Is Jap education this fucking bad? Do they even know what the X, Y and Z axis are for?
Dont they understand sci-fi has to have SOME logic to it?
I stared in disbelief at this shit, then dropped it.
Missing my point completely.
Why did the author needed to do this? When you can simply call W a parallel dimension and be done with it.
Why try to say something so retarded for no reason?
But you dont contradict what cant be contradicted, you are supposed to expand on what already exists and imagine the future.
Otherwise your audience just cant take you seriously.
Itd be like a story where is suddenly discovered that water is actually fire and that the number 3 is actually the number 6
I mean whats the point?
>When you can simply call W a parallel dimension
I don't watch the show, and I doubt it's realistic (and I wouldn't care), but that makes less sense than saying an extra dimension was discovered (orthogonal, not parallel, to the normal 3 dimensions of space).
We've yet to see proof of your superior intelligence, stop dodging already
>Perhaps you should tell that to every sci-fi author ever (including Isaac Asimov) that uses FTL travel even though it is completely impossible.
You can technically go FTL with Alcubierre Drives and still obey all the laws of the universe.
>You thought there were only four dimensions? We have discovered a new, zeroth dimension, the w dimension, which exists in the form of a spiral, the ultimate form of evolution, and this new dimension is what powers dark holes.
It's settled and it doesn't harm causality.
If you travel close to the speed of light between two 'stationary' points, you will experience practically no time interval. Going faster than light makes no sense because you can't improve your travel time below zero. It doesn't make sense to talk about increasing your speed relative to the observers beyond the speed of light either, because that means you can travel around a closed loop in space-time, violating causality.
quantum theory teleportation and wormholes
good luck proving or disproving any of it
we only have enough info for speculations based on speculations
claiming existence or non existence is equally retarded
The most funny thing that all those pseudo intellectuals copy/paste from this site http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
>quantum theory teleportation
This doesn't mean going faster than the speed of light.
Neither does this, which is why Alcubierre Drives are viable.
You do realise that 'quantum teleportation' necessarily needs a speed-of-light signal to decode the transmission and hence cannot communicate information faster than the speed of light?
I thought you couldn't travel faster than light because the near infinite mass increase when accelerating. Or is it different now?
What about the idea of moving the universe around you, is that still a thing?
Fucking retards not even understanding that spacetime is a four-dimensional topological manifold with a smooth atlas carrying a torsion-free connection compatible with a Lorentzian metric and a time orientation satisfying the Einstein equations.
>I thought you couldn't travel faster than light because the near infinite mass increase when accelerating. Or is it different now?
The infinite mass thing is when you're travelling AT the speed of light. Travelling faster than the speed of light is just impossible.
Not him but
>because the near infinite mass increase when accelerating
Photons have no mass. To travel FTL, you would need infinite energy. A physicist could explain this better. I recognize this is poor.
>What about the idea of moving the universe around you
That's the idea behind Alcubierre drives, yes.
I'm not an expert in physics so I might be asking something retarded here, but aren't you always travelling at the speed of light relative to something, eg light particles being reflected from yourself? What is the "infinite mass" relative to?
>why is that
Because the speed of light is really the speed of information, it's the fastest speed information can propagate through space.
Photons do have mass though. When they hit things they do impart an energy on them and push them.
Massless things can have mass, I don't really understand this much myself.
>Every sci-fi fag on /a/ is obsessed with realistic sci-fi
And yet nobody knows shit about physics, math, or any science, they just complain because it doesn't sound realistic enough.
>only theoretically the fastest
You keep saying this like it has meaning. It's the fastest you can move through regular space.
the plot reminded me to an story where humans also discover a new dimension and start taking energy from there but later the inhabitants get annoyed and declare a war or something. I can't remember very well the name of it
How about we discuss how shitty the anime is?
>mega corporation that controls the world
>MC hates the energy source and is a superman
>random loli because why not
>MC will learn to like coils with time and also dismantle the evil shinra
So hard to be interested
Anti-Matter engines aren't for travelling faster than light, they allow you to hit higher speeds that come closer and closer to the speed of light and get tasty time dilation.
Black holes used to break physics.
We don't know the limits of technology yet.
