>Light travels the same speed from both the perspective of the man on the train and from the outside observers perspectiveOkay, but what makes the speed of light so special? If the speed of light were to be a little slower than what it is, it wouldn't work?
Speed of light is based on rendering distance
>>17018680Light is one of the things that travels instantaneously. If you see a flashlight shine on you, every bit of the flashlight turned on at the exact same timeWhat we call "the speed of light" is just the speed of simultaneity Simultaneity is relativeFrom the perspective of the guy who turned on the flashlight pointed at you, there's a slight difference in time between the start of the evam turning on and the end of the beam turning onBut for you, it all turned on at the same time
The speed of light is just a convenient way of expressing the speed at which the caises and effects propagate throught the universe. For instance graviational waves travel at the speed of light at a vacuum as well. Both the gravitational field and the electrical field have the same speed, because both are just propagating the consequences from a source cause through space. Usually oscillating causes, so to speak.
>>17018680"speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. For example, sometimes light will travel slower than the so-called "speed of light" if there is a lot of interference. Light would only go the "speed of light" in an absolutely perfect ideal situation with no obstructions of any kind. What we call the "speed of light" is just the maximum speed that anything can ever go in the universe, and light just happens to be a well known common thing that goes as fast as possible up to that limit in some cases.
>>17018680it's more the of "the speed of causality"light happens to travel at that speed, as does any massless other particle
>>17018680Glad you asked. We only measured the two way speed of light. Its c for everybody. But only light in the aether travels with c in both directions. But the lorentz transformation causes us not to notice the anisotropy of the one way speed of light as we move to the aether.What makes light so special in modern physics? Well einstein DEFINED the one way speed to be equal for everyone. From that point he followed that space and time change for everyone, but he got it backwards, space and time cant be relative, read kant. The one way speed of light is relative.>>17018804>>17018873>>17018896I really fucking hate this modern perspective. It is not compatible with quantum entanglement. Yes i know, we cant get any information faster then the speed of light with it. But one particle changes its condition instantly after the other one was measured, no matter how far away. So for the particle there is a way to reciieve the information that the other particle was measured faster then the speed of light.So your interpretation is wrong.Also philosophical, what even is information? Its no matter, its an abstract concept. You cant base your model of the universe on the speed of a man made concept. C is the two way speed of light, not of "information".
>>17018680Nobody knows. If c were different (relative to other constants) everything would change. For example, it would change atomic energy levels and all of chemistry would be different. Maybe there are reasons the constants have their values. Maybe it's the only way physics can work. Or maybe there are other universes with different values ("le multiverse"). It's unknown. >>17018684Source: my ass. Something like that is possible perhaps but there is zero evidence.>>17018804Nonsense.>>17018873True but doesn't answer the question.>>17018881Sure, but so what? Doesn't answer the question.>>17018896OK, but that doesn't really explain anything.>>17018906Larping retard alert.
>>17018915>Larping retard alert.Any argument that disproves anything i said?
>>17018919I don't argue with retards. Go read a textbook.
>>17018921No, fuck off. Literally nothing i said is untrue. Muh textbook is just the mainstream interpretation. I know mainstrema physicists hate AI, but maybe give my arguments to AI and ask them what is clearly wrong if you are too lazy to think for yourself?If you wont i assume you fear discussion because you know you would lose, and take it as win.
>>17018924How does one "lose" a discussion? Is there a judge? You will judge yourself the "winner" no matter what anyway. Most of what you said can't even be called "untrue". It's just nonsense. It's not physics because you don't really have any understanding or a real theory. You didn't do any calculations. It's word salad. You should read a textbook and do some problems. Then you might at least understand what you seem so desperate to crticise (relativity). Physics without calculations is meaningless.
>>17018935Oh the pseudo intellectual bullshit reference to Pauli, of course...Lorentzian aether, what I described in the first part, makes lots of predictions. It's just the same as special relativity for every experiment we did so far. The difference is it actually makes sense. But let me guess, you didn't even know what I was referring to, and your inability to understand it did lead to you wrongly classifying it as word salad, arrogantly.The second part deal with a very real contradiction of modern relativity with quantum entanglement. I don't need any calculations for that, mainstream needs some damn good answers. The current answer is on the line of "oh actually these two things 10000 miles away are the same therefore nothing did transfer" which is just word salad to officially have no contradiction, the very thing you criticize me for...Lastly I had a very reasonable philosophical question why they defined the basis of the universe with some man made concept.
