>lightspeed is always the same why the heck is lightspeed

>>8697743
It's the speed limit. Yes there are lots of studies. Having a speed limit is essential to maintaining causality.

>>8697750
>it's the speed limit

but why?

every mass that travels faster converts into energy? is it just a natural stop sign? WHY??? i need to understand!

>>8697743
>Why

Not really a question for science. At a certain point you just need to accept it: that's the way it is.

>>8697758
You need to understand special relativity if you want to understand why.

If we didn't have this limit on the transmission of information our universe would be a very different very non causal place, or maybe a casual place where relativity isn't true and causality is enforced through some different means, but everything experimentation and just general common experience tells us is that we live in a relativistic universe where C is the speed limit that preserves causality.

>>8697743
>lightspeed is always the same

>the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds
>the speed of light is exactly 299792458 metres per second

>implying you would ever know

>>8697774
how would you break causality in a classical newtonian universe?

>>8697772
You're an idiot

>>8697743

Say you have some object, and keep pumping energy into it to make it go faster.The energy you put into it also makes it slightly heavier.

On a human scale, this is very hard to notice. But if you approach the speed of light, the effect would become overwhelming. You would need infinite energy to get to the speed of light. Only massless particles like photons can travel at the speed of light. (Photons can still carry energy, but it is finite at the speed of light.)

All this has been extensively proven. GPS receivers depend on lightspeed always being the same.

>>8697787
Nice post there senpai. How am I an idiot? There is no grand reason that c should be so special, it's just a consequence of the principle of relativity.

>>8697796
>The energy you put into it also makes it slightly heavier.

This is wrong. There is only one mass, and that's the invariant mass. Relativistic mass is a concept that introduces far too many issues.

>>8697796
This is probably the best most direct answer for "why" you can't exceed the speed of light or move a massive (massive meaning has mass not necessarily big like people normally use it) object at the speed of light.

Preserve causality is a consequence of this speed limit.

>>8697780
By transmitting information faster than the speed of light

>>8697774

Wait, isn't it the opposite? That c being a limit CAUSES problems with causality if anything were to somehow exceed it?

lightspeed is a fucking meme. yes, light has a speed.

it has nothing to fucking do with time.

it has nothing to fucking do with causality.

there are plenty of non-local or ftl information paths.

anyone telling you that light and time are related, or that it has anything to do with causality, are retards who don't have a brain, or they would have thought it out a little and realized how foolish of an idea it is.

>>8697842
>yes, light has a speed.
>it has nothing to fucking do with time.

er

>>8697835
Yeah it does

Since nothing we can observe exceeds the speed of light we have to assume it is the limit.

>>8697835
>somehow exceed it

it's a core concept in relativity that you cannot exceed it. See >>8697796 it would take literally infinite energy, not allot, literally infinite.


>>8697833
In a Newtonian universe I think it's assumed there exists absolute standards of time and space, that's what the "aether" was supposed to be, so transmitting FTL wouldn't matter. But if that doesn't exist, which all experimentation tells us it doesn't, then yea FTL would be a problem for a Newtonian universe.

>>8697843

no, not 'er'. shut the fuck up. time doesn't have a rate, and even if it did, it has nothing to fucking do with light. sound has a speed too, time has nothing to do with it.

light has NOTHING to do with time. we would not notice if the speed of light changed a little. the fact that it'd take us about 8 minutes to notice the sun had vanished doesn't mean that light has anything to do with time. it doesn't have infinite speed. that's all 'the speed of light' means. nothing would be different if light was faster or slower except for how long it'd take to notice the sun had vanished. which has nothing to do with time, because whether you saw it or not, it vanished at one moment and not another, your perception doesn't mean any more to the sun than sending a letter too late for someone to receive it on time.

it's not fucking relative.

>>8697854
do you even know what speed means?

>>8697854
Except that speed does in fact have everything to do with time

GPS would not work if we did not correct for the relativistic change in time encountered by the clocks on GPS satellites.

>>8697858

yes, and no matter how fast you go, time does not change relative to it. time does not have a rate. you have a rate of change of a value, such as distance down a road.

time is a undifferentiated metronome against which events can be charted. but it is in no fucking way relative to speed or light.

i shouldn't even be talking to a brainlet like you. obviously i fucking know what speed is, but you asked a stupid question anyways.

>>8697869

fucking WRONG.

speed has nothing to do with time, except that change occurs in the context of time. speed is not RELATIVE to time.

