

None the less, we rely on devices that assume #1 is true, and they work, so we've got something right, however mind-bogglingly unintuitive that something might be.

>>7083688
>So either causality can be violated (which would suprise us), or our understanding of this aspect of physical laws is inaccurate (which would also suprise us), or both.
1) If causality can't be violated, our understanding of physical laws is wrong, for said understanding dictates that it can, and indeed must be violated, and thus we would be surprised if it could not.

2) On the other hand... The idea that our understanding of physical laws is inaccurate, shouldn't surprise us. We, indeed, assume it, as our laws are self-admittedly incomplete. Never mind the fact that we've turned the entire standard model on its head at least four times in the past forty years alone, thus, it's safe to assume, we're still way off base about some stuff, if not indeed missing so fundamental as to toss nearly everything as long standing misinterpretation, as we've done before.

Nonetheless, we rely on devices that assume #1 is true, based on theories that dictate that causality can be violated, and they work, so we've got something right, however mind-bogglingly unintuitive that something might be.

>>7077860
Are those space pants? Cause that ass is out of this world!

>>7083656
>Causality violations may break common sense, but we've already built devices that function (including one you are indirectly using to receive this post), based on theories that state they must exist and happen.

>>7083909
>Nonetheless, we rely on devices that assume #1 is true, based on theories that dictate that causality can be violated, and they work, so we've got something right, however mind-bogglingly unintuitive that something might be.

I'm unfamiliar with these devices. Can you elaborate?

>>7083914
Was your father thief? Because he stole all stars in the universe and put them in your ass.

It becomes much more attractive when it exists betwixt a ladies thighs.

>>7078788
This.

>>7077860
I was going to make a putting "d" vector into a subspace joke and hoping for no unexpected trans-formations.

>>7083688
I don't disagree with the examples you're giving. These are the same examples I was given in my freshman level SR class at uni. I disagree with the fact that on /sci/ you insist on telling other people that they're wrong about something when you don't fully understand something. It's obvious you've convinced yourself to a certain degree why FTL violates causality in the perspective of a moving reference frame, but you ignore the fact that an alcubierre drive is not technically a moving reference frame. This leads me to two conclusions:

1. You don't know what an alcubierre drive is or how it operates

2. Since you keep repeating the same things, your mind is actually stuck in an infinite loop

I'm not sure, when I use terms that only means I could've learned this rigorously (e.g. space-like), you insist on parroting the same examples people give on sites that have no mathematics involved in them and read like "ALL FTL VIOLATES CAUSALITY"

>>7083688

>>7084420 here, and as >>7083387 said, it is likely that either causality is incorrectly assumed, or that instabilities outside of the bubble will destroy it if any attempt is made to travel backwards in time

how we pretend to know anything about it

>>7084420
>It's obvious you've convinced yourself to a certain degree why FTL violates causality in the perspective of a moving reference frame, but you ignore the fact that an alcubierre drive is not technically a moving reference frame.

It is not relevant that an Alcubierre drive is not itself a moving reference frame; if it leaves one point in space and arrives at another point in space faster than light could travel between those points in space, then another frame of reference could be found in which it arrives at its destination before it left. If this is not self-evident after my above posts, then I would ask that you take my posts to someone whose opinion on these matters you respect, and have that person look at them. You can do it with every expectation of proving me wrong, that is absolutely fine with me. Just take my posts, print them out, and take them so someone whose opinion you would not dismiss, and ask them to show you, "where this online idiot gets it wrong."

>>7084535
By your logic, wormholes shouldn't be possible, but the equations say they are. Don't pretend you know physics when you don't.

Love transcends time and space.

dark matter is made from souls

>>7084749
I found some dark matter on my soles :(

>>7083511
>If a bullet *could* travel faster than light (imagine one tipped with a tiny Alcubierre drive), then it follows that such a bullet could strike a target at some distance in less time than it would take light to travel that distance. This means that the event of firing the gun and the event of the bullet striking the target would not be causally linked, and so a frame of reference could be found where the gun was fired *after* the bullet struck the target. This is what is meant by a violation of causality.
Ummmm, no.
Simultaneity _is_ frame of reference dependent, but this does NOT rely on people being ignorant of light traveling at finite speed.
Your conclusion about FTL and causality may be correct, but I don't think you're quite connecting the dots.

>>7077861
Either I'm way too high or you just fucked my mind. Or both.