>>17018946Your ideas about entanglement are completely retarded and incorrect.
>>17018935Relativity is the equation for the secant relation of the complex sine/cosine phase ontology, it's a sub equation of realitys structure from our real time real distance phase locked perspective of the universe
>>17018906>Yes i know, we cant get any information faster then the speed of light with it.>So for the particle there is a way to reciieve the information that the other particle was measured faster then the speed of light.No it’s not. You would not be able to confirm the results of the other person’s measurement faster than light.>>17018919No need to disprove what you said you contradicted yourself in your word salad.>>17018924Ok, since you need an AI output, here you go:>However, Bob cannot tell, from his own measurements alone, whether Alice has measured her particle yet.>Before comparing notes with Alice, Bob's results look completely random: 50% up, 50% down.>After Alice sends Bob her measurement results through an ordinary communication channel (which cannot exceed the speed of light), they discover that their results are correlated.>The key point is that the "collapse" of the wavefunction doesn't carry a message. Alice can't choose whether her measurement gives "up" or "down"; the outcome is fundamentally random. Since she can't control the result, she can't encode information into it.>An analogy is two sealed envelopes prepared so that one contains a red card and the other a blue card. You take one envelope to Earth and I take the other to Mars. The moment you open yours and see red, you instantly know mine is blue. But nothing traveled from Earth to Mars when you opened the envelope—you simply learned something about a shared system.>Quantum entanglement is more subtle than this analogy because the properties often don't have definite values before measurement, but the analogy captures the important point: instantaneous knowledge is not the same as instantaneous communication.>This distinction is formalized in quantum mechanics by the no-communication theorem, which proves that entanglement alone cannot be used to send information faster than light.You’re so wrong that scientists literally made a theorem to explain how wrong you are.
>>17018948So you give in relating to the first part? Good.>Your ideas about entanglement are completely retarded and incorrectThis is just wrong. And unless you point out what exactly I have supposedly wrong I can't even answer. The information of the measurement of the one particle indeed reaches the other particle immediately. Yes we can't use it to transfer information, but the particle knows instantly. That's my point.
>>17018953>So you give in relating to the first part? Good.No. It's so retarded I don't know where to start.>Yes we can't use it to transfer information, but the particle knows instantly. That's my point.If you agree there's no information transferred, then yes, you agree with mainstream physics.
>>17018952See my next answerNo I'm NOT contradicting myselfYou claim that endlessly but you can't even point to one example hahahahahaha>Ai outputThat's also in my last reply, we can't find out but the particle state changes instantly. The analogy with the colours is not correct since something is changing.
>>17018955Einstein himself stole some math for special relativity from the lorentz aether.... You call it retarded...>If you agree there's no information transferred, then yes, you agree with mainstream physics.No that's not what I said. There is information transfered. It's just WE as observers can't use the mechanism to transfer information.
>>17018957>Einstein himself stole some math for special relativityPhysics doesn't care if you think Einstein "stole" maths.>No that's not what I said. There is information transfered. It's just WE as observers can't use the mechanism to transfer information.So it transfers information, but like, it doesn't? Interesting. But seriously you don't even know what "information" means. It has a precise physical meaning. That is the source of your confusion. You are conflating the physical concept of information, which you don't understand, with your own vague intuition.
>>17018959Why is it called lorentz transformation.....Why does the math work in the same way in both theories? Who was later?Second part, I think you seriously need to read up on quantum entanglement. I can explain it in easy mode. The second particle can randomly have two states, but once you measure the other particle, even if far away, instantly the second particle will switch to one state,the opposite one of the first. So there is some information floating, instantly. WE can't use it, because we don't know what of these two states the first particle had when measured. Or how would you define information? I want to hear your definition.