GPS has no special relation to time. don't be an idiot. an engine wouldn't work if a belt didn't 'time' the injectors, either. that doesn't mean fucking anything about time.

>>8697870
so when you said
>yes, light has a speed.
you were just randomly spouting bullshit
got it

>>8697869
Well that's not really to do with the speed of light, it's more to do with relativity. c in a Lorentz factor is more of a constant of proportionality, a constant we can eliminate by switching to Planck units.

>>8697880
Typing in all caps doesn't make you any less wrong.

You are under the assumption that there is some universal measure of time somewhere in the universe. There is no such thing.

>>8697881

don't play your stupid fucking avoidant games with me.

light does move at a certain speed, just the same as a tennis ball or bullet moves at a certain speed.

this doesn't alter times constancy in any fashion at all.

even the fact that if you were to travel very rapidly towards earth from far away, that while looking at it with a telescope, it'd seem as though things were moving faster down on earth. this has nothing to do with time. you're simply running into the light emanated from earth at a faster rate.

time itself isn't fucking changing and if you think it does, you're a zombie person who does not possess consciousness and does not have a mental existence.

>>8697885

time can not be measured because it does not have a rate. there is nothing to measure. events simply proceed at a certain speed and not another. this is a constant. there is nothing to compare it to. there's no way to measure existence, there's no way to measure time.

clocks only work because time is an absolute constant, and the clock proceeds in rates that are constant in relation to the rate that everything else proceeds.

time remains absolutely constant even if you speed up the clock.

if you can't grasp this, you're sub-human, you haven't developed into a rational being, you are merely a animal automata, who is blind, deaf, and dumb.

OP here

but WHY is lightspeed the limit? WHY can't we accelerate a space ship faster then light?

nobody here really answered my question

you all saying lightspeed is the limit, accept it.

but i wanted to know WHY is lightspeed the limit? do we know it yet ? i would be satisfied when you say we don't know yet but everybody here is just talking around my original question.

>>8697895

>but WHY is lightspeed the limit? WHY can't we accelerate a space ship faster then light?

there's no reason to think that we can't. people are just really, really confused.

in all likelihood light has a certain speed simply because the subatomic event that generates a particle of light has a threshold energy level that makes it so that any time a photon is sent flying, it's sent flying at a certain speed, because it breaks off at that threshold only.

there's no reason to think that this can't be manipulated.

>>8697893
Wow such insults

You really convinced me with that hot opinion

>>8697895
See >>8697796 you can't generate enough energy to move any object with mass even AT light speed let alone beyond it.

>>8697893
>Everything you said about time

That's all wrong, time is relative to particular frames. There seems to be an underlaying assumption that there exists some privileged frame, such a frame does not exist.

>>8697895
>but WHY is lightspeed the limit?

Because when you work through the mathematics of SR you end up with a term that looks like [eqn] \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 1 - \frac { v^2 } { c^2 } } } [/eqn]Which is divergent as [math] v \to c [/math]. Now why does that exist? Well that comes from the invariance of the line element [math] c d \tau ^2 = c dt^2 - d \vec { x } ^2 [/math], so why is that invariant? Well that follows from the fact that space time is homogeneous and isotropic. So why is space time homogeneous and isotropic? I've no idea, it just is. Like I said earlier, at a certain point you just have to accept that the universe is the way it is.

>>8697849

I know the theory says it absolutely cannot be exceeded. But if there were no such thing as relativity and c being a limit, would there be any issues with causality if oyu could travel at, say, 10^100 m/s?

>>8697899
thanks
this is something i understand.

so the real answer is "we don't know YET". right?

btw i heard about a experiment where they accelerate light to 2-3 times c. does this mean we can break the speed of light but only with massless particle?

so one day when we be able to transform mass into energy and vise versa we could travel faster then c? we could transform a, lets say, a cup into energy and transform this energy back into its original form , a cup, we would be able to teleport in a instant? no matter the distance.

or is the future teleport related to quantums? when one is positive the other is negative you know what i mean. we could travel faster then c by "building" clones?

>>8697743
It isn't something light has a monopoly on. Even gravity propagates at that speed. The reason it is "exactly" c is inconsequential. We call it 3x10^8 m/s in our arbitrary units, but is is simply a constant that we can convert into our units and express as a speed.

