>>17017472
how?

>>17017477
flat earth has better vibes

File: Screenshot_20260520-141831.png (2.01 MB, 1080x1061)

2.01 MB PNG

Indeed,

The Seethe > The Science

The Science is only meaningful if the Athiest can use it as a bludgeon against the faithful to reinforce the denial; this is predictable

File: Screenshot_20260529-102209.png (2.44 MB, 1079x1644)

2.44 MB PNG

Yep, so now the wolf drops its sheep mask, and the sheep drops its wolf mask and the only thing left for the wolf is the Seethe

The deceived scientist is finding out they never had an ally in the Athiest in the first place ;)

File: 1783525301843599m.jpg (180 KB, 1024x1018)

180 KB JPG

Why is the science board infested with people who have no interest or background in science?

>>17017472
Relativity isnt derived from gravity. It follows from speed of causality not being infinite.

>>17017502
They are the only ones interested in discussing science instead of catechizing it

>>17017509
They're not discussing science though, they're discussing philosophy and /x/ nonsense and doing it here for some reason.

File: j5eh.jpg (160 KB, 1200x1200)

160 KB JPG

>>17017503
This modern "speed of causality" interpretation of relativity is so stupid holy shit. Even heared of quantum entanglement? Yeah this breaks the causality view. There is an absolute time out there, otherwise the instant change of condition would not be possible. Its the time of the CMB rest frame, and the lorentz transformations explain why we cant measure it.

>>17017515
>They're not discussing science though, they're discussing philosophy
Physicians since Einstein had shitted so much on Philosophy that their theories are so detached from reality that they themselves lost all direction. Philosophy needs to cure physics.

File: 1773845093801929.png (7 KB, 228x221)

7 KB PNG

>>17017479
>>17017484
I hate AI slop. The hatred is giving me a kind of energy at this point.

>>17020367
To be fair mercury really does treat syphilis, it's just we've since found much better treatments than calomel

File: 43zw.jpg (56 KB, 714x687)

56 KB JPG

>>17021639
You guys are way worse then the Einstein fangirls. What your pic described are the things needed to balance relativity. Not newton. Newtons laws did not need this, but they also only work for small planets like the earth.
>gravity is not real
Whats putting you down to earth then you absolutely retarded moron? Its defined as gravity.
You fucking idiots make alternative physics look retarded.

>>17017472
Dont side with Nick Canning on the third one

File: 1779782873714790.png (392 KB, 683x554)

392 KB PNG

>>17018512
>Philosophy needs to cure physics.
You pseuds are out of your depth, but sure, go ahead. The scientific method is built on peer review and not daring, but begging others to prove us wrong. Go out in real life and show the scientific community that you philosophers can get better results in tangible, physical research. I can guarantee it will be the most humbling experience you've ever had.

you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded

>>17026960
>you philosophers can get better results in tangible, physical research
Thats exactly the wrong metric and it exactly shows your problem. If its better philosophically but produces the same results it has to be prefered. Thats why loretzian aether should be prefered to SRT. You cant just give words (space, simultanity) new meanings and sell it as model for the universe.

File: science-buddies-scientifi(...).png (100 KB, 654x826)

100 KB PNG

>>17027972
>Thats exactly the wrong metric and it exactly shows your problem. If its better philosophically but produces the same results it has to be prefered.
The problem with your reasoning here is that you assume you'll get equal results when what you'd actually get is worse results, until whoever was foolish enough to let you scam them out of their money and equipment wises up and blacklists you from the scientific community.

>>17026960
No it's built on moral ethical cowardice
That's why "Simulation Theory" is scientific and "God theory", which is exactly the same thing, except it is intent AND moral absolution over the Ego is not.

The only difference is the ego is not morally sovereign in the latter, but it is in the former.

File: sample_061fd76291f3d71e26(...).jpg (862 KB, 850x1100)

862 KB JPG

>>17029038
None of this is interesting from a scientific perspective. If you want to discuss how something needs to be changed about how scientific research is managed and exploited it belongs on the politics or business board. You have nothing to contribute here.

>>17029042
>If you want to discuss how something needs to be changed about how scientific research is managed and exploited it belongs on the politics or business board.
No. This specifically belongs here.
>>17028980
Lorentzian aether and SR get equal results, what are you smoking?

Go back to /x/ you infinitely arrogant retarded schizo.

