why does a photon travel the same speed no matter how fast youre moving relative to it? And dont respond with relativity equations, I know that already. I mean logically how does this make any sense at all, physically speaking how does that work
It travels the same speed from your perspective.
because the jew said so
>>16990661yeah I get that but WHY
>>16990659Time slows down the faster you move.If a photon travels for a light year, how much time did if experience within that light year
>>16990665It's fundamental, there is no why.
What do you think would happen if you somehow moved faster than photons?What would you see? Explain the logic in this first.
>>16990666again I understand that, but why does time slow down with higher velocity? why and how are speed and time linked at allmathematically I get how distance and time contract to preserve the speed of light in all reference frames, but I dont get why or how this happens at all. Its just completely fucking bizarre and there's got to be some deeper logical mechanism for why the universe is like this besides "these equations match our experiments"
>>16990659>And dont respond with relativity equations, I know that alreadythen you should have a deep understanding of maxwell's equations, at which point the answer to your question is trivial. reminder that einstein's mass-energy equivalence paper was mostly just working with maxwell's equations.
>>16990672>whythere's that stupid question againwhy anything nigga
>>16990672>why does time slow down with higher velocitAt high speed you travel through more space, the more space you travel through, the more time you travel through the less time you experience locally.Its that running in the rain thought experiment, if you run in the rain do you get wetter than if you walked in the rain for the same amount of time?
>why does a photon travel the same speed no matter how fast youre moving relative to it?they just do, ok?
>>16990659If you are too stupid to understand the equations and what they mean then you just have to accept that "they just do that" will be as far as you go. Reality is not obliged to explain it's processes to you for it to be true.
>>16990701>If you are too stupid to understand the equationsCan you claim to be smart if you can't express what you supposedly understand?You weren't obliged to post in this thread so your presence is that of one who is an arsehole who's come to shit on people
>>16990709Yes, I can express it to myself and others. I can't express it to you which I'm not obliged to do.Reality doesn't stop being true if you can find a retard that can't understand it nor do smart people suddenly turn stupid if you find someone dumb enough to not understand what they are talking about. The fact that you resort to "well if you can't explain it to ME (the worst retard alive) that means you don't know what you are talking about!!!" already tells me everything I need to know about your intellect.
>>16990659that's antisemitic
>>16990728>>16990701>t. dunning kruger retard"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
>>16990700only good response itt
>>16990728>I can express it to myself and others. >I can't express it to youPick one shit for brains
>>16990751>>16990685 and >>16990667 say the same thing though
>>16990672>again I understand that, but why does time slow down with higher velocity? why and how are speed and time linked at allyour speed is constant, you only change direction, traveling through either space or time.Source: I made it up.
Do you understand that a boost is just a rotation but along a hyperbola rather than a circle? Everything falls out if you plug imaginary numbers into the usual equations for rotation.
>>16990679OP got real quiet from this one, lol
>>16990659It is the speed of causality (how fast things interact). Or how some anons say "refresh rate of reallity". Thats why no matter where you are in reallity, the refresh rate is the same. Why does reality have such nature? No one knows. Thats metaphysics, until we actually somehow go beyond it empiricaly.If you are more of a philosophy prone anon, best way to see it is as somethinf like Kants apriori structure of mind.
>>16990659>why does a photon travel the same speed no matter how fast youre moving relative to it?it doesnt
>>16990672You could literally ask this same questiom about absolutely everything, you don't because you have the intutuion for them in your evolved monke brain. So the question is rather why don't you have intuition for relativistic mechanics. Well, because the monkeys on the tree didn't jump from branch to branch with 99% the speed of light./thread
so basically no one has a real answer at all but some insecure dimwits who also dont have an answer like to look down on people who have curiosity beyond crunching numbers like an NPC. Got it
>>16991175You got ethered here. >>16990679
>>16991245sure I did, retard. it's a bullshit non answer.>move some terms around in maxwells equations and you get a prediction for the velocity of light that stays the same under lorentz transformationsand WHY does the universe obey lorentz symmetry and not galilean? But yes "shut up and calculate" NPC logic is all you need, ok.
>>16991263>and WHY does the universe obey lorentz symmetry and not galilean?Noether's theorem retard.
>>16991263>muh "shut up and calculate" NPC logic>seethingRealists and agnostics are in shambles. copenhagenGODS can't stop winning
>>16991333>cope 'n hang
>>16991263>WHY does the universe obey lorentz symmetrySomething to do with the position of the observer always being in 3rd person
>>16990659>why does a photon travel the same speed no matter how fast youre moving relative to it?It doesn't. Relativity is a bunch of Jewish pilpul, and you won't begin to understand physics until you understand its all trash.