There is nothing arbitrary about the exact value of c, it comes out naturally as soon as you assume there is a max speed. Then other weird shit gets implied (such as length contraction, time dilation etc) that you can then test and find that the limit is indeed the speed at which light travels.

It has nothing intrinsically to do with photons, or gravitons specifically, its just that these particles are not bound by having a rest mass, so their only limit is the causal limit of the universe itself.

>>8697924
kek

This guy gave you an actual answer >>8697919

>>8697913

to speak of you as being 'convinced' of anything would be false; you are simply an accidental ball of slime who bears a passing resemblance to a sapient life form amongst which you subsist.

>>8697919

>I've no idea, it just is. you just have to accept

time is not relative. if you think it is, you are wrong, and if you think it's relative on purpose, you're wrong and stupid.

time and space have fucking nothing to do with each other. nothing. there is no god damned space time, you retards.

FUCKING LOOK AT IT.

>>8697924

these people can't think about things for themselves, and they can't stand not knowing things, so they say fucking whatever they hear someone else like themselves saying.

yes, someday nothing will be impossible to us. we will possess the capacity to 'instantiate'.

>>8697915
>>8697919
but whst about pure energy without mass?

i know that we lack the technology now and probably we need another 5000years. this is just a theoretically question.

>>8697833
that wouldn't be a breach of causality at all in a Newtonian universe

>>8697880

You're either trolling or have absolutely no understanding of things like time dilation, which have been observed and DO happen.

>>8697932
>time and space have fucking nothing to do with each other.

Gene Ray, pls go.

>>8697929
i'm on a phone and i didn't read the answer before i posted my comment

>>8697921
It is possible there are other sets of rules that could produce a universe similar to our own sure, you could have in theory a universe where there is causality and there is no relativity and no C speed limit but all experimentation and observation tells us we live in a universe where both the C speed limit and relativity are true.

>>8697934
>pure energy

This phrase has no meaning. So your sentence doesn't make sense.

>>8697934
>>8697932
Are we being raided by /x/?

>>8697938

>time dialation has been observed

no the fuck it has not

>>8697939

>muh theoretical bullshit that doesn't produce enough actual effect to wipe my fucking ass with

if all physicists in the world, and all physics books and information, were thrown into a pit and burned, within 10 years we'd have a far more advanced conception of the fundamental laws of reality than we do now.

if i were leader, i would execute every single physicist and burn every physics book and you would just have to start over.

>>>8697955
>time can totally change guys, time and space are like, one huge thing, maaaan

it is YOU who are /x/

>>8697948
you are not dumb and i believe you know what i meant. sorry for my language but english is not my first language.

>pure energy
lets say quantums instead if you want. i don't care what you call it but i hope you get what i mean.

>>8697895

It seems to just be an in-built property of space-time. Space-time itself can/does expand at unlimited speed, but anything within space-time, that has to move 'through' it, is limited to less than c, or c if massless.

>>8697960
I bet you think the earth is flat too

>>8697963

you think that because you're a fucking fool. you are the kind of person that in better ages long past, would not have been taught to read, and would be immeasurably improved for the omission.

when you educate fools, you achieve only stupidity-on-steroids.

>>8697960
Do you use GPS on your phone?

>>8697955
this is not /x/ related

is c really the limit? or can photons travel faster then c? or other partical without mass?

will humans be able to go faster then c? with spaceships or just by accelerate particles without mass?

is c really the limit? when yes, please explain why in detail.

>>8697780
Bob and alice are connected through a supraluminal communcation device the same time she sees his hand on a detonation button.
When bob presses the button it transmits a FTL singal to alice indicating that a bomb exploded on a planet at the same time light bouncing from bob's hand reach Alice eyes.

From Alice's point of view the bomb explosion happened before bob pressed the button, thus fucking up causality.

>>8697960
>if i were leader, i would execute every single physicist and burn every physics book and you would just have to start over.

Shit dude, you're like full on mad. Is special relativity too hard for you're little brainlet you understand? I mean I could point out to you something like that Hafele–Keating experiment or even GPS. But I doubt you'd accept them. I'm lmaoing at you so hard right now.

>>8697961
I honestly don't know what you mean, I'm not trying to be an asshole here. Energy is kind of an "fuzzy" subject, since it's not really well defined (I think the only half decent definition I can come up with is that it's a manifestation of a Noether current). I energy could propagate at c (like x-rays from the sun), but it doesn't have to.