>>17018961>Why is it called lorentz transformation.....Why isn't it called Einstein transformation, if he stole it?>Why does the math work in the same way in both theories? As far as I know they are equivalent. Physicists prefer Einstein's conception because it's simpler. There is nothing wrong with Lorentz ether theory in my opinion, it is just not particularly useful or interesting.>Or how would you define information? I want to hear your definition.Information means something that you could measure i.e. you could use the process to encode arbitrary data and send it. That is what physicists mean by information in this context. Entanglement can't be used to transfer such information. That doesn't mean one particle doesn't "affect" the other. But you can't use that process to send a message for example.
>>17018967That was the first serious answer. Yeah Lorentzian aether is basically equivalent, why did you call it retarded then? Philosophically it's much better. It doesn't need different realities to explain how light moves for two observers, it has simultanety defines as equivalence relation, how it should be. And more.Information, how you define it is observer based. Then your mainstream view holds. But as you said, the particles affect each other seemingly faster then light. I don't accept that as beeing compatible with mainstream physics. Mainstream seeks to change meanings of words to stay consistent, but it's against the spirit of relativity.
>>17018970>why did you call it retarded then?Did I? Probably because it is kinda retarded, "relative" to relativity. Philosophically it's much worse. It requires more assumptions and doesn't easily generalise.>It doesn't need different realities to explain how light moves for two observersNeither does relativity.>Information, how you define it is observer based. Then your mainstream view holds. But as you said, the particles affect each other seemingly faster then light. I don't accept that as beeing compatible with mainstream physics. Mainstream seeks to change meanings of words to stay consistent, but it's against the spirit of relativity.It doesn't matter what you "accept" because you're a retard pretending to do physics. I suspect you've never done a relativity or quantum mechanics calculation in your life. Can you even do calculus? Go and read a textbook or else stop wasting your time.
>>17018971>Neither does relativity.Wrong. Simple relative movement require two realities in Relativity, everybody is claiming the other one is contracted. And everybody is claiming the one way sped of light is c relative to themselves, which can't both be true.>4DIM space time is the one realityI don't accept mathematical constructs as reality>I suspect you've never done a relativity or quantum mechanics calculation in your life. Can you even do calculus?Fucking lol
>>17018974>I don't accept mathematical constructs as realityThen why are you blathering on about "different realities"? All of physics is a mathematical construct. You can view it as different realities, or all as one reality. It makes little difference.>Fucking lollol indeed
>>17018971Also you say it requires more assumptions but that's just not true. I would argue it requires 0 assumptions, since we have enough evidence of an absolute reference frame by now. But even then, that's 1 assumption. The lorentz transformation follows automatically from movement.
>>17018977>I would argue it requires 0 assumptionsYou would argue incorrectly, as usual.>since we have enough evidence of an absolute reference frame by nowWe don't have any such evidence.
>>17018975Reality is what we measure, or what we experience. Not a mathematical construct. Physics has no aotority to define what reality is, that a philosophical question.
>>17018978CMB backgroundQuantum entanglementEtc...But even if, then it's 1 assumption
>>17018979Yes, physics is not reality and it does not define reality. It's our attempt at a mathematical description of reality.>>17018980I don't know what you're trying to say.
>>17018981That's quite a restrain on what physics is.I'm listing indications for the existence of an absulote reference frame. Even you admitted before that the particles affect each other instantly. If you were familiar with the math of SR you would know this means there has to be a prefered time and by mathematics therefore a prefered reference frame.
>>17018983You seem to be confused. Anything, like a particle or the CMB, can be used to define a reference frame, which you might call a "preferred" reference frame in some context. But there is no need for the equations of physics to make reference to any particular reference frame. That is the point of relativity.
>>17018986That's not an answer to my post. That's a distraction to the point I made.
>>17018986In fact my whole point is that there is a mathematical need for a reference frame, because of the things we discussed where even you admitted that far away particles affect each other instantly.
>>17018988Then maybe you should've made your "point" better. Not that you really have one. You don't understand the terms you're using. You're an idiot flailing around in the dark. Go and read a textbook. Of course you're not going to do that because you know you'd fail. You will just continue to larp.