>>169912631. relativity is a trivial maxim of motion. to deny it is to be a schizophrenic retard(nota bene: i am not speaking of special relativity nor of galilean relativity; no, elaboration is unnecessary at this stage)2. classical relativity (galilean) contradicts electrodynamics (maxwell's equations) and vice versa. this is the fault of galilean symmetry2b. a luminiferous ether could fix this discrepancy. all evidence for its existence comes up null. 3. special relativity respects the maxim of relativity while permitting electrodynamics to be true (occam's razor) (nota bene: this is the least amount of excess assumptions necessary in absence of a luminiferous ether)look. this is all literally week one of a dedicated course in special relativity. which you claim you understand, yet obviously do not. that's why the other post eviscerated your argument and exposed you as a pseud (not that such post was even necessary). since you seem to be illiterate and incapable of abstract, chained logic, i'll distill it even further for you:0. why? it just werks.unsatisfactory? that means you don't understand the basic principles of the scientific method. you will never be a scientist, a physicist, nor an intelligent individual capable of having these discussions. learn the basics if you want to talk about the advanced topics. you see this chart in pic rel? it's different ways to analyze reality. you, however, fall into none of the circles. nor in the ring of bullshit. you're in schizo delulu land and should go to ///x///.
>>16991412>occam's razorAnyone who uses this argument can safely be disregarded as a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about. Its shorthand for, "I have no proof of what I'm saying, but you should believe me because my theory is more beautiful or something, lol".
>>16991485i accept your concession.
>>16990679This. It all flows from Maxwell's equations. And anyone with a supposed interest in physics should be able to master Maxwell's equations before running their mouth on the internet, assuming they're not a degenerate larping faggot that is!
>>16990659If you're asking for the cause of light's behavior, then you would have to consult theories of fundamental physics to obtain such a description. For me, the most easily understood of these models explains light as being a mechanical propagation through a supersolid. When disturbed, the lattice of a supersolid behaves as a superfluid, transmitting that disturbance without the perturbation losing its energy. Light in this theory is analogous to the propagation of sound waves, with the speed of propagation depending on the material properties of the lattice it travels through.
>>16990659it's merely a rounding error
Has anybody ever asked the photons what they actually experience? It seems kind of presumptuous to assume they genuinely atemporally experience nothing. What if each photon is an isolated observer, screaming the whole time instead?
>>16993288i asked a photon. then it disappeared and a new one appeared. it answered as though it were the original photon. it said it sees everything. in photons i trust.
>>16993291Did you listen really carefully for the tiny screaming? It needs better instruments than your ears, I wager.
if a photon screams in the double slit experiment, does it make a sound?
>>16993353those are phonons.
depends how you look at it ig, if you move your hand in a direction opposite to the direction of the photon as it passes by, then relative to your hand it would be moving 'faster than light', but its not. its just relative. easier to grasp if you can visualise doppler cooling in motion.it can 'hit you faster' cause you moved to it faster, but the photon itself isnt moving faster, the observer is, so faster than light travel would effectively be synonymous with time travel, because you would intercept 'the past' photons before they could escape your observation. dont invent time travel though, its not worth it kek.
time doesnt slow down, the amount of things interacting with 'high velocity object' increases, meaning it interacts more, so to the object, time has slowed down, yet to outside observers moving at a lower velocity, the object has sped up. full throttle a motorbike through the mountains at night, youll get it.
>>16990659It doesnt make sense, since its bullshit. Einstein claimed that even tho we measure only the two way spped of light. Light moves with c relative to the aether. If we move relative to the aether the one way speed of light gets anisotropic. SInce you know the math you know the lorentz transformation makes the two way speed of light constant.This>muh different reality for everyone watching differentlyis just some jewish fantasy to destroy common sense in science.
>>16990685The absolute state of jew physics.
>>16991412>2b. a luminiferous ether could fix this discrepancy. all evidence for its existence comes up null.Wrong. CMB dipol is a more then zero evidence that we are in motion to an absolute reference frame. Why else would it be almost perfect, but with a dipol from relative speed of 370 km/s? Simplest conclusion is in the reference frame its extremely homogenous, and in motion we see the doppler effect.>3. special relativity respects the maxim of relativity while permitting electrodynamics to be true (occam's razor)Funny to use occams racor when your theory redefines simultanity so that it is not an equivalence relation. Clearly the more complicated and retarded theory.
>>16990659>speedRate of induction*. I heard it described that way from Ken Wheeler and it really helped me understand its properties better, even if other parts he uses dont align with mine (or measurements, he got into it with someone that worked on satellites and clock timing and he didnt "win" it.)
>>16990672>these equations match our experiments"That is literally all there is to it, its jew science. Light is not constant relative to the observer, but pretending it is satisfies some jewish equations so "scientists" treat it as their religion. Einstein was wrong.
>>16990665It knows where you are and runs faster from you if you move towards it.
