spacetime is... very wibbly wobbly

>>16886513
Your mom so fat Tt= L/C2

The universe you were born into is not something you get to choose.

>>16886510
The reason our interpretation of relativity is so ass backwards is that, at the time, people didn't know that all matter is being held together by electromagnetic forces.
With that, time dilation is straight forward. Every interaction behaves like a light clock which ticks slower when it's moving relative to the medium.
Length contraction is a bit harder to see but it falls out of the Maxwell equations. The electric field of a moving charge contracts in the direction of movement, so every physical object that's held together by electric fields contracts in the direction of movement relative to the electromagnetic medium as well.
These effects also conspire to prevent us from ever measuring our speed relative to the medium so don't start with muh Michelson Morley experiment.
So there you have special relativity without mindfuck non-euclidean geometries (which are cool but ultimately just fantasy).

>>16886510
> how does that make any sense?
It only doesn't make sense because humans don't tend to be moving close to the speed to light.

>>16886510
>why
Science doesn't answer "why". There's no fundamental reason the universe is the way it is, or at least the reason is not knowable to us
>how
That's what the entirety of the theory of relativity explains. If you want to understand it you better start reading
>how does that make any sense?
The human brain is built to intuitively understand scales between the mm and the km. It's not surprising that our intuition fails when speeds approach millions of m/s. The laws of physics don't have to make sense to be true, and we use mathematics to study them without having to rely on human intuition

>>16886510
Because i

>>16886549
Sad end

>>16886510
>ok but... why?
data
>how?
postulate of relativity
>how does that make any sense?
it werks.

>>16886510
>ok but... why?
Same reason every action has an equal and opposite reaction… because it does. Not every question can be followed up with an “okay, but why?”. At a certain point you hit conceptual bedrock and the answer to all other questions becomes “because that’s what the data tells us”

Keep in mind, Einstein didn’t pull this postulate out of his ass; the Michelson Morley experiment had already found compelling evidence that the speed of light was independent of relative motion and all of the theoretical work on electrodynamics at the time was pointing to the inescapable conclusion that Galilean Relativity is incompatible with E&M.

Sometimes it's better to exit the thread quietly then spit out paragraphs of Empty Words

>>16886758
cool story bro

>all of these terrible non answers
its not the speed of light, its the speed of causality. light moves at c because it has no mass, but any other massless object would as well. if observers could see different values for c, it would break the logical rules of causality itself. the other thing you have to realize is that space and time are woven into each other, and relative motion through space decreases your relative motion through time. anything without mass moves strictly through space and doesnt interact with time at all. the rest of with mass experience length and time dilation to compensate for our motion, but photos do not. thats why the speed of causality will appear the same to anyone, no matter how fast youre going.

>>16886776
>newton was a schizo, just like me
yeah we get it

>>16886510
Photons "update" the universe since almost everything we see is related to EM. Without change, there is no time. Thus to you, photons always move at the same speed in your reference frame because that reference frame is being updated by those photons. It's being updated at a different rate for other reference frame(in relation to their speed) hence why you end up with time "flowing" at different rates between those frames yet constant inside the frame no matter the speed.
Tho I think if you could reach c, you'd be stuck in some sort of limbo or something like that.

>>16886510
basically both light and the clocks you using to measure its speed both slow down at the same rate so you always measure the ratio between them to be the same.

Well, if the universe is freefalling and expands horizontally to the axis, then the coordinates for the space are cut off.

>>16886510
Jewish fraud, do away with all Jewish lies.

>>16886510
It's a simulation that's generated on the fly. When you admit this all the other puzzle pieces fall into place simple.

>>16886510
Has light ever actually been proven to have the properties it is claimed to according to special relativity?

>>16887041
Yes

>>16886510
space isn't linear, it's Lorenz
https://youtu.be/Rh0pYtQG5wI?t=6m30s

>>16886510
Wym? It literally doesn't matter because the answer changes depending on the other factors in the equation.