>>17029113
>spouting gay gobblydook about ego and moral absolution specifically belongs here
No it fucking doesn't, it belongs somewhere concerned with politics and/or business.

>REEEEE (((SOIENCE))) is compromised because anyone who actually cares about science immediately recognizes that I am a rackpot and ignores me REEEEEE

>REEEE WHY WON'T SCIENTISTS RESPOND TO MY WORD SALAD EMAILS?

>>17029118
Its science related. What according to you belongs here then? Some boring mainstream science threads?

File: Ungiggled.png (33 KB, 928x382)

33 KB PNG

>>17026960
Philosophy is to root of all knowledge. If you cannot or never actually developed a solid foundation of philosophic base principles of [insert chosen field] your doctorate is essentially false and unearned.
And someone who insults the philosophic principle, failed the first step.

>>17029293
>to
the*

>>17026960
>peer review
aka check-in for typos
peer reviewers don't try to replicate anything, it's just your fantasy

>>17017472
Yes.
Chicken bones and entrails are the way to go.

>>17017502
because you lost tranny

>>17029258
>Its science related.
>Ego, morality voodoo nonsense
no it is not science related. You don't want to discuss science, you want to discuss philosophy. That is not science. It belongs somewhere else. Somewhere like /lit/
>>17029293
It's a hurdle you jump through to get a career in science. That doesn't make it the center of your entire existence and focus. And there are phds for many fields that have nothing to do with science, including the arts. Which makes it clearly distinct from science. Showing you know what PhD means doesn't suddenly make discussion about philosophy any less disruptive to this board. No one who comes here hoping to read discussions about science is going to feel anything but annoyance and disappointment when they click on a thread and see a bunch of pseud tryhards trying to discuss philosophy instead. You idiots clearly don't think like scientists and clearly don't have the same interests as people who are interested in science. You would never be caught in real life hanging around the type of people who like it. You don't belong here. You belong on /lit/. Fuck off. You have NOTHING to contribute here.

>>17029561
>You don't want to discuss science, you want to discuss philosophy. That is not science.
Science is based on philosophy not math. And if science goes in ways which conflict with philosophy (like spacetime), philosophy has the right to stop science.
And you equating philosophy with Ego, morality voodoo nonsense means you are a massive asshole.

>>17029564
>Science is based on philosophy
You could make that argument for practically any human behavior. That discussion doesn't belong here.
>And if science goes in ways which conflict with philosophy (like spacetime), philosophy has the right to stop science.
If you want that right you have to earn it:
>>17026960
> And you equating philosophy with Ego, morality voodoo nonsense means you are a massive asshole.
Good, you deserve to be treated that way for invading a space you don't belong in and trying to take it over despite having not earned the right to that. You're a social activist, not a scientist. You don't deserve to be treated seriously. You deserve to be laughed at and the things you say make that easy to do.

>>17029561
Nigger, science is not epistemologically sovereign. Explain physics without using Math, Cognition, or Language, those are other epistemes which are not even Physic-al

File: netz.jpg (123 KB, 1281x1395)

123 KB JPG

>>17029569
>That discussion doesn't belong here.
YOU do not decide what belongs here and what now
>If you want that right you have to earn it:
Sure, the best example is always special relativity vs lorentzian aether
>You're a social activist, not a scientist. You don't deserve to be treated seriously. You deserve to be laughed at and the things you say make that easy to do.
Projecting much?

And i ask you again, what is your suggestion for topics here? Boring mainstream explanations of effects (you want to feel validated as a scientist by strangers?
Go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/ they have exactly that content. 4chan always has non mainstream, boderline and yes schizo discussion.

>>17029577
>YOU do not decide what belongs here and what now
You can't even argue why I'm supposedly wrong. You've made it too obvious you're not here for any reason other than the shit up the board because you have some inferiority complex towards science and need to prove philosophy is better for some completely irrelevant reason that nobody here cares about or wants to know about.
>Sure, the best example is always special relativity vs lorentzian aether
You have to do more than argue it. Come up with your own testing methods and equipment and funds and prove it, physically prove it. Put in the fucking work, don't just stand on a podium and try barking orders at people to carry out your will, you fucking poser.
>Projecting much?
Projecting much?
>And i ask you again, what is your suggestion for topics here?
If you had even a passing hobby-tier interest in science you wouldn't need to ask that question. The catalogue already has countless examples, it's just the persistent spam of threads like this made by troublemakers like you that deserve to be shut down.