>>8697945

Still not the point I'm trying to get across.
I know OUR universe DOES seem to have c as a limit. I'm saying, isn't that what CAUSES causality problems when you then hypothetically suggest 'what if something went faster?'.
IF the universe had no limiting speed, there'd be NO problems, in terms of causality, with anything flying off at any speed, ever.

>>8697977
>is c really the limit?
Yes
>or can photons travel faster then c
No
>or other partical without mass?
A particle with no mass can travel at c.
>will humans be able to go faster then c?
No
>is c really the limit?
Yes
>please explain why in detail.
I tried here >>8697919 but I don't know if that will count as a satisfactory explanation.

>>8697758
Mass and energy are essentially two sides of the same coin. If you have intrinsic rest mass, and you lose to c, the closer you get, the more inertial (relativistic) mass you gain, until it would take an infinite force to accelerate you any further. You don't "convert to energy" at that point. In fact, you'd become a black hole.

>>8697772
>why
>Not really a question for science
>cooking
>Not really a question for chefs

Are you serious bro?

>>8697870
>no matter how fast you go, time does not change relative to it
All of relativity theory disagrees with you. You are trying to force a point that the speed of light has nothing to do with time. When all time and space coordinates in the universe are defined relative to the speed of light. In fact, most of the time I don't even get what you're trying to say. Is English your first language?

>>8697924
Any experiment you read of that claims to have made anything go faster than c is lying to you. Maybe is said faster than the speed of light in a certain material/medium?

>>8697978

Isn't the causality only fucked because the signal went faster than light? If light had an unlimited speed itself, there's no problem.

BUT IS GRAVITY FASTER THAN LIGHT?

File: 1486007086498.jpg (51KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x640px

>>8697977

the same equations that relate to gravity propagation approach 99% incorrectness at larger and larger distances.

they made up dark matter to cover this mistake.

>>8697978

>since the button transmitted a message indicating an event faster than the light from the event reached the person who received the message... causality is broken!

if i have a water gun and jump into a pool, and squirt you before the waves from me jumping in hit you, have i broken causality?

you have to be a very, very special kind of stupid to think that just because the message got there faster than light, that the bomb didn't go off at the exact same time for both bob and alice. because time is a fucking constant. everything happens together, at the same time.

jesus christ, you probably make fun of religious people, but someone coming back from the dead because he was gods son literally makes more sense than these crackpot theories that conflate light, time, and causality.

i feel sorry for you stupid, blind sacks of shit.

>>8697979

'special relativity' is a fucking fairy tale. you're basically a scientologist at this point if you literally believe that GPS devices clocking each other proves that causality has anything to do with how fast the room lights up when you flick a fucking switch.

>>8697992
>All of relativity theory disagrees with you.

relativity has WHAT merits exactly? fucking none, you morons. you've accomplished fucking nothing with it. you've hit a brick fucking wall and god damned techno-tinkers are surpassing you while you look at the sky and do math to try and prove that your retarded theories aren't actually as wrong as they appear to be.

guillotine.

>>8697743
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

>>8697992
>Are you serious bro?

Deadly serious, bro. Why is a question for philosophy, not science. I sort of expanded on that a bit further up >>8697919. At a certain point you just have to accept that we've reached bedrock, that the universe is just like that and we need to accept it.

>>8697998
No.

>>8698001
>'special relativity' is a fucking fairy tale
>On of the most well tested physical theories ever
>A fucking fairy tale

kek.

>>8697977
All current experimentation and observation tells us FTL transmission of objects or communication is impossible.

There do exist fringe theories about things like tachyons which are particles supposed to travel at FTL speeds but there is no evidence they actually exist and they are not part of any widely accepted theories.

There's also quantum entanglement which may involve an FTL transmission of some kind but it seems to be fundamentally random and uncontrollable so it cannot be used to communicate.

Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility, but thus far nothing we know of indicates to us that moving an object or a message from point A to point B FTL is possible.

>>8697979
>pure energy

gravity for example is something i would call "pure energy". radioactive rays would be another.

i hope you get what i mean now.

e=mc2

cut out the mass and you have pure energy. basically particle without mass.

can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example. if you put more energy into it will they be able to go even faster?

>>8697984
If our universe had no speed limit but you left everything else the same any object that exceeded C, or whatever the fastest thing that could transmit information was, would be able to break causality.

>>8697997
Light cannot have unlimited speed because it would be anywhere at the same time

>>8698010
>can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example. if you put more energy into it will they be able to go even faster?

No. This has been tested.