A constant is a constant. The why is pure philosophy like >>16886756 stated

>>16886510
There's a lot of midwits and schizophrenia in this thread so far.
But to answer your question, that is the reason that space contracts and time dilates when "you" move faster.
This is the universe's way of coping with the speed of light. If you start to move faster, time will literally slow down for you, but not for light, in order to make up for the difference between observers. The universe has very strict coding and the programming prevents you from reaching light speed, in fact, the universe will literally compress you and slow down your time just so that light moves equally as fast to you as all other observers to preserve the law. Lol.

Everybody on /sci/ is a fraud if you don't already know the answer to that. It's called Time Dilation. Your clock will literally tick slower if you are moving faster just so that light can get a head start from your perspective. That way light always goes the same speed, even if you are going faster than someone else you both see light move the same way lol.

>>16886510
Anon, EVERYTHING moves at c, the constant speed of causality. This world is not 3D, is a Minkowski 4D space, a.k.a. spacetime.

>>16887087
>time dilates
tranny time confirmed

>>16887041
No

If c was not constant in all reference frames then we would not have an objective universe we could all agree on. Best answer I can give.

>>16886510
relativity is a jewish fairy tale
>but muh gps
fake and gay

File: ethereal.jpg (28.7 KB)

28.7 KB JPG

>>16886510
It becomes less baffling and unnatural if you stop thinking in terms of speed. Speed was a mistake. We are slow creatures living in a slow world, with a deeply ingrained intuition that speed is an additive quantity when it's actually not. You can end the struggle of reconciling expectations with reality by focusing on a quantity that IS additive: rapidity. You can always go more rapid, so the "arbitrary" limit goes away, but the rapidity of light is infinite, so you can never go more rapid than light. Makes sense, no? Accelerating to an infinite rapidity would take infinite energy, which also makes sense. When you move towards the light, or away from it, it doesn't come to you any faster or any slower because your puny rapidity is drowned out by its infinite rapidity. When your sense organs are tuned for detecting rapidities everything just works. If only you were an ascended being made of light (like me) this would all be trivial to you.

File: 1737973923147977.png (1 MB)

1 MB PNG

>>16886510

>>16886510
>why? how? how does that make any sense?
Because the math checks out, and the experiments confirm it. That's it.

>but I don't understand how this can be
Welcome to the world. We made assumptions about our reality that seemed to hold true for millennia and now we find they are wanting in exactness.

>>16887048
>narrator's voice sounds gay
closed tab

if special relativity is confusing, please dont ever look into QM

>>16886510

You would have to cover it if it's going to break the laws of the universe. Like the energy of a black hole, it's the same with exceeding light. The cover is a spinning wave formation outside of the port of the ship, accelerating beyond the limits.

>>16887218
What the hell does rapidity mean here?

>>16888415
you can do a transformation to express velocity on a hyberbolic scale - rapidities add in lorentzian relativity the same way velocities add in galilean relativity.

>>16888440
Or. Every observer is the actual center and the universe is entirely a construct.
People don't like this because they want to project on to other "beings".

>>16887041
Its more that observable data(telescopes, satellite images, Sun stuff, etc) line up quite good with a lot of the special relativity.
Our 8 minutes from the sun, and the suns gravity is good enough to start correlating it.

Its like observing roadkill. You don't get dashcamera footage of the event, but you have quite a lot of evidence.

>>16886510
>how does that make any sense?
It doesn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow8hVpdSHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaUzq4YuErs

>>16886510
It's because space time and thus speed are all emergent properties on causality. Causality has to have a finite reach or else we would live in a world where magic is possible (everything can affect everything instantly non-transitively). Space and duration (speed, time) emerge from finite causality. They are our perception of events having a certain order, of everything not happening all at once, but having to follow a directed transitive ordered logic.

Thus c appears the same, but "time slows". Or c stays the same put "space shrinks". Because the latter are emergent properties on finite causality, reified as c.

Entangled particles communicate info faster than light so doesn't this mean the equations due for a correction? Unless it isn't considered to be velocity

>>16889603
Barandes disproved that

File: Inverse_square_law.svg.png (174.8 KB)

174.8 KB PNG

Lets understand what light is before we understand anything else.

At the smallest Planck size there is a divider between infinity, a square grid track lattice, and upon the track travels a Pi quantity of magnetized RGB cubes.
Magnetism is the fundamental force in our universe, the only force.
Torque, heat, work, strong/weak forces, gravity, all magnetism at higher emergent layers.