File: gthr.jpg (91 KB, 469x452)

91 KB JPG

>>17029592
>You can't even argue why I'm supposedly wrong.
You are wrong because this board is not yours and you do not decide what is relevant for science. Or what can be posted here.
>Come up with your own testing methods and equipment and funds and prove it, physically prove it.
Already mathematically done, its equivalent. Now its a pure PHILOSOPHICAL question, nothing else. Highly relevant for physics and for here. Mainstream says SR, but not because of testing methods and equipment.
>The catalogue already has countless examples
Im interested, give a thread that is good in your opinion.

>>17029596
It will take less time and characters to paste the threads that don't belong here
>>17016779
>>17002705
>>17028027
I didn't include this thread because technically, just based on the OP alone, it suggests good intentions about discussing something relevant to science.
>Now its a pure PHILOSOPHICAL question
There's a possibility that theories can technically be true, but at different scales. You're a clueless layman faggot so I'll give you a link to help you understand
https://youtu.be/cY6Y4lE3LTo
Now fuck off and don't come back until you acquire enough mental tools to allow you to have a discussion without resorting to pure philosophy like an arts faggot

>>17029638
>There's a possibility that
both

>>17029638
Discoveries, true discoveries never come from the happy, easy little center of public agreement.
Discoveries come from the fringe. Not necessarily/not always the weird or the strange, but from outside of the "common knowledge."
These retarded schizo half-maths I see on /sci/ while usually completely wrong, might give someone who isn't a schiz retard the impetus to synthesize some brand new revelation, based on the correlation of the ideas.

>>17029721
>These retarded schizo half-maths
Have infinitely more value than some social activist with a grudge trying to convince everyone that we need to become navel-gazing philosophers instead or that we need to acknowledge for some arbitrary reason that philosophy is superior.

>>17029725
it's plain and clear that you don't have an argument anymore and are just venting internal personal feelings

>>17029726
>it's plain and clear that you don't have an argument anymore and are just venting internal personal feelings
>>17029721
Nothing said in this post is something I would disagree with, but half of them are also self evident and wouldn't make logical sense to not be true.
You're just mad no one here finds philosophy as impressive as you do. You'd have a much easier time making friends on /lit/
You can talk about ego and moral mumbo jumbo to your heart's content there.

>>17029731
it's plain and clear that you don't have an argument anymore and are just venting internal personal feelings

>>17029733
So you're just looking to have the last word now, is that it? Because it doesn't look like you have anything of substance to say anymore

>>17029736
no you just need to hear it til you understand

it's plain and clear that you don't have an argument anymore and are just venting internal personal feelings

>>17029737
You're just trying to save face, aren't you. This is why you don't belong here.

>>17029738
ok kid

>>17029739
Off you go

>>17029740
ok, kid.

>>17029741
Off you go

File: no.png (184 KB, 538x670)

184 KB PNG

>>17029742

>>17029743
Then expect to continue to fail at taking over this space. You're never going to bridge the mental gap that allows you to convert people here like you can convert people in other spaces.

File: dktj.jpg (83 KB, 559x845)

83 KB JPG

>>17029721
>>17029731
Im the guy who originally discussed with you, my last reply was with the frog kek. It still stands philosophy has to be considered in any science.
>>17029638
These threads you linked are great, thanks for linking. Your personal faggotry of philosophy hate is not relevant, stop posting about it and leave these threads.
>video
Boring mainstreamer discussing abstract things that are exactly the reason physics is stuck
Talking about layers instead of thinking it new from the start on

File: a2400434562_2.jpg (62 KB, 350x350)

62 KB JPG

>>17029745
>. It still stands philosophy has to be considered in any science.
Only as a means to an end. It's me Ed the main focus.
>These threads you linked are great,
Garbage taste and poor judgement, they are by far the least interesting threads on this board right now.
>Your personal faggotry of philosophy hate is not relevant
Wrong. Trying to turn this board into a place to discuss philosophy is what's not relevant.
>instead of thinking it new from the start on
wanting novelty without justification is the perfect way to out yourself as someone that has absolutely nothing in common with the type of person this board is meant to appeal to.