>>8698001
>relativity has WHAT merits exactly
It has the merit that it has been proven correct on several occasions, even ones that should be evident to warped brainlets like yourself.

You obviously aren't a scientist, so why do you feel like you have a right to judge whether or not scientific principles are correct? If I was to tell you that the way your GPS works is based exclusively on these principles, and wouldn't work at all without them, would you believe me?

I'm guessing probably not, because you have no concept of how this information was acquired, therefore you place no importance on it. If you actually sat down with an intro physics/math book and tried to learn things, then you might eventually realise how completely ignorant you are.

>>8698001
>I'm too stupid to understand special relativity, but too self-absorbed to see that.
It's funny how stupid people lack self-awareness.

>>8698010
>can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example.

No. You have this thing called the Lorentz (or sometimes gamma) factor, as you start to get closer and closer to the speed of light, the Lorentz factor gets larger and larger. It approaches the speed of light "asymptotically", which is to say, it never quite reaches c.

>>8698005

'special relativity' hasn't been fucking tested. you've made up a bunch of shit rationalizing it. you have

ACCOMPLISHED

NOTHING

with it.

fucking geeks just FUCKING AROUND IN THEIR GARAGE have accomplished more than 'special relativity'.

fucking 'special ed' indeed. specious accusations that time and space are unified in any meaningful way, implying that they're subject to anything.

it's the most gobbeldy-gook hokum ever seen.

>>8698011

>hurr, if you went really fast, you'd break causality

that's just stupid of you.

>>8698016

GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle. you fucking fool. it's basically a couple radios with stopwatches strapped to them and a calculator. you have no clue what you are talking about.

i have the right - at this point the duty - to point out when you faggots have your head so far up your ass that you start talking pure shit. such as speed being able to 'break causality'. put down the fucking comic book.

if i was to sit down and read a book, i'd take some effort to make sure it wasn't full of pure nonsense. this is what you should have done and what you did not do leading to you making the most wildly stupid claims possible, that show you have not spent five fucking minutes actually THINKING about time, space, matter, light, or causality.

>>8698018

no, it's not funny. it's not funny that you adhere to some retarded, broken concept that no one has the balls to put down because they'd look stupid, and instead come up with less and less plausible and rational cover-ups for their big flub.

guillotine for physicists.

>>8698005
And we have reached several "bedrocks" throughout history and overcame them. What makes you think this is any different? Would you really be a scientist if you just gave up and said "well that's just how it is"?
I thought the whole point was to find out why things are the way they are. Philosophy and science are linked at the most basic level. They both concern the use of logic to obtain truths (at least philosophy used to be).
If you are not driven by a desire to know why things are the way they are (e.g. why is c the speed limit) then you should really just stop with science.

>>8698010

>can pure energy go faster then light?

No, if you add more energy to a photon, all you do is transmit more energy, it doesn't get there any faster.

>>8698006
>All current experimentation and observation tells us FTL transmission of objects or communication is impossible.

>There do exist fringe theories about things like tachyons which are particles supposed to travel at FTL speeds but there is no evidence they actually exist and they are not part of any widely accepted theories.

atoms where not part of any wodely accetped theorie 5000years ago. never say never. this is how i understand science. it's 99% we don't know till we have a proof.

>There's also quantum entanglement which may involve an FTL transmission of some kind but it seems to be fundamentally random and uncontrollable so it cannot be used to communicate.

it's looks random for us now.but maybe in the future we will understand how it works. nothing is trully random in the universe. everything follows orders, even when we don't understand it yet.

>Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility, but thus far nothing we know of indicates to us that moving an object or a message from point A to point B FTL is possible.

my question was not about information.

thanks anyways

to come back at my original question. WHY is c the limit? what about partical without mass? could they travel faster theoretically?

if you are traveling at light speed in vacum, aiming straight to the center of a black hole, when you enter its gravitational field, does the gravitational pull adds speed? if not, because it's impossible to go faster than lightspeed, why if you suddenly changed to the opposite direction without losing any speed still be dragged into the black hole?

>>8698001
>"f i have a water gun and jump into a pool, and >squirt you before the waves from me jumping >in hit you, have i broken causality"

From my reference frame i have seen:
1) Person with water gun jumping the pool
2) Squirt from gun
3) Wave
4) Me being hit by a fast water stream and a slower wave

Actually these are not even cause-effect actions at all

>>8698037
>>8698025
>>8698010

thanks

i posted this >>8698038 before i read your posts

i need to learn more about this now. thsnk you and bye

>>8698041

your personal reference frame doesn't mean jack shit.

is the misconception that it does at the heart of the flawed path that physics has taken? possibly.