Photons are combinations of the magnetized RGB cubes in a straight line configuration, which is a bar magnet.
This line bar magnet configuration causes the chains of photon cubes to travel in 1 direction only, forward, towards what they are magnetized to, and away from what they are repelled from, depending upon how many cubes are connected, and how many cubes are connected to other objects in front and back determines a pull or repulsion.

The reason that Max Planks measurements determine a max speed in relation to Planck size, is because Pi, the total quantity of magnetized cubes, is what we are actually using as our ratio.

So the reason that all photons have the same speed, is because they are the same thing, made of the same parts, in the same shape configuration.
The more cubes attached onto the ...train....the more "energy"

File: Density.jpg (147.3 KB)

147.3 KB JPG

So essentially everything is not made from "light"...light is made from the same thing that everything else is made from.
Magnetized RGB cubes on the track.

File: Einstein_wife.jpg (75.1 KB)

75.1 KB JPG

It doesn't. Einstein was a fraud and an invert (but I repeat myself).

>>16887041
No, the only "evidence" are claimed astronomical observations that aren't reproducible. Every attempt to measure e.g. curved spacetime on earth have failed

>>16887043
Lier.

>>16887285
Schrödinger was a human not an invert. QM is consistent with experimental evidence, unlike SR/GR which has only ever been rebutted by experimental data

File: Screenshot_20260111-182200.png (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB PNG

>>16889648
Imagine not having a cube of Gadolinium to pray with.

>>16889681
QM is technically unfalsifiable. The general measurement conundrum is that if one were to refute quantum-now, which is the current measurement capability, the quantum-future would still be waiting. It is from the reflexive composition of measurer/measured. A refutation of quantum would be tantamount to measuring something from an apparatus that cannot be measured.
It is possible to devise uncertainty experiments at the classical scale and these devised/contrived structures are also quantum in nature. Norton's Dome tracks to uncertainty of a future condition given a known current state. In principle, a "wave-function" could be defined as all possible conditions which passes the ball to the top of the dome with the sufficient condition(ball truly at zero rest) and how they map to all states of the ball as it rolls off the dome. If gravity is very very low, it also has a condition of near-infinite possible states.
The obvious issue is that this system cannot be certainly constructed. Its incarnation requires a chain of uncertainty to truly kick it off. The ball and dome would have to be kicked off in a different schema than gravity. This is because the scientist knows the initial conditions of the system when he builds it. Even a quasi-random launching mechanism is still knowable in principle. And in this type of construction, it is not uncertainty that arises but indeterminism.

>>16886544
you're a total faggot.

>>16889693
>QM is technically unfalsifiable.
Conceptual interpretations of QM are, thus far, unfalsifiable because none of them make any new predictions, they just try to interpret existing observations.

QM, as a model, is falsifiable and has survived nonstop tests for over a century.

>>16886510
Start by understanding this one, simple thing: there is no privileged frame. From that one, fundamental fact, the rest all flows.

>>16889744
>Start from measuring shadows in Plato's cave

Nah, start from invariance, dumbass postmodern groomer

>>16889728
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester

>>16889645
The "top" hemi-cube is positive, and the "bottom" hemi-cube is negative.

>>16889681
>unlike SR/GR which has only ever been rebutted by experimental data
gravitational lensing and gravitational waves, predicted by GR, have been observed
time dilation, predicted by SR, has to be taken into account for GPS to be accurate

>>16886540
>>16886544
You don't eve have to go that far.
I personally love this example for showing how even basic Newtonian Mechanics that make perfect sense mathematically can be complete nonesense to our intuition
https://youtu.be/NeXIV-wMVUk?t=143

>>16889911
Angular momentum is a very deep rabbit hole. Eventually you arrive at Mach's principle and the question of how does the spinning object know that it's spinning relative to the universe. The answer is that it has to sense the spacetime geometry somehow which brings us back to general relativity.
>Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force.

>>16890004
It's not that strange, it's a matter of acceleration. Any reference frame that experiences force (=acceleration) is NOT equivalent to an inertial reference frame. You can't "feel" your relative speed without looking at other objects, but you can always feel acceleration

>>16890012
>you can always feel acceleration
then why can't i feel anything during freefall, accelerating towards the earth?

