You can always find out if you are in space accelerating or on earth if you test tidal forces on your body
which is why the field equations in GR describe tidal forces instead of a Newton-like gravitational field
>>17066194Well its still a shit principle if you then say: oh its only real for a tiny lenght. Also why are physicists everywhere telling the public the story with the box then?
>>17066188>aetherschizo makes another thread now that his other dog shit almost hit bump limit
>>17066205The Schrödinger thread was epic thats true. But you have an argument against my op aswell?
>>17066206This thread is on par with 0.99.. threads and frog posts. You are free to publish your findings (lol)
>>17066208>no i dont want to discuss science hereUhm why again are you posting here?
>>17066211your "theory" yields makes the same empirical predictions, then I don't care. YWN advance anything beyond reproducing your betters so.. what science?
>>17066214That was a question about what is disturbing you. But that was not the question. It was: Uhm why again are you posting here if you dont want to discuss science?
>>17066188But you are always in space and you are always accelerating relative to some frame of reference>anon learns that it's all just motion
>>17066188There is a key word missing here:>locally
>>17066256Well >>17066202
if quantum foam makes particle pairs that dissapear, if you travel at 99% speed of light and perform some experiment to look for these particles, would they show up as moving at 99% speed of light relative to you? if they are generated from the fabric of space?
>>17066265Assuming these exist, which i dont really believe. They should aswell travel with 99% of c. So at 0 relativ speed. Relative to the CMB i guess you mean right? Well these things are usually lorentz invariant. But i think your claim should be tested if possible.
>>17066267interesting. is there a practical way to to test this I wonder
>>17066275Well not that sureIt does in the dicrection of this, tests for an absolute reference frame. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12421
>>17066303>https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12421>However, discarding all historical aspects, it was emphasized by Bell that achange of perspective, from Special Relativity to a Lorentzian formulation, could becrucial to reconcile hypothetical faster-than-light signals with causality, as with theapparent non-local aspects of the Quantum Theory. In addition, the present view ofthe lowest-energy state as a Bose condensate of elementary quanta (Higgs particles,quark-antiquark pairs, gluons...), indicates a vacuum structure with some degree ofsubstantiality which could characterize non trivially the form of relativity which isphysically realized in nature. So, there may be good reasons for a preferred referenceframe but, without the possibility of detecting experimentally an ‘ether wind’ inlaboratory, the difference between the two formulations remains a philosophicalproblem.good interesting paper anon
>>17066334Thanks. Yes this modern causality bullshit is all based on a einstein definition. Instant signalling in a lorentzian aether is possible in theory without anything breaking.
>>17066194Well done.
>>17066337Ok. Now show me how we can use this "instant signaling" for anything useful.I'll wait.