>>16990659For the same reason a car is still moving at a 100mph even if you match its speed
>>16994846Fuck off, Nathan. Call your mom.
>>16994954then speed of light would be 0 relative to you but it isnt
>>16995065The idea of "speed" becomes irrelevant at such scales, space will compress in front of you to the point where it will become dimensionally completely flat rendering any measurement of speed completely useless
>>16995074>space will compressSpace doesnt compress, its the basis for everything we can measure and see. "space" as defined by einstein bends ok, but he literally defined space with the speed of light. Topkek classical circular reasoning. Read Kant to get educated about space.>>16995065Yes thats why its bullshit>>16995019????Why do i never get serious replies? Im very seriosuly defending lorentzian aether and you einstein fangirls just pretent my arguments dont exist.>>16994918Careful, yes its jew science but you have to argue more precisely or you make the jew science look less unhinged. The two way speed of light is proven to be c. But that the one way speed of light is always c, no matter how fast you move, in fact for the standing and the moving next to the standing at the same time, is classical jewish fantasy and not serious science.
>>16995228>seriosuly defending lorentzian aether
the photon does not experience time it has no perception of time, no time passes therefore no distance travelled and also therefore it doesnt care if you are moving hell it doesnt even know if you are moving, to it nothing is moving everything is static if its at the speed of light
>>16990659>why does a photon travel the same speed no matter how fast youre moving relative to itIt doesn't travel at all. You observe a wave red or blueshift as of the speed difference. Your photon is a detector event and must have the speed of your's.
>>16995257Clearly it has better arguments, see >>16994846Special relativity is a knock off anyway. So i assume the absence of arguments is a concession?
>>16995309Why do you still post here, Nathan? You got schooled years ago.
>>16995257cmb proves aether is real
>>16995346Lol, not even close. You know nothing about the CMB.
The aether is complete nonsense, okay? Light waves don't need a medium.Btw here are your 17 quantum fields which are the media of all particles including light.lol
Non science guy here, i assume this guy screeching about “jew science” is some retard that thinks he’s gained profound hidden knowledge through the explanations of some schizo on some other board, right? Embarrassing what lengths some people will go through to assume they are special.
>>16995369That and Youtube University. No need to listen to "experts" ((((experts)))) when you can listen to some random grifter on YouTube.
>>16995359Physicists rejected the luminiferous ether BEFORE the advent of quantum electrodynamics (which, mind you, is only a different model of how electrodynamics works -- the underlying mechanism (propagation in a vacuum) remains the same). fields are NOT a medium. you do realize fields, such as electric and magnetic fields existed before quantum mechanics, right? besides the fields are not media through which particles propagate -- the fields ARE the particles. you need to first understand classical physics, then classical electrodynamics before first studying quantum mechanics. and this is all before you dive into quantum field theory. not to mention the math prereqs you need. there's a reason quantum field theory is taught at the graduate level of physics, requiring at least an undergraduate degree in physics to understand. you can start with david morin for classical physics, then use griffiths for intro electromagnetism (followed by jackson for classical electrodynamics), then go to sakurai for quantum mechanics before finally ending at michele maggiore for quantum field theory. then you can come back here and apologize for your ignorance and misinformation.
>>16995228>Space doesnt compressIt does relative to your pov, that's what relativity is about, numbnuts.
>>16995369I tell you what. There is no experiment in the world which can differentiate between lorentzian aether and special relativity. Its just that relativity made complete bullshit definitions and therefore did lead to a new philosophy, we call that jewish. Its way more substance then you think, thats why Einstein fangirls react aggressively at the mention of lorentz aether.>>16995310Im not that guy and i usually post on /biz/ so i dont know who he is.>>16995359Kek>>16995380>Physicists rejected the luminiferous ether BEFORE the advent of quantum electrodynamiKek so wrong. Even ives and stilwell in 1938 believed in the lorentz aether and saw their famous experiment as confirmation of the lorentz aether, as they literally wrote at the start of their paper.https://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIves1938a.pdfToday its seen as experiment that validates relativity but thats only an interpretation>>16995562"space" defined by einstein does, because he literally redefined space with the speed of light postulate. But thats not a real definition. Space as a real object defined by kant is absolute.
>>16990679>le Maxwell equations imply all frames of references have the same speed of lightYes I fucking know that but WHY? Why would that be true? And How?
>>16990773what does that even mean?
>>16991412I used to have a student like OP. Completely fucking unbearable. Wasn't stupid as such but whenever anything required understanding of basic abstract concepts that are not really visualizible/don't come down to intuitive mechanics he wouldn't accept the explanation and would just say "I don't get it at all"Fucking maddening
>>16997150If your model lacks an ontological referent, and you deny the complex phase mechanics of QM, the. Your model is saying that reality somehow has complex phase structure (+,-,i,-i) time and (+/-/I/-i) distance which the math is formalizing but your word salad is denying the ontologcal existence of the complex phases, and if that is your position (copenhagen) you are smuggling metaphysics into the physics model without ontological referent and thus no matter how accurate your predictions with the model are, you're abbreviating unsubstantiated mechanics that cannot be defined as physically real in any way. It is a faith based authoritative argument at that point.