>>8698038
>never say never

I didn't, I literally ended by saying
>Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility,

>it's looks random for us now.but maybe in the future we will understand how it works. nothing is trully random in the universe. everything follows orders, even when we don't understand it yet.

It's certainly possible that there is something at play we just don't understand yet but you should really look into this for yourself. Quantum physics is weird as shit and challenges the idea that "there is nothing truly random in the universe" there might be, there might be allot of random shit in fact.

>to come back at my original question. WHY is c the limit? what about partical without mass? could they travel faster theoretically?

And now I just think you're trolling. This has been answered multiple times based on our current best understanding of the subject, what do you want to hear?

>>8697800

Relatistic mass is central to the question, so you can't just ignore it because it is complicated.

>>8698030
>GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle
ask anyone in the world and they will tell you it does. I understand why and how, and you don't.

>if i was to sit down and read a book, i'd take some effort to make sure it wasn't full of pure nonsense.
And the only way to find out if it's pure nonsense is to, that's right, read it.

>you have not spent five fucking minutes actually THINKING about time, space, matter, light, or causality.
No, I haven't spent five minutes. It's more like ten years.
I hope you realise that right now, you are attempting to undermine centuries of accumulated knowledge by the human race, and men and women vastly more intelligent than you, when you haven't even read a fucking introductory text concerning what you are talking about. Does that seem right to you? (points for the reference).

>>8698030
>GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle. you fucking fool.
It does account for time dilation due to gravity and orbital motion in its calculations. It isn't fundamental to the concept, but it severely improves the resolution. You will of course just ignore or deny this, but just for completeness' sake.

Note by the way, that literally every modern physical theory is based on special relativity. In fact, electrodynamics (not even the quantum version of it) is a relativistic theory and basically 99% of every piece of technology you are using is based on it. But go on and deny this as well, I don't care.

>>8698041
Yea breaking causality would be getting hit by the stream from the gun before he pulls the trigger or something like that, he chose events that aren't even causally linked anyways.

p stupid on his part desu senpai.

File: 1487827732315.jpg (18KB, 543x373px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 543x373px

>>8698030
Holy shit why are you so upset
Like I do not understand what the problem is, a dozen people have tried to point out exactly why you're wrong and you're just slamming all caps back

>>8698030
>'special relativity' hasn't been fucking tested.

Au Contraire. There are numerous direct and indirect experiments affirming the validity of SR
>Direct tests
Muon telescope experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiment
Hafele–Keating experiment (and it's derivatives)
Hughes–Drever experiment

>Indirect tests from quantum mechanics
Klein–Nishina formula

>Indirect tests from QFT
Prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.
Klein–Nishina formula (again!) with higher order corrections
Explanation for, and prediction of, the Lamb shift

There's lots of evidence for SR.

>>8698039
>does the gravitational pull adds speed
No, it warps the space around it, so the light beam gets "stretched" out. It still retains the same speed, but it will appear to change wavelength, something known as gravitational redshift.

>>8698052
Relativistic mass is just an ancient didactic concept to make relativity more plausible. Ironically, it appears to have achieved the exact opposite. There is only one mass, it does not change. The dynamics are completely buried inside the Lorentz transformation.

>>8698052
It's not complicated it's just wrong. Relativistic mass has all sorts of unfortunate consequences that can easily be removed by getting rid of the concept and instead focusing on just energy-momentum. Hell even Einstein didn't like the idea and argued against it.

>>8698056

GPS doesn't work on 'special relativity'.

NOTHING DOES.

>It does account for time dilation due to gravity and orbital motion in its calculations

no the fuck it does not. it corrects itself to a master clock.

> It's more like ten years.

ten wasted fucking years. 100% wasted.

>undermine centuries of accumulated knowledge

accumulated error.

>men and women vastly more intelligent than you

if they think that there is such a thing as a relativistic 'reference frame' in which FTL events could 'break causality', then they are not more intelligent than i.

>introductory text

preliminary errors, you mean. you need smaller errors before you can work up to bigger errors, such as, 'the universe is 99% dark mass'.

>>8698061

they're causally related because i caused all of them on purpose. as far as you're concerned, if you actually think that the water squirt originated before the splash, congratulations, you've achieved a competency in trained error and it's justifications.

