/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10170032]

Is there a absolute position in the universe, of which everything else is relative to?

[Anonymous No.10170046]

>>10170032
Be prepared to be torn apart. I remember posting about the "stationary object" which is a hypothetical object which is "truly" stationary "relative to the universe".

They;re going to bitch about relativity for a while. Luminiferous aether will be dragged in. It'll go in circles and no one will ever answer your question. The universe will be both infinite and finite at the same time. The universe will also not loop back on itself. Nothing will make any sense and you'll realize these people are pretending to have answers they, and mankind at large, don't have. Time will also be discussed. Some people will agree with the idea of -a- spacetime, as a description of an actual object that exists as such, others will treat it as a descriptive convenience. The nature of space and its quantization will be discussed. The nature of motion (change) will be discussed. Because ultimately if there is such a thing as location and it can change temporally, then you must have motion. If there are different relative positions of this ultimate change, there must be directionality. But it all relies on one axiom, location.

Ultimately whether anything can be spoken of as relative to the universe will be mostly denied. It won't make sense today, nor tomorrow, nor the next day. It is an utter violation of logic. You'll leave with little more than you came with.

[Anonymous No.10170098]

>>10170032
>Is there a absolute position in the universe, of which everything else is relative to?

As far as we can tell, there is no such privileged or preferred reference frame in the universe.

[Anonymous No.10170172]

>>10170098
What about the axies of evil?

[Anonymous No.10170176]

>>10170172
no, that’s a meme

[Anonymous No.10170182]

>>10170176
>Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy.[18] "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.[19] -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

No it's not

[Anonymous No.10170183]

>>10170172
At most that's an orientation, not a position.

[Anonymous No.10170190]

>>10170183
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.10170197]

>>10170190
Like a universal north and south. Doesn't necessarily mean north converges or converges somewhere special.

[Anonymous No.10170199]

The Jesuits.

[Anonymous No.10170251]

>>10170182
it’s probably just a systematic bias in the measurement they didn’t account for (ever heard of “dust”?) and even if not, just a coincidence

[Anonymous No.10170314]

>>10170032
>Is there a absolute position in the universe, of which everything else is relative to?

Yes, all of them.

[Anonymous No.10170326]

>>10170032
>is relative to
Yes, that is everything. Everything can be taken as the point from which everything else is relative to. The issue is that every point is just as good as another, that is why there is no absolute, not because no point works, but because every point works.

[Anonymous No.10170351]

>>10170326
That can't be true. Particles in your body are moving. The earth is moving. The solar system is moving. The galaxy is moving. Superstructures well beyond the scale of galaxies that we don't have the perspective to even conceive of meaningfully are moving with respect to one another. That's a lot of relative motion, and it needs somewhere to occur. The universe must allow something, it cannot just do it. Therefore for it to exist and be moving to another space, that space must exist to be moved to. Even if infinite, even if space is not quantized, this remains.

Therefore you will always be moving relative to this medium. Of which there is certainly an absolute basis. Either something occupied that space at a certain time from some perspective, or it did not. For a given perspective to exist, the universe must allow it.

States that are not possible cannot exist or be witnessed even in a strictly illusory sense.

[Anonymous No.10170358]

>>10170032
Earth

[Anonymous No.10170395]

>>10170351
Can always do a transformation so whatever point you are considering is stationary. Apply that same transformation to the rest of your system and you have the motion relative to that point. You don't need to choose a stationary point to have everything else relative to, you choose a point and make it stationary. Every point is stationary in its own reference frame.

[Anonymous No.10170400]

>>10170351
What you are taking about it ether, which was shown to either not exist or have to effect on relative motion. If ether did exist with some flow, it would say a preferred direction of motion and there is none

[Anonymous No.10170411]

>>10170395
There is some state which is truly stationary regardless of observation in any given reference frame.

>>10170400
Why does the aether have to do anything we expect to an anything?

[Anonymous No.10170418]

Any arbitrary point I choose

[Anonymous No.10170420]

>>10170046
>Some people will agree with the idea of -a- spacetime, as a description of an actual object that exists as such, others will treat it as a descriptive convenience. The nature of space and its quantization will be discussed. The nature of motion (change) will be discussed.

you saw me coming a mile away lol

>>10170032
What is the direction of magnitude?
What is the direction of the absence of magnitude?

[Anonymous No.10170421]

>>10170418
>>10170418

wew lad, answered before I >>10170420 finished asking

[Anonymous No.10170424]

>>10170411
>There is some state which is truly stationary regardless of observation in any given reference frame.
Ok, tell us what this state is.

[Anonymous No.10170429]

>>10170411
>truly stationary regardless of observation in any given reference frame
That is literally a mathematical contradiction. Suppose your “thing” is stationary for some reference frame S. Then it cannot be stationary in the reference frame that is S boosted by some nonzero velocity.