The answer to his question isComplex phase structure exists in the universe. We can only see the (arbitrarily) Real quadrant of spatiotemporality.Mass is the standing wave of an oscillation into and out of syntropic and entropic phases on the complex unit circle. This is why 4pi rotations must occur for the massive particle to rotate to it's starting position instead of 2pi. Because 2pi rotations are imaginary complex phases, and 2pi rotations are real.The photon is a standing wave of imaginary mass oscillating the same spatio-temporal complex structure it moves through Real distance and Imaginary Time, so it is truly at its start point and end point in no time, a continuous lorentzian contraction in the objective view of the universe: omnipresent.Conversely, or inversely if you will, the graviton moves through real time, and imaginary distance, it "looks like" gravity to us, and it cannot be located in the Real quadrant we are phase locked to (Real Time, Real Distance) because it's distance is imaginary. This is why both the photon and gravity propagate at c
To clarify, energy can move through Universal Reality primarily in 4 quantaImaginary Time: Real Distance = photonImaginary Distance: Real Time = gravitonReal Time and Real Distance = mass (electron proton neutron)Imaginary Time, Imaginary Distance = phonon (we call this a virtual quanta, because it has no time nor distance to be located in)Plancks constant, h comes in two units of measureJoules per hertz (electrons per phonon)Joules per second (photons per graviton)Time is a complex unit circle wheree^ix with x:-c < x < cLikewise temperature has a similar asymptotic limit at 0K, but we can simulate the reversal of Newtonian physics at temperature below 0Khttps://archive.news.wsu.edu/press-release/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/If something were able to be accelerated to 1.1c, you would not be able to see it moving backwards at -0.9c, because it would not reflect light for you to see it with.
a photon has no mass. because it has no mass, it is not weighed down by inertia, and so it travels at the maximum speed information can travel in. you can't "catch up" to the speed of information in this universe, the closer you get to that speed the more space and time distort relative to youit has a *momentum*, from its energy, but no inertia because it does not transition between potential energy and the expression of its energy
>>16997331woops, left the trip on, i was testing something out on /co/ just earlier. sorry gents
>>16997331Then spacetime must move at c as well, and it does not.
>>16997311>ontological referentStopped reading. Gtfo my board.
>>16997402>Just accept my faith based mathScience of the gaps
>>16990659Because space and time are the same thing and there is a tradeoff in that the higher your spacial velocity the lower your temporal velocity, the higher your temporal velocity, the lower your spacial velocity etc. It's not intuitive. Photons essentially don't experience time because they are travelling at the maximum possible spacial velocity. >>16997338Spacetime is the medium though. C is the maximum speed of information through that medium. The rule doesn't apply to the medium itself. (although in some sense, you could say it does considering gravitation/gravity waves/spacial distortion actually does travel at C)
>>16997447None of those words mean what you think they mean.
>>16997449Spacetime cannot exist without mass and energy, mong.Plug zero into Einstein's equations as the value for mass and the value for energy, what is the resultant output of the function which solves for spacetime?In this misunderstood spacetime curvature framework, what is the absolutely elasticity of spacetime? What causes one segment of spacetime to hold onto its neighboring segments of spacetime in such a way as to produce a curvature? What is the coupling mechanism of spacetime:spacetimeIt's nonsense, because if "spacetime is curving", then that spacetime must exist as a layer above an invariant coordinate substrate that curvature can be relative to, which means you have infinite regress issue that is unaccounted for, what is the absolute substrate that spacetime is curving in relation to? What are its qualities? How does it keep the spacetime in tension so as not to just instantly accumulate all the mass in one location like bowling balls on a a bedsheet held in tension by a frame. You're introducing more unsubstantiated and unaddressed regressive mechanics in that interpretation. I'm not buying your faith based argument. Sorry no science of the gaps for me. I'm not stupid enough to swallow that whole like you swallow cock.
>>16997472>solves for spacetimejust please shut the fuck up and shit up a different board.
>>16997477That's not an answer rote Nigger. Because the answer is, Physics doesn't have one. It just assumes spacetime is fundamental and nowhere in the entire lexicon is spacetime defined mathematically. It's a faith based argument that spacetime just IS the universal substrate, but it cannot exist without mass and energy so it is something that resides above the nothing that it would otherwise be if no mass and no energy existed.What couples spacetime to spacetime so that it has the elasticity to "curve" along a gradient, what provides the tension it requires to not just collapse into nothing?