>>17029745
I'm not anyone who was originally discussing.
my first post ITT started here >>17029721

>>17029751
>Garbage taste and poor judgement, they are by far the least interesting threads on this board right now.
What do you think of my current thread then?
>>17028374
>>17029751
>Wrong. Trying to turn this board into a place to discuss philosophy is what's not relevant
Philosophy of science. As side topic. Absolutely good. Not your problem.
>wanting novelty without justification is the perfect way to out yourself as someone that has absolutely nothing in common with the type of person this board is meant to appeal to.
Justification is that relativity is philosophical bullshit and more and more incompatible with modern finding like quantum entanglement or CMB stuff and more.
>>17029754
This board needs IDs

>if you move faster time goes slower
>somehow think you live more
>lmao even
why are idiots like this? it's the other way around. the faster you move the faster everything moves outside your frame, from your frame, thus you move faster through universal time. shit's fucking retarded, you get faster to big crunch or big cold or whatever the fuck.
to "live" longer you must stay absolutely still, that's how you get to experience the most universal time. the faster you move the faster you're pissing it away
also everyone in this thread apart from me is gay

>>17029798
I'll suck your dick while we hold hands and make eye contact no homo.
>>17029766
Ok.
Fine.
I did lie, >>17029293 was my 1st post ITT, but my posts never involved you unless you've been arguing with yourself this whole time.

File: 51f715396ba84dac10d4eac65(...).jpg (317 KB, 1021x1277)

317 KB JPG

>>17029766
>Justification is that relativity is philosophical bullshit and more and more incompatible with modern finding like quantum entanglement or CMB stuff and more.
"Relativity" (I assume you mean special relativity because that's what's used in QFT) is a model, not a philosophy. The holy grail of physics is to find a theory of everything that can explain everything and predict everything from one simple rule. Physicists know they aren't there yet. They're not panicking over one of their many models becoming obsolete because it was never expected to be the final, finished product in the first place. Not because their self worth is attached to relativity being "correct". The biggest difference between a scientist and a non scientist is their attitude towards being wrong about something. And thanks to the planck length and energy we have something of a road map that tells us we are still very far away from peering into the true fundamental nature of reality anyway.
It's fine to speculate on what comes next after relativity but there's no reason for abominations like this post >>17029038
to exist. I hope that wasn't you but whoever wrote it is clearly a moralfagging activist with social or political motivations in mind, not a scientific one.
>What do you think of my current thread then?
I wish the entire world was covered in a mile-thick sheet of snow and ice but beyond that I dont care.

>>17030008
>"Relativity" (I assume you mean special relativity because that's what's used in QFT) is a model, not a philosophy.
No, relativity and its representatives make countless strong philosophical arguments all the time. They always claim that true reality in the universe is a 4d spacetime. Time is relative. You cant claim all these things and then hide from philosophy when they push back. The post was not me, but relativity needs to be more criticized by philosophers.

>>17030104
>but relativity needs to be more criticized by philosophers
Do they have better arguments than "it's wrong because I don't like it"?

where on the doll did einstein touch you guys? for me it was my foreskin. that's why i abhor general relativity.

File: sample_9ba7440a4fbeb52667(...).jpg (368 KB, 850x850)

368 KB JPG

>>17030104
oh my fucking god for a split second I had hope that I was wrong and you were going to have some nice fun and potentially interesting thoughts on the subject but nooo you had to turn and say some hopelessly retarded bullshit that proves me right on there being absolutely nothing of substance you could possibly contribute to the conversation. You don't fucking understand why scientific models say what they say you filter it through your dumb normie fucking filter and think it's making philosophical statements instead of purely mechanical ones. God you are a fucking retard fuck off to /lit/ and then stream your suicide you have absolutely ZERO fucking business posting here you fucking brainlet.