>>8698067

none of that fucking means shit, because you've established fucking nothing as a useful method of work.

>take some clocks
>fuck with them
>they drift off from another clock

"time is relative"

no, a clocks operation is flawed, you FUCKING idiot. time travel isn't fucking real.

>>8698063

a dozen retards who are incapable of consideration and contemplation. i am educating you worthless fucks.

guillotine for physicists.

>>8698037
I don't really know what else to say to you. At a certain point you can go no further, say some day in the distant future there's a complete and unified theory, that told us why space was homogeneous and isotropic. We've only move the question of "why" back a step (or several!) Why then does the universe follow this particular theory?

>>8698077
What this anon is referring to is the Stress-Energy Tensor (or the Energy-Momentum Tensor) which is a pretty damn cool mathematical object that relates all kinds of things like mass-energy densiy, pressure, momentum density and flux and shear stress. It generalises the concept of what happens to a spacetime when you increase the gravity, or to an object when you increase its speed. Yaaay Einstein!

>>8698082
>Proof by denial
Good troll

>>8698082
>none of that fucking means shit, because you've established fucking nothing as a useful method of work.

You're so mad it's hilarious. What I have established is that special relativity reproduces all of what is observed. It's unification with QM then goes on to reproduce even more.

>>8698086

the burden of evidence for

>FUCKING TIME TRAVEL

is not on me.

>>8698084
I don't think he referred to that.

>>8697895

There are some things we can measure easily, but have no real explanation for. Why does Pi =3.14159? Why are there only 2 electrical polarities (+&-) and not three? Why do we have three dimensions of space and one of time? And of course your question about light.

Someday we might have clear answers for these questions, but for now they are at the limits of what we know.

>>8698094
Time dilation is not time travel.

>>8698093

no, you literally have not established that special relativity reproduces 'what is observed'. it's been a constant application of bullshit to conform to observations, which have many simple possible explanations, eschewed in favor of wildly implausible gibberish.

occams razor: special relativity is the greatest waste of time the human race has ever engaged in.

guillotine for physicists

>>8698082
You are literally just a fucking moron. Or you are a pretty convincing troll. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

>>8698083
I get what you mean, and eventually we will reach our species' limit of understanding. But there's no reason to assume that we have already stumbled upon something we can never answer in a meaningful way.

>>8698094
It's all out there, you just have to get your head out of your ass. It's certainly not the job of scientists to explain that shit to every single retarded conspiracist who actively fights against learning new things.

>>8698082
what would it take for you to believe relativity is true?

one thing that if someone showed it to you you'd feel you had to believe it?

>>8698109
He's a conspiracist, it's not about the truth or convincing arguments. It's all about having a contrarian opinion just to feel special.

>>8698104
HURR DURR PHYSICISTS ARE CONSPIRERS
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
AYY LMAO

>>8698096
Well, that's what eventually came out of dealing with energy and momentum when general relativity was formulated.

>>8698104
>guillotine for physicists
You have just exposed yourself. Nice work, you had me going for a while.

>>8698110
I know but I figured it's still worth a try. If he answers and we can provide what he asks then it'll just prove he's a troll when he still denies it after.

>>8698104
>It's all bullshit, the lot of it, TAKE ME SERIOUSLY

Fucking lol, pls make "guillotine for physicists" your name and add a trip. I've not laughed this hard at someones posts since that really obnoxious chemical engineer from a few years back.

>>8698114
>Well, that's what eventually came out of dealing with energy and momentum when general relativity was formulated.
He didn't refer to it.

>>8698103

here comes the backpeddling, when you realize that what you're suggesting is patently preposterous.

>>8698105

yeah, i'm so retarded for not drinking the kool-aid. i'm cool with our separate paths.

>>8698107

yes, it's all out there, i have seen it, i have been to the mountaintop, and it is a lie.

>>8698109

i would never believe a lie is true. what kind of a retarded question is this?

go make a gadget that couldn't work unless special relativity was true and i'll reconsider.

gps AKA 'four radios with stopwatches and a calculator strapped to them' is not an application of special relativity. you barely have to comprehend how electricity works to perform triangulations, much less any sort of physics (outside of the calculations required to get the satellites into a convenient orbit.) (and they only have to be satellites because it's easier than using lots of towers).

>>8698119
Well tbf I was talking about energy-momentum 4-vector. But the stress energy tensor is it's general relativistic extension.