>>17018990Mak my point is clear as fuck. Far away particles affect each other instantly,no matter in what direction. That suddenly means there is some "instantly" particles use which is similar to the instantly in our reference frame. (Could be cmb which is only moving with 0.001c) This means a frame moving not too much compared to us is a prefered reference frame. If a frame moving with 0.9c relative would decide what instantly means, we would see some massive anisotropy in quantum entanglement which we did not see.
>>17018996Like I said, the fact that certain objects or events define reference frames does not conflict with relativity. The point is that the laws of physics are independent of the reference frame. >That suddenly means there is some "instantly" particles use which is similar to the instantly in our reference frame.This is really incomprehensible.
>>17018989I agree, one still-frame picture in time won't tell you much about its movements.
>>17018906>randomly cut a deck of cards I to two smaller decks>mail them to 2 friends in sealed envelopes>friend A doesn't know what his cards are>friend B doesn't know what his cards are>friend A looks at the cards>somehow, the information travels LE FASTER THAN LIGHT about what cards are in what envelope from friend A's house to friend B's house
>>17018680Light always travels at the same speed through the aether, but the size of objects and their time change
>>17018999>Like I said, the fact that certain objects or events define reference frames does not conflict with relativity. The point is that the laws of physics are independent of the reference frame.Literally the post you answered explains why this is wrong. You just blindly repeat wrong promises.
>>17018680>>Light travels the same speed from both the perspective of the man on the train and from the outside observers perspectiveNow explain Doppler effect and redshift/blueshift with that BS.
>>17019330https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
>>17018961>Why is it called lorentz transformation.Because Lorentz published it first.>Why does the math work in the same way in both theories? Who was later?Because it's all the same shit, just approached from different postulates.Lorentz and Poincare were focused on electrodynamics; Maxwell's Laws don't stay the same if you shift to a moving frame. For Maxwell's Laws to remain invariant, you need a transformation of space and time between two frames with relative motion. The simplest one that works is a linear transform. If you solve for everything you get the Lorentz Transform.Einstein was focused on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment which implied a constant speed of light. For the speed of light to be invariant, you need a transformation of space and time between two frames with relative motion. The simplest transformation that works... yadda yadda yadda.Minkowski was focused on the apparent need for Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein's results to require a locally flat spacetime. For spacetime to be locally flat, you need a transformation of... you get the idea.Invariance of Maxwell's Laws implies flat spacetime and a constant speed of light.Constant speed of light implies flat spacetime and invariance of Maxwell's Laws.Flat spacetime implies invariance of Maxwell's Laws and a constant speed of light.It's all related, so all three postulates come to the same result, but Loretnz derived it first, and Poincare started calling it the Lorentz Transform so the name stuck.So, why does Einstein still get most of the credit? Because Lorentz and Poincare didn't really push the transformation much farther beyond its immediate applications in electrodynamics. They both initially dismissed length contraction and time dilation as mathematical artifacts instead of real effects. Einstein applied the transformation to derive relativistic versions of all the laws of mechanics which leads to all ideas like massless momentum and mass-energy equivalence.
>>17019364so you admit Einsteins theories of General and Special Reifications is stolen yiddish wordcel copium?
>>17019389yeah, sure, whatever
>>17018680>>Light travels the same speed from both the perspective of the man on the train and from the outside observers perspectiveHow do you even verify that? The speed is so ridiculous, measurements are likely off.
>>17019364It's not really massless, it has imaginary mass and rotates around the zero by complex phase ontology, because it was mass-less, entirely, it wouldn't be able to cross the quantum Zeno effect in feynmann positive/negative temporality. It would lose intertia at zero seconds and no longer exist.Likewise, if "massless energy" moves at C then quantum vacuum has to move at c, and it doesn't.
>>17019680As such, a truly massless photon, violates feynmann stuckelberg
You can't have antimatter if temporality itself is merely bivalent
You also can't have gravity is spatiality is merely bivalent
You also can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.