>>17030008
>special relativity because that's what's used in QFT
i doubt you understand how this works.
>The holy grail of physics is to find a theory of everything
lol, not even in the slightest.
>predict everything from one simple rule.
even granting IF (big if) a toe existed, it wouldn't be simple. you think the standard model is simple, in spite of how many things it predicts? you think general relativity, with all its verified predictions (and additions and modifications of the theory, e.g. kerr black holes) is simple? this tells me you're some pop-sci guzzling enthusiast faggot. probably a llm cock sucker.
>The biggest difference between a scientist and a non scientist is their attitude towards being wrong about something
no, you dumb fuck. the biggest difference is understanding what the fuck they're talking about. which is why you're a non-scientist.
>thanks to the planck length and energy
planck units have absolutely zero fucking relevance to reality. it's hilariously ironic you begin your post by differentiating between a model and a philosophy, and then pretend that planck units (which aren't even close to counting as a fucking model) are somehow representative of reality in that it gives a "road map" to peering into reality. holy christ you are an idiot. are you sucking on genai slop which was trained on redditors who lie about their credentials and peddle pop-sci bullshit?
>It's fine to speculate on what comes next after relativity but there's no reason for abominations like this post >>17029038
i'm as anti-theist as you'll ever meet. so believe me when i say that cited post is from a retard who you never should have responded to beyond calling an idiot. you, however, are worse. because you peddle your mystical ignorance couched in semi-formal language which makes it easier for untrained midwits to gobble your slop. you're just as guilty as this fool, yet it's less obvious to the normie.

File: image.jpg (237 KB, 784x1168)

237 KB JPG

>>17030159
>even granting IF (big if) a toe existed, it wouldn't be simple. you think the standard model is simple, in spite of how many things it predicts? you think general relativity, with all its verified predictions (and additions and modifications of the theory, e.g. kerr black holes) is simple?
If it weren't simple it wouldn't be a theory of everything. That's the entire concept, to reduce the size of the model down to as few factors as possible (one) while increasing predictive capability to the highest limit.
>and then pretend that planck units are somehow representative of reality
I didn't say those are hard limits built into reality by God himself, they just give an expectation that there's still a lot more depth to dig through and that we've barely scratched the surface. Which makes it funny when you ask me what my thoughts are on the complexity of modern models as if I expect them to be anywhere near the level of a theory of everything. I think we're still thousands of years away, centuries if we're extremely lucky.
>I hallucinate ai everywhere I look
ironic and extremely cliche at this point
>you're just as guilty as this fool
I'm sorry for not being anally precise with my language. It will happen again.

File: qt32.jpg (4 KB, 250x206)

4 KB JPG

>>17030147
Since you clearly did not understand what i have to say, i say it slow again.
My biggest problems with relativity:
-Claiming that one observer sees the other contracted and vice versa and there is no answer who is right. This leads to not objective reality, therefore is a strong philosophical statement. And the statement is: 4d spacetime is our only reality. All that while lorentzian aether exists where all this is explained with one reality.
-Basing this all on the DEFINITION of the isotropy of the one way speed of light, which can not be proven. And beeing extremely silent about this fact.
-Redefining simultaniety as a non equivalence relation. When the word as its used is a equivalence relation. So the theory changed definitions to make them fit. The theory therefore doesnt even talk about real simlutaneity.
-Beeing extremely stubborn staying with this old model in the evidence of the CMB and other findings.

>>17030185
>This leads to not objective reality, therefore is a strong philosophical statement
It's a physics model trying to describe physical reality, it has nothing to do with abstract philosophy, and cannot benefit from it either.

>>17030197
A physical model needs to explain reality in common terms, and not redefine them how it fits. If it can not do it, it at least should be honest and say to the public: Look we don't know shit about simultaneity, we just use another term defined by light that is not really the same in our theory. But they don't, they claim it's a theory about the simultaneity people think about when hearing that term.

>>17030204
>A physical model needs to explain reality in common terms
>and say to the public
>about the simultaneity people think about when hearing that term.
Where does this entitlement come from?
>Look we don't know shit
The whole point of science is to find answers to questions you don't currently have answers for.
>If it can not do it, it at least should be honest and say to the public
treat the public like they're a bunch of shareholders at a board meeting or something? For what? They're not running for president.

>>17030185
No that does not follow. That has nothing to do with spacetime at all. It is a consequence of finite, bounded causality.

If causality is bounded and finite then the substrate that causality operates upon has a finite causality budget, and if some of that causality is used up for travelling then less remains for signalling internally. This has to be, because otherwise it follows that causality is not finite, and not bounded.

That's the core of it. Time dilation, space contracting and expanding are quirks of Einstein opting to express the above in his geometrical model "spacetime" where this finite causality is modelled as c ("in time or in space", whether c in time makes sense or not)

>>17030208
Damn, smoked that retard.