It's only defined as far as a little less than 14 billion light-years. Outside of that distance space doesn't exist.

>>7082227
*tips tinfoil hat*

Boltzmann Brain

When the Universe becomes "redistributed" (all matter has become equal distanced), sporadic events of entropy can allow for the Universe to become sentient.

Really creepy, but spess

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the 'milky way'

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bother all down here on Earth

>>7084810

>>7079253
I heard about that in a videogame

>>7084268
These things... No relativity, no worky.

>>7084735

It's not my logic, and it doesn't rule out wormholes. It *does* imply that wormholes could also be used for time travel, and thus could be used to violate causality and create unresolvable paradoxes, which they could. There is consensus on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Time_travel

>>7082232
It can't be used to transmit information between people. That's not the same thing as not involving the transmission of information.

Most conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics have fundamental randomness at the time of measurement, which logically requires information to pass between the entangled particles as they are measured, or something entirely insane, and blatantly throwing occam's razor out the window, like the "sausage-splitting" variations on the many worlds interpretation (where divisions between newly created universes propagate from the point of measurement at light speed, and these divisions carry information about the measurement so when they meet each other they interact and create the outcome probabilities QM demands -- it's total schizophrenic rambling, like anything to do with the many worlds interpretation).

To me, entanglement requires hidden variables, and it's just that simple. The supposed disproofs of hidden variables are always of particular hidden variables, and not of the concept of hidden variables, and it amazes me that people who should know better present them as disproofs of the whole concept.

>>7078788
hello douglas.
it's kind of weird, I thought you were dead.

>>7084773
>Simultaneity _is_ frame of reference dependent, but this does NOT rely on people being ignorant of light traveling at finite speed.

I don't believe I suggested it relied on that.

To better explain my position using the concept of simultaneity being frame-of-reference-dependent, which you seem to understand well, let's examine the circumstances under which disagreements about simultaneity occur and the circumstances under which they don't.

If two events occur at the same time and at the same place (exactly the same place), all observers will agree that the events occurred simultaneously. If two events occur at the same time (to some observer) but in different places, then not all observers will agree that the events occurred simultaneously. I think you'll agree the above is not disputed?

So, what difference does the distance make?

When two events occur simultaneously (to some observer) at some distance from one another, does either event exist within the light cone of the other? Clearly, no.

(link back to explanation of light cones. not for you, because I think you probably understand them well, but for others who might be reading the thread: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone )

These events, then, are not causally related, and when two events are not causally related, frames of reference can be found in which the events occurred simultaneously, and in which one occurred first, and in which the other occurred first, and they are all equally correct. Simultaneity between two events is observer-dependent *if* neither event exists within the light cone of the other (this is Einstein's train-struck-by-lightning thought experiment).

What if two events *do* exist within each other's light cone? Can there be disagreement about the order of events? The answer is, "no;" the order of such events will be agreed upon by all observers, regardless of their frame of reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

will continue

over 99% of the universe is plasma

>>7085276

And logically, the answer *should* be, "no," as events which exist within each other's light cones are causally connected.

What does it mean to be causally connected? If one event exists within the future light cone of the other, then a light-speed message could be sent from the first event and arrive at the location of the second event before it occurred. Let us imagine such a message to be the immediate cause for the second event, perhaps a light-speed radio message which travels from one point to another and, in being received at the second location, detonates a bomb there. If some frame of reference existed in which the order of events were reversed, then an observer in such a frame could witness the bomb detonation and could then take some action to disrupt the message or prevent its being sent, logically preventing the second event, which they already witnessed.


Considering both scenarios, we see that any two events one could consider are either causally connected, or are not causally connected.

Events that are causally connected occur in an absolute order, and all observers will agree on that order. These events can be identified because they exist within each other's light cone.

Events that are not causally connected do not occur in an absolute order, and observers will disagree on the order of these events based on their frames of reference. Events that are not causally connected can be identified because they do not exist within one another's light cone.

will conclude

>>7085282

Now: which class of events does FTL create?

If the event of an object departing a point in space and the event of it arriving at another point in space, if these events exist within each other's light cones, then the object has not traveled faster than light. The events are causally connected and all observers will agree on their order.

If these events do not exist within each other's light cone, then the object has traveled faster than light, and the event of leaving and the event of arriving are not causally connected. Different observers will disagree about the order of the events, which is to say a frame of reference could be found in which the object arrives first and departs second.