>>16890004
>So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

>The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
>The principle of equivalence.
>Mach's principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

>In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added, "This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however."

KEK

>>16890018
I don't have experience with this specific scenario, but if that's true then I assume it's because the forces are balanced out to near 0. If you are at terminal velocity, then the air friction acting on you is equal to the force of gravity

>>16890018
Normal answer: Because gravititational acceleration doesn't depend on the mass of an object. If you're in freefall your head will accelerate identically to your feet and every other part of your body so it would seem that nothing is happening. An accelerometer can't measure acceleration if all of its parts get accelerated in the same way.

Schizo answer: Because mass sucks space inwards like a vacuum. So if you stand on earth's surface you accelerate relative to the space that's falling into the ground. If you decide to move with the space i.e. jump off a building you stop accelerating.

>>16889744
privilege: checked

File: science worship.jpg (200.7 KB)

200.7 KB JPG

>>16889907
False.

Gravitational lensing has claimed to be observed, not reproducible, not science. Gravitational waves have only been "measured" by a couple of black box government devices. Not science.

>gps
The claimed "compensation" is that the satellites clocks run infinitesimally slower terrestrial clocks. Black box, not science.

> ok but... why?

[eqn]\begin{align}
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E} \quad &=\quad\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} \\
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B} \quad &=\quad 0 \\
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} \quad &=\hspace{10pt}-\frac{\partial{\vec{B}}}{\partial{t}} \\
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B} \quad &=\quad \mu_0\left( \epsilon_0\frac{\partial{\vec{E}}}{\partial{t}}+\vec{J}\right)
\end{align}[/eqn]

>>16890107
And then Allah said!

>>16890078
Ah sorry my bad. I forgot that you can just dismiss any evidence you don't like

>>16888440
>you can do a transformation to express velocity on a hyberbolic scale - rapidities add in lorentzian relativity the same way velocities add in galilean relativity.
>do a transform
Nuh uh. What I'm saying is that things are weird because you're already doing some weird transform into an inverse hyperbolic space every time you talk about velocity instead of working with nature.

>>16890078
>prove me wrong
>uhh NOT LIKE THAT!!

>>16890162
Science is not reality.

Reality is reality.

Science is retards measuring shadows in Plato's cave and calling them ontologically primary to reality itself.

>>16890021
>If you take away all matter, there is no more space
I like this solution

>>16890107
That's probably the best thing the West discovered.

>>16889606
Nigger what?
I thought his claim was about the probabilistic fuzz of the wave function could be explained by the observable gaps between a sort of planck action.

File: grok_image_jgzglr.jpg (481.9 KB)

481.9 KB JPG

>>16887218
I'm guess he means acceleration

>>16890162
>evidence
Not reproducible = not evidence.
>>16890176
>prove
All you're provided is hearsay, hearsay =/= evidence.

>>16890552
You sound like a flat earther.

>>16887214
this
GPS works because Lorentz somehow is true

>>16890107
How does this imply what OP said in a way that's not simply an asymptotic artifact in a math model detached from reality?

>>16890587
How are Maxwell's equations detached from reality? They came out of nothing more than experimental observation. That's literally the scientific method and if you're going to bitch about that on philosophical grounds what are you even doing here?

As for how they answer OP question, it's where Einstein got the idea. The fact that within these wave equations they showed that the speed was identical in all frames of reference went unnoticed for decades until he came along.

>>16890548
I mean exactly what I wrote.

>>16890619
When has light, electricity, or magnetism been observed to be continuous and smooth? How can you take a derivative? If you read Maxwell he actually goes into this. It has been a long time since I looked at it so I can't give you chapter and verse. But he sets them up as fields. This is mathematical reification and it also doesn't match with observations that came after him.
Lorentz invariance predates Einstein as well.

>>16890623
>doesn't match with observations that came after him.
Quantum Field Theory would disagree with you. And also the entire electronic age we live in.