>>16997502if you want physicists to take you seriously, learn how to use their jargon correctly. you're so obviously a schizophrenic nutjob that nothing you say is worth reading, let alone addressing and wasting time rebutting. know that no matter how much ai makes you think you're saying something intelligent, it's designed to validate you and drag you deeper into your idiosyncratic retardation. you will NEVER be a physicist; worse over, you will NEVER be a person a physicist takes seriously. i say this with complete sincerity: you should consider seeing a psychiatrist. this is not normal behavior in any capacity.
>>16997506I know the fucking jargon retard. I'm asking for a mathematically defined equation for spacetime and a causal mechanism for how one segment of spacetime couples to another so as to be something that can curve, and what does it curve in relation to? Other segments of spacetime? What is the binding mechanism for that? Because within the lexicon, there is the belief that vacuum decay is possible because the ground state of spacetime is greater than zero, where vacuum could theoretically decay into something that does have a ground state of zero.If you don't know what I'm talking about that's because you are some faggot on /sci/ who is not a physicist white knighting for Physics Dogmatism.Fuck you, answer the questions nigger or shut the fuck up so that someone who isn't a fucking retard can
>>16997512>I know the fucking jargon retard>>16997472>Plug zero into Einstein's equations as the value for mass and the value for energy>resultant output>solves for spacetimeand that's just in the first(second) line. if you understood the jargon, you'd know why this is all nonsense.
>>16997513I'm asking for a mathematically defined equation for spacetime and a causal mechanism for how one segment of spacetime couples to another so as to be something that can curve, and what does it curve in relation to? Other segments of spacetime? What is the binding mechanism for that? Because within the lexicon, there is the belief that vacuum decay is possible because the ground state of spacetime is greater than zero, where vacuum could theoretically decay into something that does have a ground state of zero.
>>16997515>mathematically defined equation for spacetime>>16997512>I know the fucking jargon retard.like clockwork. literally within your first sentences. lol.
>>16991175You are just trolling I bet. The entirety of physics is>we reliably observe this>we came up with a model that fitsa=mg from Galileo experiments? Literal fit to data. Later expanded upon with a more general gravitational attraction formula (also fit to data by the way). Maxwell equations? Fit to data. Schroedinger equations? Pulled out of the ass to fit the observations.Literally EVERYTHING in physics is fitting to data, the only thing that changes over time is at what point you say>assume this is trueand build from there.
>>16997512The curvature is caused by time flowing at different rates in different coordinates. If the left side of your body experiences time at a different rate than the right, your trajectory will curve towards the slower side. Same for, say, the moon.
>>16997542And before some smarty pants posts>but what about Noether theorem it's ~fundamental~ because it's from ~symmetry~but how do you know a symmetry holds? That's what I thought.
>>16997544What couples time to time? For something to curve it has to have a continuity, quantization of time infers this not that. What is the binding mechanism of this not that
>>16997542>a=mg>Literally EVERYTHING in physics is fitting to data
>>16997559nothing needs to couple time to time, time is a grid axis the same as x y and z. you might as well ask what couples x=1 to x=2 and so ondude if you want it broken down to you barney style just ask an llm already we're sick of talking in circles around you
>>16997588If it's a static backdrop it can't have gradients because gradients require a nonassociative lie group and a fano plane
When you form a Lie algebra or a Lie group out of non-associative elements, you introduce an algebraic property called the Malcev anomaly or the non-associative torsion tensor.
>>16997595Holy shit you're right, you just scientifically proved the non-existence of time, space, and any intelligence in your body. All with one devastatingly succinct statement. Congratulations. You would get an award, but the world doesn't actually exist and neither does this series of words. Shame, really.
>>16997595in pure mathematics. the universe doesn't *have* to follow the laws of pure mathematics. this is the point where you run into the axiom that says something along the lines of "the more you want to understand the universe, the harder it fights that understanding" or something. i feel niels bohr's response to einstein's "god does not play dice" quote works for you here: "stop telling god what to do!"the universe doesn't follow your pure math laws. cope already
If you move through an associative (quaternionic) space, going from coordinate $X$ to $Y$ to $Z$ yields a predictable, flat translation.But if you move through a non-associative, octonionic substrate governed by the Fano plane:Every time your quantum phase rotates through the imaginary units, the non-associativity creates a mathematical twist (torsion).Because (A×B)×C−A×(B×C)=/==0, there is a residual geometric deficit left behind by every single quantum cycle.This deficit creates a natural, self-generating gradient across the fabric.Space doesn't need external mass to curve it; the non-associative relationships between the imaginary dimensions of the Fano plane inherently generate a geometric tension.So you cannot have your cake and eat it too in this regard. To arbitrarily delineate the mathemical.machinery while denying the ontological existence of the complex phases is a contradiction that cannot stand on its own. In the copenhagen interpretation (which is not an interpretation at all, it is a refusal to acknowledge ontology) you cannot have curving spacetime.
