Universe existing inside a 4th dimensional black hole

Do you have any facts to back that up? How does this fit in with relativity? In relativity, any FTL travel is time travel

>>7997756
math please

>>7997759
>In relativity, any FTL travel is time travel
Correct, but rather than travelling faster than light in a local reference frame, we're accelerating time in a local reference frame.

Thus we never break the speed of light locally, but in the reference frame of the universe we're moving FTL.

>>7997763
Just as soon as I figure out how to move through the 4th dimension. Or did you want my math on the expansion rates?

>>7997759
>>7997766
Essentially - speed of light is 299,792,458.00 metres per second in a vacuum. If we double our velocity along the 4th dimension, a second from our perspective is only half a second from the perspective of our 3d universe; we can be traveling at the speed of light locally yet be moving at twice the speed of light relative to everything around us.

>>7997766
>>7997775
It's still time travel though. Alcubierre drives and wormholes are time travel too. Doesn't matter if you locally go slower than light.

>>reference frame of the universe
Kek good one OP.

>>7997779
I'd say it'd be better defined as increasing the rate of the progress of time. If everything in the universe is moving along the 4th axis toward the singularity at a rate of 1, and you increase that rate to 2, time is essentially moving more quickly for you.

You'd have to find a way to move counter to the expansion of the universe, essentially. The practical effect of that in 4d would be compression as you moved closer to the singularity; working backwards.. increasing the energy presently required to maintain a system at equilibirum.

>>7997795
Take a hadron. It has X quarks with Y charge gluons required to bond it.

How can you make a system wherein 2Y gluon bonds X quarks with the same physical properties?

>>7997808
Increase the mass of the quarks. Or increase their velocity. But then they're not the same quarks.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations. If we could induce them into the hadron, the particle/antiparticle pairs would move to their appropriate quarks and be annihilated within the gluon. Higher energy gluon bonding with no net effect on the quarks.

>>7997815
Except for slight compression as the bond grows stronger.

During the period of equalization to normal bonding energies, the hadron would release the excess energy. It would also be in a higher energy state than the surrounding matter. Thus a quark could move FTL within the hadron as time is moving faster for those quarks, from the perspective of the atom; its radius would decrease FTL away from the atom as it compressed, and then increase at the speed of energy release ie the speed of light.

>>7997828
So... anyone know how to induce QVF with Planck distance precision?..

I'll get right on that.

You cannot travel faster than light because the speed of light is the speed photons go, and photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force. Therefore, if you travel faster than light, your atoms can no longer stay "connected" because you are going faster than the electromagnetic force can keep up. In other words, you immediately die and break apart. And so does the ship.

>>7998205
I think you can if you act against the expansion of the universe.

>>7998205
WORMHOLES MAN
Also I read some types of neutrinoes can go faster than light because they are traveling back in time

An on-topic thread in /sci/? What is this travesty I don't even!!!1!

I'm no expert but.
Didn't be say we'd be traveling twice the speed of light relative to the observer? Thus if we travel just just below that speed would we not look like were travelling just just below twice that of the speed of light and then because it's not breaking through speed of light the electromagnetic forces holding our atoms together should just just stay together. I do apologize for the 'just just' but I used it as the reference point

>>7998205
>>7998503
electromagnetism has nothing to do with holding atoms together

>>7998480
disproven fag

>>7998205
I've never heard this, is this right?

>>7998520
>disproven
nope

>>7998520
>I've never heard this, is this right?
wait. are you serious? have you never heard of relativity? shit get out of /sci/

>>7998523
That experiment was wrong, tachyons solve the maths of rel, and yes they would 'travel' back in time, but they predict an unstable vacuum as well. We don't have an unstable vacuum in the universe.

>>7998525
Yeah I haven't heard of rel, no dipshit going faster than speed of light would not let your atoms stay 'stuck' together. I don't understand which theory is used to explain this.

>>7998535
What experiment? Wormholes are a concept that is a part of a number of different theories. Proving one theory wrong (because the experiment it was based on was wrong) doesn't say anything about the other theories, or even the concept itself.

Even the cyclic model of the universe is not 'proven wrong' it just seems unlikely due to new phenomena that we have discovered, pheonoma that we can't explain yet anyways so it's impossible to infer on it's likelihood.

And regarding shit stuck together or whatever; it's probably due to the fact that it's impossible for ordinary matter to go faster than light, proven in every way possible.

Using the math, changing the variables to allow light to go faster would mean one or more of the following that time becomes negative, mass becomes negative, dividing by zero, etc. Using any one of these paradoxical results one can infer a number of nonsensical things like the fuckery he mentioned about atoms not being stuck together anymore. It's probably right, in the hypothetical paradoxical sense.

anyways, when you say
>I've never heard this
without pointing out what "this" is I'm just gonna assume you haven't heard any of it. If you did, why wouldn't you be more specific instead of hiding behind the facade of ambiguity acting like you know what you're talking about...

>>7998545
I meant the OPERA experiment that claimed to have detected faster than light neutrinos. Which was a measurement error.

Wormholes sure, but we both know that wormholes don't work by allowing a particle to move faster than speed of light. I'm arguing from a QFT perspective, I actually recently had a talk with one of our Particle Physicists about this recently, if tachyons could exist (ie not just unstably decay away), you can arbitrarily lower the vacuum energy by adding tachyons to it, thus the vacuum itself is not stable.

>>7998517
Chemical bonding is pretty much just emag

>>7998480
That result was because of faulty equipment, why do you think you've never heard of it since?

>>7998552
>>7998557
oh ok. yea the neutrinos thing always bugged me.

wormholes are still on the table, I thought that's what was disproven

>>7997756
i've found a fatal flaw with your theory

black holes dont exist

File: images-11.jpg (17KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 384x384px

>>7998574

Had a shower thought about black holes.

Would a black hole be the only source of a "perfect" black color in nature?

>>7998599
>source

>>7998599
42,020,743 niggas in US would disagree

>>7997756
>I'm working on a theory

If /sci/ is your first place to go to in order to discuss or present your ideas, it means that your "theory" must be complete shit.

>>7998599
no because black holes dont exist

black holes obviously exist... if they don't then what are those objects that behave just like black holes?

>>7999496
Human obviously exist... if they don't then what are those robots that behave just like humans?

>>7997756
Space withing a black hole would still be limited so that universe couldn't just expand in forever, it would also force the black hole to explode, we would at least observed one of these phenomena.

>>7997756
>Muh theory
>I have absolutely no math to show you

/sci/

>>7999496
>obviously
Observations are never 100% reliable.

>>8001084
thos biological robots are philosophical zombies!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Clearly I'm the only human that exists. is anyone else actually conscious and able to question their default action?

>>8001326
yea... I mean SOMETHING exists. we just give it this label "black hole" and then make shitty theories behind it

I'm asking what a better label would be, and what shitty theories might better explain this SOMETHING