File: ahe5.jpg (5 KB, 250x171)

5 KB JPG

>>17030207
>Where does this entitlement come from?
Yes thats my exact question. Where does this entitlement come from to lie to the public who finances you?
You basically admitted here how flawed communication to the public is in regard to you redefining commons words and presenting that as if you did not do that.
>>17030208
>That has nothing to do with spacetime at all. It is a consequence of finite, bounded causality.
No it follows from spacetime
>causality glibberish
This all is because the one way speed of causality (to use your terms) was DEFINED homogenous. If we have a rest frame then the "speed of causality" is anisotropic depending on the observer, and all these things do not follow. Get it?

>>17030241
>>17030238
works every time
>>Where does this entitlement come from?
>Yes thats my exact question. Why do you lie
why do you interpret "we don't know everything and acknowledge that mistakes are regularly made in our line of work" as lying?

>>17030208
>>17030241
To be exact
>If causality is bounded and finite
You "forgot" to include "and isotropic c for every observer in every direction" which is a defninition. Because in the equivalent lorentzian aether its different. Not sure if you get it tho....

>>17030245
>why do you interpret "we don't know everything and acknowledge that mistakes are regularly made in our line of work" as lying?
Strawman, its about not communicating definitions see >>17030204

File: 1785686447319601.jpg (68 KB, 601x471)

68 KB JPG

>>17030249
>its about not communicating definitions see
not according to that post it isn't. It's about
>Why don't you bend over backwards to cater to MY background and MY perspective so I don't have to invest any effort or energy into understanding yours?

>>17030251
I very much understand relativity. Thats why i was able to call out the hidden assumption of the causality bullshit so fast. Thats why you cant beat me with MM-Experiment or with mathematics.

>>17030256
>You can't beat me if I choose to decide I haven't been beaten.
Off to /lit/ with you

>>17030277
>I just claim without Basis I did beat you

>>17030292
This is why scientists don't respond to your emails

>>17030299
We are ful cycle now
>>>17030161

>>17030301
Good

>>17030247
Damn, smoked that retard.

>>17030247
Technically c and bounded finite causality are not necessarily the same. c measures the same because in frames where Einstein would claim time has been "dilated" what is really happening is that causality is slower. But causality being slower and c still measuring as c is equivalent to time moving slower (being "dilated").

>>17030331
To clarify, c can measure the same everywhere and in all frames, but the propagation of causality is not necessarily the same in all frames. That time moves slower is incompatible with causality always moving at a fixed speed.

>>17030331
>>17030337
Ok but at the end light moves at least as fast as your causality, so an anisotropy in light propagation affects causality. So my point still holds. Also "moving causality" is a man made concept, it's like some cranck with his word salat until you define it rigulously.

>>17030345
The speed of massless particle over distance is an emergent property of causality, which is more fundamental. Time is measured in events (rods and clocks), distance is measured in events (rods and clocks). Claiming that causality is something that is the effect of c is putting the cart before the horse.

>>17030345
we can make a toy definition of causality if you'd like. Consider a complete graph. Every vertex is the "substrate". Every edge <a,b> represents a potentially influencing b or vice versa.

In a universe with unbounded infinite causality, any node can influence all other nodes instantly. In GR, this is an all-light universe. In our universe, however, there is some heterogenous coloring of edges representing how quickly one can influence another, but no value is ever faster than a global upper bound.

Philosophy....has failed....

File: ahtz.jpg (560 KB, 976x1046)

560 KB JPG

>>17030348
>The speed of massless particle over distance is an emergent property of causality, which is more fundamental.
The irony....This is pure philosophy, there are no equations for that, its an interpretation. But if modern physics do it its ok, just when its used against their king of relativity its not ok....

>Claiming that causality is something that is the effect of c is putting the cart before the horse.
Do i really have to bring up quantum entanglement again? Because this shows how thin this causality narrative is. Speed of light is hard data meanwhile.
>>17030356
>definition
Ok this is nice mathematical toy but not fundamental to our discussion.
>In our universe, however, there is some heterogenous coloring of edges representing how quickly one can influence another, but no value is ever faster than a global upper bound.
Sure but we dont know in which direction it goes faster. There could be a rest frame where its homogenous which defines the absolute time and causality and if you move relative to it it gets anisotropic. Nothing ground breaking is done with this causality interpretation, its just the same problems again as with the speed of light.