Note that the method of FTL does not enter into it. Warp drive, hyperdrive, Alcubierre drive, wormhole, all are equally capable of creating causality violations, because they all create pairs of events which, logically, must be causally connected, but which observably are not.

>>7085147

Yes, but relativity != causality violation

Satellites experience time dilation, but do not send messages into their own past (to my knowledge).

>>7085193

No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. Spooky action at a distance is real, but no information is transmitted between the particles. The action itself is not information.

>>7084535
Try to understand that the reason I don't respect you is not because your ideas disagree with mine or because I am convinced I am right. It is not. I don't respect you and I don't agree with you because you:

a) Are not technically knowledgeable on the subject, yet continue to argue about it, even though I have pointed out that people more educated than both you or myself are have reached conclusions that disagree with you

b) Are perpetually convinced that you are completely right, which is impossible because a full theory explaining this phenomenon (quantum gravity) does not exist, and only offer very simplified explanations to very complicated concepts which you again have no technical knowledge of, and continue to do so

c) Attempt to make no scientific compromise at any point in the debate, and only further assert the probably incorrect information you continue to piss out like a cherub fountain

you could pick any other these three as reasons to kill yourself, however, if I were to make a recommendation, it would be reason b.

>>7085286
your explanation of SR causality is spot on, you you still shouldn't try to reach conclusions about technologies which are clearly more advanced than 'v=1.34c so causality is violated' arguments

>>7085402

a)
If you would kindly go to a professor and ask them specifically about what we're discussing here, you would see that even though you clearly have superior eduction on this subject, your grasp of this particular aspect of it is not correct. You may be smarter than me, you may be more educated than me, but you are nevertheless wrong, this time.

b)
I am not claiming to have constructed a grand unified theory, I merely understand one aspect of sr in a way that you currently misunderstand, but which you could quickly come to understand if you heard it from a source other than me. I imagine the things you understand better than me could fill several books, but you are nevertheless wrong, this time.

c)
>scientific compromise

I cannot compromise, because reality is not mine to bargain with. It is as it is. If the issue were subjective, I would happily compromise with you; you have continued to come back to the thread, and so I'm certain it matters more to you that you know the truth than it does you be found right, and so I hope you'll understand it is not a personal attack when I tell you that you are nevertheless wrong, this time.

>>7085391
Relativity predicts causality violation. If there can be no causality violation, then relativity is bunk. Satellites working while relying on one of its most unintuitive principles suggest it maybe on the right track, and thus, probably not bunk.

>>7085410

Thank you. Why not?

>>7085429

I don't believe relativity predicts causality violation. If it does, I am surely wrong. Please enlighten me with a source?

>>7085438
just off of general principle (I guess this is more my thing), if I'm not formally educated about something specifically hard science related (especially since physics is a huge and deep field), I don't like to get into people about the cutting edge of the cutting edge. It just feels like its not worth it, and I might be wrong anyways. Besides, if you're wrong in this case its cool anyways because we get FTL

>>7085425
Alright. Since I still think I am at least somewhat right although I agree with your reasoning, because I think the alcubierre metric probably follows rules not laid out yet because of the lack of a GUT, I won't say anymore.

You have a very good layman's understanding of SR, and I can't argue with that. So I bid you good day, and apologize for telling you to kill yourself

also check em

>>7085429
Complete bullshit

>>7085441
If choose not to believe it, there's not much I can do for you, given the few dozen links provided in this thread alone. It's a fundamental prediction of relativity. Can't have one without the other.

...and that's before you get into other widely accepted and tested theories that make the same prediction:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf

>>7085482
>because of the lack of a GUT,
Just to clarify:
GUT = Grand Unified Theory, which is the unification of the three forces of the standard model, which has not been successful thus far.

Quantum gravity = An advanced theory of gravitation that somehow fits gravity into a QFT-like framework.

TOE = Theory of Everything, a unificiation of Quantum Gravity and GUT that would explain everything

So what you mean is either quantum gravity or TOE, not GUT.

>>7085498
meant quantum gravity my b

also dubs?

>>7085492
It's not a fundamental prediction of general relativity. It is a possibility, but it's not a proven point. It's hard to say whether energy-stress tensors that generate causality violation even exist, most models require negative energy or clash with QM/QFT at some point, so what you are effectively doing is making predictions at a scale that is not adequate for GR.

What is the purpose of me living? My one duty is to pass on my genetic material, but that will only happen if it is good enough to begin with. Why shouldn't I just kill myself to save the stress and pain that I will inevitably deal with?