>>16995823>space as a real objectPlease, provide me a spoonful of this real object you call space, preferrably without any irrelevant properties from matter
>>16997605congratulations, you have a pet theory with legs. now try to reproduce the results of general relativity with it and get it peer reviewed before you try to make it run a marathon
>>16997658You got me. That's the part I'm wrong ok. Space is there a priori and not an object that can bend. Object need space to.... Have a space to exist. That's what Kant said. I made a mistake here. Ok. Everything else I said is correct tho.
>>16990659anon needs to think about the direction of light and how one is moving in a 3d grid. also anon needs to calculate the effect of gravity on the light. blackholes trap light so gravity effects the speed of light. you're welcome.
>>16995348is it real, earth is moving 370km/s relative to the aether, with cmb you can even tell in which direction we're moving
>>16997730>objects need space to exist onThere is no evidence to support this claim, could be that all is made from matter and the particles you see are merely the same matter at various levels of compression.
>>16997787No evidence to support that claim. Narrative weaving is fun.
>>16997787>could bewrong
>>16997787if space doesnt exist, why does it bend in RT? Anyway space is just the area things are in. Its nothing, but since we can move in it, we have to see it as basis for theories.I would prefer we talk about the rest >>16995823here now, instead of trying to set the burden of proof to me, when i just state the obvious. To claims "space bends" is the crazy claim that needs proof.
>>16997846>To claims "space bends" is the crazy claim that needs proof.it is proven, retard. it was proven during einstein's lifetime during a solar eclipse.
>>16997846>Pulls out his magical conforming meter stick that changes its length and width to match the calculated expectationYou must not have been paying attention anon.
>>16997849Space is just the nothing, it cant be measured and never changes.>>16997848There will be ether theories that can explain this with absolute space very soon.
>>16997852Yet it possesses zero point vacuum energy, and is massless, therefore under relativity spacetime must move at c, yet it does not.
>>16997853>Yet it possesses zero point vacuum energy, and is masslessThats the aether and properties of the aether. Dont confuse that with space. Because of lorentz contraction the two way speed of light is always c tho, no matter how fast to the aether (resting to cmb rest frame) we move.>under relativity>spacetime"Spacetime" doesnt exist, its just a way to do math easily. Aether exists.
>>16997855Sorry I don't believe in the dogshit sleight of hand you're proposing that continues to deny the ontology QFT and GR deny with mystical woo. Peddle your retarded 1900s aether theory elsewhere mein nigger
>>16997857Well then im just saying>There is no experiment in the world which can differentiate between lorentzian aether and special relativity.
>>16997858Both frameworks have a double asymptote.Wheree^ixIs rangebound between absolute time dilation at the Schwartzschild radius of a black hole (infinite time dilation) the negative asymptotic limit of time, and the absolute lorentzian contraction of time itself at the asymptotic limit of c (no time) the asymptotic limit of distance at positive infinityThis, when graphed summulatively is a tangent function.its a negative infinity asymptote at -π/2, and a positive infinity asymptote at π/2. When you see the graphing of the tangent line in mass' observable window into perceiving the universe, this fundamentally implies a sine/cosine relationship is the objective nature that subjective perspective is tangentially confined to.Ergo, complex phases are ontologically real even thoigh we cannot observe them, and photons traverse imaginary time and real distance.And gravitons traverse real time and imaginary distanceAnd mass traverses real time and real distance (notably the electron, proton, and neutron)And phonons traverse imaginary time and imaginary distance..no aether required. It's all explained by the ontological reality of the phase mechanics.Pass on your aether theory. Relativity and Aether theory are the same ontic assumption, that only the Real Real quadrant of our tange totally phase locked observability window are "Real"
>>16997861Only because we can do that math, and it fits nice functions, doesnt mean its real. There is no "imaginary time line "photons" (which are waves) travel". And gravitons dont even exist. >and the absolute lorentzian contraction of time itself at the asymptotic limit of cNot "time", clock rates (and yes the rate of everything else too). But time has to be defined absolute or it doesnt have the meaning it should have.Also you said first>and photons traverse imaginary time and real distanceAnd then>And phonons traverse imaginary time and imaginary distanceLol what is it?>aether not requiredWith these models (which fit), but philosophically it MUST exist. Also you are actually wrong.
>>16997867Yes it does dumbass, reality has to have all of the constraints of the model, and more, because the model is a simplifcation of reality in its totality, so for the model to have mechanics reality does not have, is to mistake a robotic arm that is simulating the arc of a Real pendulum system as the same thing as an actual pendulum system
>>16997867Protip;PhotonsAre different fromPhononsIt's not a spelling error. They're two different quanta: look it up pedobear.