Faster than light travel may be an impractical consideration now, but as we gain more insight a pathway may be found.
Even if the limit is absolute, if there is a way to practically act outside of the limitations, we will find and make use of it.
>When they hit things they do impart an energy on them and push them.
They have energy and momentum, not mass.
Sometimes people make a distinction between "rest mass" and "relativistic mass," but physicists have moved away from this (sadly, not all textbooks.)
>That means they have a momentum and energy, not that they have an associated mass.
>That means they have a momentum and energy
So inertial mass.
>Black holes used to break physics.
They still do, at least beyond the event horizon. The cores of Neutron stars are also really weird.
>but how do you know the space is regular outside the observable zone
Guess we'll find that out when we invent the spacetimebubbledrives.
>No. If you're thinking p=mv or E=mc^2, think again.
See my image
No, light (and any massless particle) is always moving at exactly the speed of light in your reference frame. You cannot Lorentz transform yourself into a frame that changes the speed of light because Lorentz transformations by definition preserve it.
Well, see >>135944193
You could say "oh, if they have energy, they have an 'inertial mass' according to m=E/c^2," but that formula is only half the truth.
Actually, it is E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2, so for m=0, E=pc.
p is momentum, p=gamma*mv, v being velocity. Now for v=c, gamma is infinite, and with m=0, this is technically undefined, can be any finite value.
So, m=0 but E and p are not 0.
Ah I remembered. For you to travel very close to the speed of light relative to the 'stationary' observers the space-time interval must be close to zero. Space-time interval is preserved in Lorentz transformations, hence in your own frame where you are stationary you experience very little time.
Is all mass really just empty space given 'mass' only by the energy waves created between gluons/quarks and this sort of tension?
pseudo-science means fake-science though.
The way they've both worded it and visually (attempted) to project there implies a 4th spacial dimension. Which is nonsensical and inherently different to talking about spacetime dimensions.
The way they've described it and shown it is divorced from convention in an unbelievable way.
>Is all mass really just empty space given 'mass' only by the energy waves created between gluons/quarks and this sort of tension?
That is a deep question, more than you might realize. A proton consists of two up and one down quark, yet there is a huge discrepancy between the sum of the quark masses, and the proton's mass. In a way, yes, most of the mass "comes from" the field/gluons that bind them together.
Why is the Outer Space Treaty so fucking stupid? We could be using Orion style rockets to move our crap to Mars instead of shitty putt-putt chemical rockets.
Most of the mass of atoms is from the energy of the residual strong nuclear attraction between the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons, so yes. Most mass is just energy. Google the strong force for more information.
So I'm made of 2d waves in space-time.
I am anime.
thank you /a/
Have they've actually implied it's a spatial dimension that's supposed to work like the familiar 3? Introducing an extra dimension by trying to depict it as an extra axis in addition to the spatial ones isn't particularly nonsensical.
I think it's pretty much the opposite with the commonly accepted model today. "Empty space" is a thing derived from the existence of mass/energy (the two are interchangeable).
This also calls into question whether the 4th dimension referred to in the OP, time (which is a patently stupid thing to be shocked at the "discovery" of) actually exists intrinsically or is another derived quantity.
Lumping them together with typical x, y and z which all have fairly consistent meanings in this case.
Unless of course they're using the terms abstractly, but lets be honest they definitely aren't considering they're talking about it in terms of a 4th dimension. And the show's description on funi's website supports that.
basically fuck you, that isn't how we'd do it, we're way too into not having to change the way we do things to just lump it in like that.
You're talking shit, friend. Not on purpose I think but your misunderstanding is notable.
They also experience length contraction. Try explaining that shit to anybody here.
>actually exists intrinsically
Wait wasn't it proven to exist as the curvature of space? We just can't perceive it.
>I have this crazy idea. Let's explode nuclear BOMBS behind us to propel our spacecraft forwards!
>that's a stupid idea, it'll never work, totally inefficient and a waste of time.
>it actually turns out to be one of the best ideas ever and fucking works great
I love this universe.
>They also experience length contraction. Try explaining that shit to anybody here.
Not him but is that somehow related to how light seems to experience contraction? I'm only getting this idea because I remember in Gunbuster they had a spaceship approach the solar system at near-light speed and couldn't really see what it was without getting close.