>>7085518
Same could be said of black holes up until recently. If they turned out not to be a thing, then relativity would have been proven wrong. Same with causality violation. The theory requires it exists to be consistent. It isn't proven (beyond black holes and Hawking radiation, but that's QM), but if it's disproven, then relativity is bunk. So far, everything points to relativity being correct, and until they begin to point to somewhere else, there's every reason to assume that the consequences there of will continue to be discovered and observed as it predicts.

>>7085521
Unlike science, OP's pic can answer this question. If that ass isn't a reason to live, I dunno what'll do it for ya.

>>7085521
>My one duty is to pass on my genetic material, but that will only happen if it is good enough to begin with.
The matriarchy has convinced you you are worthless unless you win the approval of a woman.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

>>7085627
>If they turned out not to be a thing, then relativity would have been proven wrong.

No, I'm afraid that's not how science works. GPS satellites work, therefore relativity is correct. If black holes had been found not to exist, it would mean our understanding of relativity needed revision, not that relativity was proven wrong.

>>7085690
No, it'd mean the theory of relativity is wrong, and we'd need a whole new goddamned theory to explain the other phenomenon that it predicted correctly just by lucky coincidence. The theory is too grandly fundamental to be capable of just "keeping parts of it", it either works consistently, or you need a whole other set of rules to take its place. It's not quite as modular as quantum physics where you can add, adjust, and remove forces to explain the bits where it fails, and while one can affect the phenomenon of the other, that can only take you so far in one direction.

>>7085763

I'm not even sure how this concept of how science works is able to exist in your mind. I could not make it exist in mine. It paints a world in which explanations for observed phenomenon are all-or-nothing, and every unexpected result destroys science to its foundation, to be rebuilt again from scratch.

This is not science, and the relativity known to you is not the relativity understood by the scientific community. Nowhere does relativity predict violations of causality. It does *not* rule them out, and if this is an equivilant statement to you, then what a magical world you must live in, where everything not proved false is proven true.

>this fucking thread

>>7085869
>Relativity is all of science.
Nah, he's right.. When you got a single set of formula that expands to cover all of reality, if it isn't consistent, you either need a counter formula that does the same and covers all the inconsistencies and explains the exceptions, or you abandon the formula. Relativity is a pretty broad concept, and you can't pick and choose parts of it while abandoning others. Quantum gravity actually covers some of the bases you two are on about though, in just that fashion, but it causes violations of its own.

On the other hand, the way things work these days, the replacement would probably be called "Super-Special Relativity" or some crap, so maybe you're not off the mark there. I doubt the scientific community will ever come to a point where it'll have the balls to not pay Einstein or Newton their dues.

>>7077860
When you go into space and experience zero G, it REALLY screws up your digestive system. You become VERY gassy... seriously major gas... astronauts/cosmonauts know this but rarely speak of it

>>7086894

Hey, that's swell. *Relativity still doesn't predict causality violations.*

>I heard from my best friend's dad that it does.

Well, it doesn't.

>It doesn't rule them out, though, so that means they have to exist or relativity's wrong.

That's not at all what it means. Can the mouth breathers please find another thread?

>>7086995
it's the opposite, since the gases and solids aren't able to separate in your stomach like they do on earth. no burps

>>7087049
No... It is a farting fest... I am surprised they can breath with all the methane in the air

>>7078210
>relativity producing
wut?

>>7087055
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvEhqQ8_O0

>>7086995
you're the same amount of gassiness, it's just you fart more in place of burping because you can't burp in space

>>7087061
Damn.. then the astronaut I talked to was lying... he said it was gassy

>>7087079
see >>7087067

>>7084753
wash it off with dark energy

>>7087048
/exceptthatswrongyouretard.jpg

>>7087351

>I'll just keep insisting it's true and not giving sources. That's the way to do it, right?

>>7087445
/readthemutherfuckingthreadbeforeyoumotherfuckingpost.gif

>>7087473

Oh, you mean like this post?

>>7085518

Yeah, that's about the same as what you said, huh?

Orthogonality

>>7087473

Fifty goddamned posts going back and forth about causality violation ended with the snarky guy finally relenting, and a worse one steps right into his place. /sci/ is a lost cause.

>>7077860
All I know about this thread is that OP's picture helped me through five long, hard days at a hotel where I was stuck with various young thin maids wearing tight pants.