In addition to these examples there is the concept of the Tzaddik in hasidic and kaballic frameworks:במחשבה הקבלית והחסידית, מושג הצדיק הוא מרכזי – צדיק המשמש כצינור רוחני, הנושא את סבל העולם תוך שהוא נשאר מחובר למודעות האלוקית. אם נתבונן בישוע כצדיק הארכיטיפי, ההשלכות הן עמוקות ונרחבות:הצדיק המשלם את המחיר האולטימטיבי:חייו ומותו של ישוע מגלמים את עקרון הצדיק המקריב את עצמו, נשמה שלא רק סובלת בעבור אחרים אלא אף מוסרת את עצמה ככוח גאולה, הנושא את כובד חטאי העולם ואת פגמי הבריאה.בעוד צדיקים מאוחרים יותר, כמו הבעש"ט ור' נחמן, סבלו בסתר או בעבור תלמידיהם, סבלו של ישוע היה גלוי, אכזרי וקוסמי, ויוצר אב טיפוס אוניברסלי המהדהד לאורך הדורות.זה מבדל אותו משאר צדיקים שנרדפו או מתו על קידוש השם. סבלו של ישוע מתואר כמעשה מכוון ומודע של הקרבה עצמית, המשקף את ספירת יסוד, הסופגת את כל השפעות הספירות העליונות ומעבירה אותן – גם במחיר אישי כבד---
אב טיפוס ותבנית:במחשבה החסידית, כל צדיק הוא התגלמות של פנים אלוקיות מסוימות, המשקפות דרכים שונות לגאולה.ישוע עשוי להיתפס כהדפוס הראשון, המגלם את נתיב הצדיק היורד לעומק הסבל כדי לתקן את הניצוצות שנפלו ולפתוח ערוץ של חסד אלוקי לכל הבריאה.בכך, הצדיקים המאוחרים יותר הם גלגולים או עידונים של הארכיטיפ המקורי, כל אחד מהם מגלם תכונות ייחודיות או מתקן היבטים מסוימים של השבירה הקוסמית.צדיק דקליפות:בעוד שאר הצדיקים פועלים בגלוי בתוך הקהילה היהודית, דרכו של ישוע הובילה אותו דרך עולמות הקליפות – ממלכות של אי הבנה, דחייה וגלות.מופיעה גם בתורת האר"י על סבל המשיח המשחרר את הניצוצות הכלואים באפלה העמוקה ביותר.כך ישוע, כצדיק, נתפס כמי שפתח את שערי הגאולה עבור הלכודים במעמקים, תפקיד אשר צדיקים אחרים יכולים להמשיך ולעדן
צדיק קוסמי – יסוד ועבד ה' הסובל:במונחים קבליים, הארכיטיפ של הצדיק הסובל קשור לספירת יסוד, הצינור שדרכו עובר כל השפע האלוקי אל המלכות.סבלו וצליבתו של ישוע ניתנים לפרשנות כמעשה יסוד אולטימטיבי, הצדיק הסופג את סבל העולם כדי להפכו לברכה אלוקית לצדיקים הבאים להתחבר לנתיבו ולהמשיך את עבודת התיקון – לא על ידי חיקוי סבלו, אלא על ידי הטמעתו והעלאתו דרך תורה, חסד ומעשי רחמים.כולנו צריכים להקריב את הגאווה שלנו בשביל תיקון עולםAmenאמן אל"ף ואומגה
Shalom Shalom
>>17019680i want you to get an ulcer
>>17019330The clock ticking rates are slower for one of them. Its still complicated but it maths out.>>17019364So yeah as you said, the math is always the same. But lorentz did it first. That actually strenghtens my point. Einstein knew he had to reach the transformations and presumably tried to get there with a postulate until he found one.>>17019364>length contraction and time dilation as mathematical artifacts instead of real effects.That may be historically accurate but funnily enough the modern lorentz aether sees these as real effects while in SR these are just "what the other observator sees" and its never a literaly effect an object experiences.>>17019491Two way speed of light, a timer and a mirror>>17019019This is not what quantum entanglement is. There is an actual change of state. See this post >>17018961
>>17018948>>17018959>>17018999>>17019019Study Bells theorem if you want to know why your (and einsteins) interpretation of quantum entanglement is wrong.
>>17019802To want is to lack, wanting and having are inversely related