Personally I like to differentiate sci-fi with scientific fantasy.
To me sci-fi has to be has realistic as possible where as scientific fantasy can do whatever it damn well pleases through the power of magic.
What is the 4th dimension then? I always thought it was just like a 3d object except when going 90degrees from the corners you go 4th dimensionally (like when going from a square on a piece of paper to a cube).
This like my brother after he watched the Martian. The last science class he had was in highschool and it was environmental chem.
When I tried to explain the science he just wanted to argue with me. You fucker I didn't invent the science I just understand it.
There is no 'the 4th dimension'
There is no 'the 3rd dimension' either
You can't just point to directions and number them as specific dimensions
If you have a pitcher of 3 cups of water, can you point to cup #2?
Time is like adding a cup of oil to the mix. It interacts with the other dimensions, but you can tell it's not quite the same in behavior.
There are 3 dimensions of space, and one of time.
A fourth spatial dimension is a mathematical concept that works take too long to get into , but here's a thing to help explain the concept: http://youtu.be/p4Gotl9vRGs
How the fuck else are you supposed to represent a 4th axis in a coordinate system?
Projecting a 3 dimensional coordinate system into 2d doesn't really work, it just feels normal since our brains can understand 3d.
But now you are projecting 4d into 3d and that into 2d, how the fuck is that supposed to look right?
All real theories.
Have to remember though that some of the interpretations the characters make are because they are in middle school and don't have the background to make more educated guesses. Tenjou lampshades it in chapter 7 iirc, "I'm in middle school, I don't understand this, I'm not an expert. But it's an explanation that makes sense."
You're an idiot with half-knowledge. Nay, fractional knowledge.
That's artificially generated antimatter. You see the word CERN there right in the headline? Does that ring a bell? If it doesn't: Particle accelerators.
I'm saying antimatter does not occur in nature in relevant quantities that would be harvestable as energy source. At best, and that requires significant breakthroughs, it could be used as a form of energy storage. You first have to put energy in to get antimatter (and matter) out.
It was decent but not that good, I wish there was less bickering between characters and more descriptions of spaceships and events occuring kinda like Blame!.
That said i do have and inerest in the other books, Are they better?
projections are shit in general
you can do 3D->2D because it is easier to imagine
but if you think the 4th as time and try 4D-2D it doesn't even make sense
after all what guarantees time is perpendicular to other 3
Doesn't our current understanding fit too well though? And doesn't this MOND just try and shoe-horn in a fix that breaks everything else?
You do realise dark matter has a laundry list of problems and has failed to actually predict anything right? just because theories are incomplete doesn't discredit them. But the fact dark matter has failed to make a single prediction should have made it a joke years ago.
>You do realise dark matter has a laundry list of problems
dark matter IS a laundry list of problems.
There's no such thing as Dark Matter, it's a pure placeholder term for the discrepancies we see.
Nothing. Time isn't a spacial dimension anyways, not like x-y-z. Really, Time as the 4th dimension would be a lot easier to draw than a 4th spacial dimension (ie, not impossible) - just draw a person-tube.
I don't understand how you would show a fourth dimension, but the reason the image is retarded is because it implies that there is a fourth spacial dimension that we simply aren't recognizing or aware of but works within physics as we know it.
Like Asimov or Lem. Pretty much every good sci-fi author was a physican or mathematician.
Not him, but the thing is - you got three axis, each being an infinite line, aka continuing in the opposite direction beyond the O point. There is no space on that coordinate system for a fourth dimension, as it already covers all available ones that can be physically observed. If anything, a fourth dimension would be intertwined with all three axis.
Their "fourth" axis lies on the other half of one of the existing axes, therefore not a fourth axis.
The best way to visualize a fourth axis would be showing superimposed xyz-axes. It would still be "wrong" but atleast not this stupid.
Has nobody here done any research at all?
The concept of a fourth spatial dimension (as opposed to X,Y,Z, time) is nothing new and its been explored since Flatland was published in 1884
the best way to represent it would be thus
show that a 2D plane is an infinite summation of 1D line
and a 3D space is an infinite summation of 2D planes
then a 4D space would be a summation of 3D spaces
(concept of dimensional analogy)
>saying this about the simplest of simple cases
At least say that about infinite dimensional spaces or something like that.