>>16890648
Which part of maxwells equations deals with probabilities? Is the answer none? I think the answer is none. What does the quantum wave function deal with. so where is your transformation on quantum states os maxwells equations?
And how does quantum view maxwells equations? Is it an average condition based on a large number of events that are not described by maxwells equations at all? so the theory is fundamentally completely different except for the same reification of fields.
And then which quantum measurements support maxwells equations? Well, there is nothing on interference patterns. so yeah, I guess I was wrong. Maxwells equations covers all of quantum except for entanglement, quantization, interference, and how particles behave.
This must be one of those the science is incomplete things when everyone knows it means you are wrong.

File: gCyPJ_gCXyZAwHaEL.jpg (20 KB)

20 KB JPG

>>16890078
>Gravitational lensing, observed, not science
>Gravitational waves, measured, not science
>GPS, observed, measured, not science

>>16890200
>Science is retards measuring shadows in Plato's cave and calling them ontologically primary to reality itself.
You're doing the same thing they're doing, except vacuously. You declare some hidden "reality" behind the scenes that has no identifiable features and no substance.

>>16890658
Maxwell's equations are merely the classical limit of QED.

>>16890552
What's your definition of reproducible? Able to be reproduced by you in your basement on a budget of 20 bucks?

File: The eleven nets of a cube.png (64.5 KB)

64.5 KB PNG

>>16889863
There are many different arrangements, I am unsure of how accurate I might be

>>16886510
>c remains constant no matter what relative velocity you are to the light source
it doesn't, it's just a model that represents reality

>>16890851
Too long a webm. You can learn this in a fraction of the time playing dungeon dice monsters

>>16890785
> that represents reality
I see we're furiously agreeing then.

>>16890726
You know that leads to an interesting question - what would be the simplest, easiest to conduct experiment to provide a useful test of relativity? Would be nice to have something a high school physics lab could run.

>>16891000
>Anonymous 01/13/26(Tue)11:14:59 No.1689100
interferometers are pretty simple to set up. All you have to do is think logically about what must be occurring for orthogonal light beams to stay in-phase despite traveling different distances.

File: your slit sir.gif (3 MB)

3 MB GIF

>Be einstein shill
>Believe particles go through both slits
>reality.gif
>Claim lack of evidence is caused by observer effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAYPi0nqJ50

>>16890726
Isn't transient once a millennia astronomical phenomena nor quadrillion dollar gov blockbox, pretty shrimple
>we totes saw a star that should have been blocked by the sun a hundred years ago, just trust us ok?!
Not Science.

>>16891034
You're free to be incredulous about it, but calling it not science is just making you look dumb, buddy

>>16890685
>Gravitational lensing, CLAIMED to have observed, not science
correct
>Gravitational waves, CLAIMED to have been measured, not science
correct
>GPS, satellites clocks CLAIMED to run infinitesimally slower than terrestrial clocks, not science
correct

Hearsay is not evidence, reliance on hearsay is NOT SCIENCE.

>>16891049
Why don't you show us the papers you've written and experiments you've done yourself?

>>16891049
You know, you do have a point. How can we know anything is real and not just a projection of some Evil Demon. You're so smart and skeptical.

>>16891049
WE CARRY THE FLAME

>>16891049
At some point scepticism become stupidity. You are *way* passed that point.

>>16891084
Don't give him the honor of calling his stupidity skepticism. Skeptics suspend belief and are happy to be provided evidence and change their mind. This guy is a dumb faggot who promulgates disbelief, and no evidence will ever change his mind. It's more akin to a cult. What cult he's in, I couldn't say.

none of the answers in this thread really give a satisfying answer. I get how its derived mathematically and its connection to causality but it still just doesnt make sense logically. to be fair im a fucking retard though.

>>16891099
The universe isn't some solved mathematical proof. The only logic is has is what we observe. That's why >>16890107 is about as good an answer as you're going to get. We came up with some equations that worked for electricity and within the math was the answer you''re after.

>>16891099
the reason is because our basic human minds treat space and time as absolute, static entities. and from that perspective relativity doesnt make sense. but in reality c is the absolute quantity and space/time are simply emergent phenomena.

Somewhat related question:
Why is the ultimate speed defined so strangely?
Why does not transmitting information give phase velocities and entanglement the right to move faster than c?
Does information=mass o algo? Please explain :(

>>16891099
That's why I always refer to an alternative interpretation based on the pre-Einstein view >>16887252 which is from a book by John Bell. Here's the full chapter https://faculty.washington.edu/seattle/physics441/interpretations/Bell.pdf#page=78
This would probably the standard view if people knew that particles are waves in Lorentz invariant fields at the time. It's so obviously the correct interpretation.