[Anonymous No.10170439]

>>10170424
Truly stationary relative to the universe.

>>10170429
Determining what this state is would require a vast sensor network throughout the entire universe, as well as determining its geometry or bounds. Or an outside global perspective.

It wouldn't look stationary to other frames. Those frames would still be unable to determine who is actually moving if they're floating in a void together.

[Anonymous No.10170490]

>>10170411
False

[Anonymous No.10170493]

>>10170490
Logically it may just have to be true.

[Anonymous No.10170505]

>>10170190
No matter where you are in space you remember 9/11

[Anonymous No.10170513]

>>10170032
Yes. It's over there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10170515]

>>10170505
Jet fuel.

[Anonymous No.10170516]

>>10170439
>Truly stationary relative to the universe.
You haven't answered the question.
> Anonymous 11/27/18(Tue)11:49:37 No.10170439▶

>>10170424
Truly stationary relative to the universe.

>>10170429
Determining what this state is would require a vast sensor network throughout the entire universe, as well as determining its geometry or bounds. Or an outside global perspective.

It wouldn't look stationary to other frames. Those frames would still be unable to determine who is actually moving if they're floating in a void together.
So what would these sensors measure? Tell us.
>its geometry or bounds
What about them?

[Anonymous No.10170521]

>>10170516
What the fuck. Fucking auto copy-paste.

[Anonymous No.10170528]

>>10170493
>>10170439
Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.10170549]

>>10170032
Friendly reminder that spacetime is just a manifold, it doesn't carry any sort of vector space structure (only the TpM's are vector spaces). Even in special relativity, Minkowski space is just an affine, not a vector, space.

[Anonymous No.10170555]

>>10170516
You have a bunch of marbles in a box, they have an absolute position relative to the box at all times. Some will be moving relative to the box, some will not. They cannot leave the box. They cannot exist in location that the box does not allow.

It doesn't really matter what the other marbles think. The box is the truth, even if there are multiple apparent truths existing in the same temporal frame. The box's perception is a superset of the marbles. The marble's may only gleam a degree of the superset's perception by communicating and pooling their observations, recording them externally.

>So what would these sensors measure?
The sensors would start moving away from each other with known rate of acceleration or deceleration. They would track distance relative to other sensors and the location of all encountered objects with respect to time of this observation. Once the shape or nature of the universe had been discovered, many of these difficulties would disappear. In having access to all possibility, the truest truths and possibly the one true Truth would be revealed.

Becoming truly stationary and verifying it as such relative to the universe is the key.

[Anonymous No.10170564]

>>10170528
i loled at this post, well said

[Anonymous No.10170604]

>>10170555
The box's reference frame is in no way special or "stationary". You said it yourself: "being stationary" is relative. It's a relation between two things.
>The sensors would start moving away from each other with known rate of acceleration or deceleration. They would track distance relative to other sensors and the location of all encountered objects with respect to time of this observation.
This is already well-understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
>Once the shape or nature of the universe had been discovered, many of these difficulties would disappear.
What difficulties? And how would knowing the shape (I assume you mean global topology) of the universe resolve them?

[Anonymous No.10170633]

>>10170604
>The box's reference frame is in no way special or "stationary".
It must be. The box is the universe. For our purposes here there is nothing outside of the box with meaning to what is inside the box. Although we might more accurately consider the box as a lattice structure of unknown granularity.

>This is already well-understood.
Right. These sensors would use this and related logic to collate data from vast numbers of points in the universe, with those parameters in mind (as starting state with respect to other sensors is known, as is their individual behavior) to discern the more accurate and truer truths. They are roughly approximating the box lattice structure's perception.

>What difficulties?
Tracking relative rate of change and other aspects, as direct absolute measures may become accessible to some sensors. This can either aid in interpretation of the others, or take the role of clocks.

>And how would knowing the shape (I assume you mean global topology) of the universe resolve them?
If the universe loops back on itself (traveling in straight line eventually bringing one back towards roughly where they started, paths that will eventually intersect with enough loops) or if it has a hard edge, would tell you a lot about your motion relative to the universe. This sensor network would also make plotting out the precise geometry of regions of the universe, and the whole, possible.

The main aspect is considering what sort of rate of change a stationary object would experience. I'm not sure if it would skip or if it would see the fastest rate of change around it.

[Anonymous No.10170639]

>>10170505
i doubts ayys lights years away from here know about 9/11 you mutt

[Anonymous No.10170647]

>>10170639
The whole universe reverberated in shock at the news of 9/11. In fact, this was the event that allowed a race ayyys across the galaxy to finally detect gravitational waves.

[Anonymous No.10170657]

>>10170647
Also, friendly reminder that the twin towers were probably Tesla technology. The memorial they built was a Saturnian sacrifice.