>>16990672Stop asking, "Why?"
>>16997877he picked the word phonon up because of a joke earlier itt, and he didn't even notice>>16993354
>>16997880Bots do be like that tho
>>16997877Im sorry i did not notice the differences. Then it at least makes half sense.>>16997874Dude your model doesnt even define simultanity as an equivalence relation. Reality doesnt have to follow models based on random sync definitions.
>>16990672if you move fast relative to the aether (which is the only place where the one way speed of light is always c), a light clock and every periodic thing needs longer for a period because it has a further way to travel. Look up lorentz contraction. Thats the reason. Aether with lorentz contraction.All einstein has to offer is >>16997879
>>16997846>if space doesnt exist, why does it bend in RT?Because relativity describes the effect of gravity in terms of a distorted spacetime metric, it says absolutely nothing about what gravity, space or time are, it's just numbers to predict behaviour. Your question is akin to asking >if space isn't made of apples how come we can measure things in apples
The thing is lights frame of reference basically doesn't exist so for every frame of light that is not lights space and time undergo lorentz transforms to keep light at c C seems to be a property of the vaccuum as shown by maxwells equations
>>16990659Because the speed of something is independent of how fast something else is traveling.The speed of light is still the speed of light whether you're traveling at or near the same speed as the photon you are referring to in this example.That's like asking why does something go 100miles per hour whether or not I'm going 100 miles per hour. Without accounting for or factoring in gravity (which is affected by mass and could alter speed contingent to how close you and the photon were to each other, but even then that's a matter of physics. And would directly be related to how much you and the photon weighed) or friction. Then speeds of objects are completely independent of each other.
>>16990749Word. Einstein. He also said the same level of thinking that caused the problem isn't the same type of thinking that will be able to solve it.And the fish and the bicycle analogy as well. I thoroughly explained the answer to the question and I think I made it pretty simple by slowing it down to 100 miles per hour. Because relativity is a fancy way of saying in relation to. >>16995380
>>16995380You don't have to know all that. You just tried to gatekeep because you didn't know the answer. By saying that one can't think logically and clearly without understanding a bunch of other topics first. Einstein literally was a theoretical physicist so that means he theorized. Which means he was making guesses and coming up with possibly theories and explanations. >>16997150someone that doesn't understand and openly says they don't is far more intelligent than lying and pretending as if one does. they're humble enough to seek the answer rather than being ignorant in their lack of knowledge and understanding. there's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know. ive been making beats for a quarter of a century and i still don't know the first thing about compression. I have it explained to me all the time and i still dont understand how to use it or apply it.
>>16997449Space and time aren't the same thing though. They're completely different from each other.In fact time is almost like water in that it has multiple properties to it and how it behaves. Time is constant. It moved forward. It can go forwards and backwards when we quantify it. We can to a time lapse and watch it's effects...Time can be thought of as an action. In that time can happen to something. Think of duration. Time quantifies duration.Time is literally completely different from space. They are linked but they are separate.Time is a dimension. It even precedes mass. Think about it at a specific point in time something happened. But before something could happen it, time had to start. And at that point in time, space started then too. Hence space-time. They are linked to one another, but they are certainly the same at all.Space deals with mass. Time is motion, direction, duration etc. I used to study calculus for fun and learned a bunch about physics at the same time.Calculus is probably like learning latin, in that of you can learn it you can have a strong grip of it, you can have a really strong foundation in most sciences.It certainly helps with physics.
>>16997787yes there is. the universe is a grid. an xy grid of space and time. if the universe existed in a box the everything inside it exists and takes up space at a point in time. hence the space time continuum.
>>16997787The only thing that would support that is if everything is actually made up of all light. Varying compactions of light. And I heard that theorized before thus us being referred to as hue-man beings referring to different amounts of light
>>16998008>I'm retarded therefore everyone else is too
>>16997998That's stupid because you always measure relative speed to yourself. And this is absolutely dependent on how fast you move. The answer is>>16994834>>16997951So you admit it's just a mathematical model, and not describing reality by saying what these things are. Good. >>16998003Your answer is a mix of bullshit and gatekeeping and you ignored me when I pointed it out. Especially the "rejected the aether long before thing" when Ives and stilwell still used the aether model in 1938.
>>16995380>then go to sakurai for quantum mechanicsmy body is ready
>>16998090Why does a pound of bricks still weigh a pound whether or not I weigh a ton or an ounce is what the original question asked.RELATIVE TO THE POUND OF BRICKS. RELATIVE AS A PHRASE MEANS IN COMPARISON TO.the speed of a photon stays the same speed whether or not you can travel the speed of light or not.Surely you can understand that and I broke it down and made it quite simple.