>Newton came up with his theories about motion and energy and described them with mathematics. Energy applied between two objects would cause the space between them to increase over time. Space was some sort of uniform grid that all objects existed on and time was a parameter just ticking away in the background.

>Newtonian mechanics: Two racecars on a track, engines applies energy between the car and the road, the first car will begin changing its distances over time from the start of the road by say 10km/h, second car with an engine twice as powerful will change its difference in distance over time by 20km/h, and since everything is on a fixed grid, the second car will be changing its distance over time from the first car by 10km/h

>this was simple, linear, observable, and held up until we discovered an edge case (something going very fast doesn't hold up to this theory)

>Maxwell defines the equations for electromagnetism (the force behind light and all other basic interactions). The equations oddly say that light always has to be travelling at the same speed, no matter who is observing, which outright violates Newtonian mechanics

>This is considered a mistake in the equations, until the Michelson-Moreley experiment confirms that light does move like that

>Lorentz theorized that Newtonian mechanics was wrong, that the energy, distance, time relationship isn't linear, and that the relationship was some complex exponential, and created the Lorentz equations as part of his complex Lorentz Ether Theory. The equations meant that at low speeds, the time, distance, energy relationship seems linear, but all motion would converge on the speed of light eventually at high enough energies

>Einstein took the equations from Lorentz Ether, stripped away any references to Ether and spacetime grids, and created a simplified theory of motion that would replace Newtonian motion eventually.

>>16890278
>worthless incel ascribes to his imaginary entitiy the glory of an individual's hard work

>>16891036
It isn't science, it's hearsay, it's as much science as the gospels claim that jesus walked on water

>>16887048
*Lorentz

>>16890949
the map is not the territory

>>16891250
nope

>>16891099
Well that's kind of the point I think. A lot of physics is conterintuitive. Especially when things get really small or really fast, because that's not something you'd experience in your day to day life.
But even stuff on the macro scale like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=143&v=NeXIV-wMVUk

>>16886512
I thought space time matters what gravitational pull is on you to make deterministic ideations of what time you are bound to like the moon mars etc wtf what the fuck light gotta do with it

>>16886510
oh my bad nvm, i thought light velocity had its own thing since it takes 8 minutes for the sun to expose its radiation to earth unless thats bullshit psyop science

>>16891178
> stripped away any references to Ether and spacetime grids
Because he thought they were bad physics and just some mathematical devices. He started from Newton and added a *single* assumption, that c was a constant in all frames of reference. He derived all of a special relativity from that.

He did however later change his mind later about spacetime as he was working on GR, that it was more than just math.

>>16891518
>He started from Newton
No. He started with Maxwell.

>>16891559
No. That was the basis for the assumption about c along with the Michelson Morley experiment. Most people though the Maxwell speed was a mistake in the math and that the experiment was wrong. Einstein decided to see what happened if they weren't. You are right that the changes to Newton meant applying what turned out to be Lorentz transformations, which indeed had been found inside the Maxwell equations. However he derived those transformations from the initial assumption of constant light speed. Lorentz took those transformations as priori.

File: 1756955636805677.jpg (116.3 KB)

116.3 KB JPG

>>16891052
>argument from authority
Fallacious reasoning, NOT SCIENCE.
>>16891058
>>16891060
>>16891084
>bots out in force
Gee, I wonder why
>>16891090
The fruits of real science are omnipresent, we are communicating through technology reliant on QM, in contrast what fruit do we have from the invert Einstein's pseudoscience? Nothing more than a claimed need to run GPS satellites clocks infinitesimally slower, a claim, of course, that has never, will never be allowed to be independently audited, down right particular
>>16891478
>correct
ftfy

>>16891769
>picrel
imagine being proud about having the most childish world view imaginable

>>16888963
In other words, there's no proof that the speed of light is constant for instance.

>>16891811
Within certain wavelength ranges the possible deviation from this constant has been given an upper bound that's stupidly close to 0.
For example: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4964

From this it's not a big leap to assume it actually is 0 and it applies to every wavelength.