Everything in physics is mathematical wankery, if we depict in our theories that space is a 4 dimensional thing, then it is.
3 dimensional space is nothing more than mathematical wankery.
This thread along with the OP is beyond retarded.
You now must solve pic related to post anything related to math ITT
>Everything in physics is mathematical wankery
Not at all. Physics describes the operation of the natural world. Anything beyond that is wankery. Nothing more than self pleasure using mathematical formulas.
Just think of the stuff in your image as a new way to visualize the theory behind the new dimension. Mathematics and physics are full of crutches and freshly defined visualizations of stuff that's hard to imagine, so they can wrap their heads around it in an ordered manner. Just assume that it doesn't make sense to you, because no one here had the need so far to visualize dimension W yet and that the thing just looks like regular 3 axis system.
tl;dr don't strain your head over unnecessary stuff.
Or are you next gonna complain that you can't build a complete working template of a W coil from the schematics you saw?
> Physics describes the operation of the natural world
Physics makes models that best describe processes and predict things we see in the real world, the models themselves don't have to describe what actually happens in the real world, as it is impossible to know what really happens.
Hence physics is as much wankery as math.
There is no difference between noting that a projectile follows a parabola like trajectory or that space is a 4 dimensional space, because that is what see, hence it is what it is described at until a better model comes up, like new theories of mechanics, like relativity.
That doesn't make any sense. Just because you cannot accurately describe the entire universe down to the most fundamental level doesn't mean that all of physics and science is wankery. Yes, physics is more or less an estimate of the workings of the universe, but it is a fairly accurate one. Physics has actual, real world applications. Imagining a fourth spacial dimension and writing up mathematical formulas does not, and is nothing more than shameless self pleasuring.
>retard thinks he has a better idea of what reality is actually like than the experts
>contrarian idiot tries to reject the consensus of countless experts who holds infinitely higher education than him so that he can say "we cannot know nuffin" on a Cambodian dog racing bulletin board
Except using said models with 4 dimensions we can make more predictions than before, hence it is useful in both physics and other real world applications.
In real world applications we use much more than simple 4 dimensional spaces, we even use infinite dimensional spaces in physics.
Because the bottom line is that dimensions aren't something special contrary to what you see in sci-fi, they're just a property of some mathematical structures.
When you identify such structures, you can use their properties.
You can view, for example, matrices as n by m dimensional spaces, and use properties of such spaces, which is something that is very useful in computing for example.
I'm a programmer so I know exactly how useful n dimensional arrays are. That only describes how information relates to other information and has no relation to a fourth spacial dimension at all.
Name one practical application of an imagined fourth spacial dimension.
Pretty sure it's the lack of attention since childhood. He spouts some retarded shit so that he'll receive any attention at all, negative or otherwise.
Faggots keep saying FTL is going to be a thing, but honestly I doubt we'll even surpass light speed. Everything just gets so fucked up after that and we're nowhere even near figuring out how it actually works if it even does.
>Except the whole theory doesn't take into account of quantum mechanics and is therefore invalid.
You don't know shit.
Reminder that liberal arts graduates run the world
The conditions needed to see the night sky is:
1. Very good color vision
2. No light for several degrees of earth rotation
3. A completely clear night sky
The only good places left in Euroasiaafrica is what.... Siberia and North Korea?
i love all the autists this show has spawned in here.
I think that's worse.
For one thing part of what coordinate axes represent is that where they meet is the origin. And representing the extra dimension as visually additional sets of axes, rather than as another axis, seems to have more misleading implications.
There's no way of representing 4 axes all perpendicular such that a TV viewer would naturally understand, so a compromise where it would be interpreted as 3D with the 4th axis being perpendicular to at least of the other axes seems like a reasonable compromise.
The same thing is what led to a 4 dimensional description of our world, it is how mechanics describe the world even before space time was a thing in relativity.
It is natural and fits neatly.
Quite right, but a major difference is that in non-relativistic mechanics, time is treated as a parameter, while in relativity it's treated as a coordinate. Meaning you'll need another additional parameter to describe trajectories in relativistic mechanics.