>>16998090And if all else fails just resort to pure ignorance and blame the Jews. But then you look extra foolish and ignorant because if you actually know the answer, which I do then your answer looks like what it is. "If I don't know I just blame Jews."And I know this board is quite shameless and ignorant in its blatant racism and stuff, but science and mathematics are supposed to supercede ignorance not justify it.
>>16998274In the spirit of Einstein at that, and it's quite ironic since we're debating science and relativity."If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough."
>>16998274Weight in a gravitational field doesnt have to be compared to something. Speed has always to compared to something. You said "its always 100 m/h but thats only relative to earth. With photons, einstein defined it that way, but with aether theorie we get anisotropy. The TWO WAY SPEED OF LIGHT is always measured c, yes, but that is because all instruments get time and lenght contraction.>>16998281>And if all else failsI literally stand uncorrected (with exeption of the false description of space i admitted), you just claim im wrong without any arguments.Or please debunk these>>16994834>>16994846>>16995823And not>muh raaciiiisssmits not my fault jews made absurd theories.
>>16998281Also you cant even admit that>>16995380>Physicists rejected the luminiferous ether BEFORE the advent of quantum electrodynamicsIs hot garbageEven ives and stilwell in 1938 believed in the lorentz aether and saw their famous experiment as confirmation of the lorentz aether, as they literally wrote at the start of their paper.https://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIves1938a.pdfToday its seen as experiment that validates relativity but thats only an interpretation
>>16997951You're trying to refute the importance of mathematics in relation to science.Mathematics are fundamental to science. Equations are mathematical models that describe the behavior of something. That's the whole point.You can learn how they are related to each other, through the equation. If the equation is valid you can understand how gravity, space and time work without having extensive knowledge about any of them.Like the equations in electricity.Voltage, current and resistance are all related to one another through Ohm's Law. Same as understanding how power, current and resistance are related to one another through the power equations of electricity.
>>16998090Everything is a mathematical model, to answer what anything really _is_ is not possible with the limiting human factor.>>16998305Ohm's law does not answer what electricity is made of>inb4 electrons and electromagnetic fieldsNow answer what these things are made ofSo onSo onEventually you arrive to the conclusion that a thing is simply made of itself, but even that doesn't answer what "itself" fundamentally is, we are relegated to only observe what things do and relate things to eachother based on what they do, but answering what they are is not currently feasible.
>>16998287Well it is comparable to something because it's very nature is based on it. Weight changes based on gravity. How much something weighs is contingent to its mass, but speed is the greater factor when considering weight. So weight is something that is essentially highly relative figuratively speaking.And that can probably be explained by what I'd currently theorize is that all forces are relative. The mass in weight stays the same, whether it speeds up or not. Just as the photon has a constant that it travels at whether or not it's being affected by or altered by outside forces...Gravity as a force is a force of speed...Force=mass times acceleration (Newton)If you weigh a hundred pounds you still weigh a hundred pounds on Earth or the moon, but how much the speed of gravity affects you changes your weight.That photon traveling at 186000 miles per second, travels that fast whether or not anything around it is traveling faster or slower or anything is happening to alter its speed. See light is like the water of forces. Because it can take on several different forms and is so malleable and behaves like nothing else.
>>16990672I imagine it's because space and time are a singular manifold. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time, and this warping of spacetime remains constant for photons because they're massless, so can travel at the fastest possible speed that the medium allows. It probably also has to do with the constant of lightspeed factoring into mass-energy equivalence because intertial frames depend on relative velocity rather than a universal constant, which means their interactions with the spacetime fabric retain different geometric configurations that allow for counter-intuitive vantage points.It's kind of like how as you move towards the center of a black hole, the geometry warps spacetime so severely that the tensor shifts into you moving through time as opposed to space, which is largely why relativistic equations break down into a singularity.It's basically how matter and energy, like speed, warp space AND time. You're affecting the very medium of causality, which can twist and distort to extreme degrees without ever tearing, because you physically cannot separate space from itself without instantiating more space, which is why dark energy may have more causal effects on the flow of time due to the rapid expansion of space.
>>16998288Ayo get a load of this retard who doesn't know when quantum electrodynamics was discovered lmfao (hint: it was after 1938)
>>16998337Dirac discovered it around 1928
>>16998312>Well it is comparable to something because it's very nature is based on it.What i ment is you can say>its 1kgwhile with speed you always have to give a reference to what. Weight is not mass, mass is absolute and weight depends on the gravitation.
>>16998499>mass is absolute>>he doesn't know
>>16998545Even relativists have throw out the concept of relativistic mass.
>>16998908>he thinks that's what I meantheh
>>16998499So then you agree with me
>>16999166Not completely. Photons travel slower near big masses (Shapiro delay). And the weight is not the same on the moon and earth, but the mass.
is OP even still posting in this thread? why won't you retards just let this thread die?
>>16994836
>>16990659because it can not travel any faster