>>16891832
>variation of speed based on frequency equated with variation of speed of a fixed frequency with respect to time
I want definitive proof that there is exactly zero acceleration. And no you cannot use Newton's laws because light's behavior is determined by the behavior of non-classical particle. Coherent in the case of visible light, but uncertainty still applies.
>∆c/c < 6.3 × [math] 10^{−21}} [/math]
Still allows for variation across frequencies in the range of 10^{-22} or less.
>absurdly low
Only in a pragmatic sense, if degree of precision is less than 10^{-21} then you will not notice any variation. But that does not imply anything about the lower decimal places. The change in position of a mountain range in an instant in response to the wind is absurdly low. But that doesn't mean there isn't motion. It's often just not measurable within the precision of common instruments.

>>16891842
> Still allows for variation across frequencies in the range of 10^{-22} or less.
So like a million times smaller than the width of a proton or if scaled up to the size of the observable universe, a few meters difference. I think we're good with the zero assumption...

>>16890694
That's kind of irrelevant to what youre responding to, though.

Anon's point stands. Reality is reality. Science is not reality, because it's less than reality.

>>16886510
>why
There is no why. It just is.

>>16891769
holy fucking retard

>>16890012
> You can't "feel" your relative speed without looking at other objects, but you can always feel acceleration
The whole starting point of GR is that you don’t feel acceleration when falling towards earth.

Relativity establishes +/- asymptotic Limits at 0 (schwartzschild radius of a black hole) and C

when this is graphed it presents a Tangent graph

tangent is a function of sin(x)/cos(x)

mass can only perceive e^(ix) where x is a value range of
0 < x < c

likewise Temperature follows the same limit of observation

You cannot have e^(ix) rangebound between 0 and c without smuggling in the assumption of
-c < x < 0

wick rotations and the like are also invalid if you dismiss the complex unit circle

Therefore, "science" will always only ever be half the picture

this is why Zitterbewung is left unsettled in QFT

this is why wave-particle duality is unresolved

science perceives the entropic phase
and it uses math that presupposes there is a syntropic phase
but it denies the existence of the syntropic phase while claiming to represent Truth

its a crock of shit until this issue is formally addressed

you dont get to claim "schizo" or "invalidity" without addressing this fundamentally unaddressed phenom.

>>16891808
>>16891946
>404: argument not found
I accept your formal admissions of defeat.

>>16886510
>ok but... why?
The answer requires non-intuitive thinking that goes against the reality your subconscious mind has constructed for you. What we experience as a shared simultaneous reality in fact is a smoothed-over construction, an illusion pulled over the true reality that every single reference frame disagrees if you look hard enough. The only constant is that time is EXPERIENCED at the same rate in different reference frames, what we call proper time. In extreme circumstances like what's presented in the twin paradox, people experience disagreement that goes against their subconscious mindset of a persistent shared reality, but in reality, the traveling twin truly experienced less proper time than what the stationary twin experienced: nobody aged faster than the other, their elapsed time is in disagreement.

Therefore, for every single reference frame, time always ticks at the same rate no matter how fast their reference frame is moving in relation to their surroundings. What does vary is distance traveled and time elapsed outside of their reference frame. In their reference frame, light always "travels" at c. It's just that distances are always relative. Go fast enough and the distance traveled approaches zero, and by proportion, the time elapsed outside of your reference frame approaches infinity. In this instance, light would be approaching a limit of traveling through ALL of space in ZERO time. That makes no fucking sense, right? That's because light doesn't travel. c is inherently tied to the one constant that is your experience of proper time. The only true reference frame at any given moment is yours, shared reality is an illusion.

>>16891891
>Anon's point stands. Reality is reality. Science is not reality, because it's less than reality.
It's very relevant because under your framework "reality is reality" really only means "I-don't-know-what is I-don't-know-what". It's a nonsense statement.

>>16892377
Which framework is that, you're presuming to know?

>>16892422
>Which framework is that, you're presuming to know?
The one where reality isn't characterized by its observable features and patterns and therefore isn't characterized by anything.

>>16892427
Cool. How's your mom doing?

TT
doesn't deserve
to be
this long.

>>16889693
You cannot reject QM without also rejecting relativity.
Relativity is built on the fact that photons behave wavelike. That's where c comes from, Maxwell's wave equation.
When you invoke wave schizophrenia, you have to accept the double-slit experiment and non-locality.

>>16893027
The Maxwell equations are not quantum though

>>16886510
>ok but... why? how? how does that make any sense?
Pro tip it is bullshit and fake and gay and made up!

>>16886529
This
And the medium, the ether exists
>>16886510
Jew scam

>>16886529
That doesn't prove shit. There's no proof matter can't travel faster than c.

>>16895304
>the medium, the ether exists
Not totally impossible. We don't know.

>>16892091
>muh asymptotes on a math model!
These are not necessarily meaningful, you know?

>>16893600
>>16895337
>>16895338
come on you're not even trying to be distinct. put more effort next time.

>>16895338
I would argue that (((you))) are not necessarily meaningful. next retarded response?

>>16895504
>>16895512
Answer my arguments and don't waste my time.

>>16895908
make an intelligent argument and don't waste my time.

>>16887041
No, it's generally accepted that it's impossible to prove that the one-way speed of light is constant or if it's only the two-way speed that's constant.

everything scientists believe that doesnt make logical sense is based on mathematical gymnastics, when our system of math itself is flawed

>>16896475
Not totally wrong, math tends to be self-referential.

>>16886781
This is the SCIENCE!!!! take.
>it would break the logical rules of causality itself
No, only within the RT. Because the constant spped of light is literally the premise of the RT, and it would mathematically break if the premise is broken (in this case "4-dim-space-time would break) which then gives these stupid answers. But this is not reality.

>>16897758
>heheh actually science is fake and gay and Im very smart
>NO I will NOT tell you the real explanation!!! but I totally know what it is!!
every fucking time with you braindead schizophrenic retards.

>>16897917
>>NO I will NOT tell you the real explanation!!!
Partially see >>16886529
An Ether is not disproven. MM only demands time and lenght contraction OF OBJECTS.
But i know that i hit a point here. You literally derived your "causality" argument from the math of the RT which is bs.

>>16886544
>Science doesn't answer "why". There's no fundamental reason the universe is the way it is, or at least the reason is not knowable to us

This is true. If anything it's just an example of "it is the way it is because anything else would result in the universe not forming."

Why is the gravitational constant the way it is? Because we wouldn't be here otherwise. Why is the strong nuclear force the way it is? Same thing.

Could there be universes that have these differences? Absolutely. But not with us in it.

>>16886510
The source doesn't matter. The photon doesn't 'remember' what atom it was emitted from. The photon doesn't even matter because c is the universal speed limit, which light happens to travel at.

>>16898091
what causes light to accelerate when it leaves a glass?

>>16898112
It doesn't accelerate because it never slows down. The light light wave in the glass makes the glass atoms jiggle. The jiggling atoms emit light waves that interfere with the incoming wave. The superposition looks like a wave that's moving slower than c.

>>16898125
https://youtu.be/gAy39ErqV34?t=84
explain

>>16889639
Nice try retard. Go back to fucking school. What the actual fuck were you thinking with this post?

>>16886510
Europa does the Calypso
Io Ganymede measures light's tempo
to travel from Jupiter to Earth
changing their orbital schedules

>>16886510
Space and time will morph in order to ensure that C remains constant. And we can see this effect on GPS technology, if you ever worked on a GPS before which you haven't lol.

>>16902152
Is this sung to the tune of 'jump in the line'?

File: 1758599213459819.jpg (834.3 KB)

834.3 KB JPG

>>16891099
You might be a fucking retard, but you're our bestest most lovable and curious fucking retard <3

>>16886781
>its not the speed of light, its the speed of causality
The ((einstein causality)) not the normal causality. The einstein causality is bullshit since it says if somethink happens later but on a different place and faster then the light can travel its breach of causality. But if you translate this from german you can see that experiments already shows that this bullshit definition was disproven https://www.heise.de/news/ueberlichtgeschwindigkeit-fuer-alle-130684.html

>>16886781
>its not the speed of light, its the speed of causality.
Right. And how do you determine that's "the speed of causality" in the first place? This is really just circular reasoning.