>>8698121
>i would never believe a lie is true. what kind of a retarded question is this?
>go make a gadget that couldn't work unless special relativity was true and i'll reconsider.
>gps AKA 'four radios with stopwatches and a calculator strapped to them' is not an application of special relativity. you barely have to comprehend how electricity works to perform triangulations, much less any sort of physics (outside of the calculations required to get the satellites into a convenient orbit.) (and they only have to be satellites because it's easier than using lots of towers).

>barely have to understand physics to make a GPS system
k so you're a troll then. bye.

>>8697743
>flying through space at lightspeed
>turn on headlights of space ship
>light pools up inside on the surface of your lights
This is what Einsteinists actually believe

File: 1487063367589.jpg (54KB, 621x435px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 621x435px

>>8698112

fuck off moron.

>>8698114

whatever helps you sleep at night, brainlet.

>>8698118

i don't even know how to operate trip codes.

and i'm not fucking joking, i don't fucking care how you all feel about it, i suppose i'm enough of a philanthropist that i felt that everyone should hear the words, at least once in their life, "time and light aren't related", so that they didn't have an excuse, so that on some fine day when a glorious leader makes the holocaust look like a joke by burning all of you expensive jack-offs to a crisp, you will at least have the consolation of knowing that you fucking deserved it.

>>8698121
>yes, it's all out there, i have seen it, i have been to the mountaintop, and it is a lie.
Name a piece of evidence that directly contradicts special relativity, good luck. I think it might be worth a paper.

>>8698130
>this is what brainlets believe relativity says would happen

File: the phone is ringing.jpg (42KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x700px

>>8698129

that's fucking right. when it occurred to you that you could set up a 'gps' locally within an array of towers... say... cell towers... you realized how retarded the shit you were spewing about SR and gps was.

>>8698137

>oh yeah? well PROVE jesus isn't god! haha!

guillotine.

>>8698119
No, he didn't, but the idea he stated was generalised to eventually become the Stress-Energy Tensor. So in an indirect way, he was talking about it haha.

>>8698121
I would like to know jow you explain the fact that light traveling in the path of a distant galaxy warps around the galaxy, an effect known as gravitational lensing. I have literally seen this effect. How would your knowledgeable self explain this? All I'm hearing is denial and no alternative theories.

>>8698121
>go make a gadget that couldn't work unless special relativity was true and i'll reconsider.

Well the AC Josephson effect is quantum electrodynamical, so Josephson junctions. Also anything that uses the Quantum Hall effect

>>8698140
>No evidence
Thought so

>>8698141
>No, he didn't, but the idea he stated was generalised to eventually become the Stress-Energy Tensor. So in an indirect way, he was talking about it haha.
Nah. The concept of relativistic mass was never used anywhere except in schools.

>>8697978
that's not causality inversion at all, no more than a fucking GAU-8 bullet hitting you before you hear its sound.

>>8698145
No, what I mean is the importance of energy-momentum. I feel like we are having a pointless conversation here...

>>8698121
>go make a gadget that couldn't work unless special relativity was true and i'll reconsider.
Spin is a direct consequence of relativity, thus everything that somehow relies on spin and spin statistics wouldn't work without relativity, e.g. atoms and more pointed to your actual question, semi conductors, so the very device you are using right now.

Sorry I'm such a fucking moron guys, I had a hard time in school today and I needed to lash out at some strangers on the internet

If I carry on posting inane responses, please continue responding, your attention helps me to reinforce my belief that I am actually superior to everyone

File: 1487535150797.jpg (28KB, 460x468px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 460x468px

>>8698141

gravity can bend light. whats your point? that it can bend time? because you see things happen? and things happen in time? and you see them with light? and if the light behaved different, you'd see it differently?

...

making the event different for different people thus breaking causality?

this is the madness you are participating in.

>>8698143

i see that we're at the point you have to play stupid. let it be known that i saw you read what i wrote and then reply as if you didn't.

>>8698142

you let me know when your quantum computer is up and running and doing stuff, so i can watch you re-write your theories to adjust to reality, and improvise more rationalizations to explain everything else.

technology is, at this point, going to progress only by constantly defying and re-writing physics as we know them.

which is why i feel that i could make the moral judgement that, for the sake of the whole human race, guillotine for physicists, and burn all the physics books, to start from scratch.

>>8698150

guilt by association isn't right. neither is innocence by association.

the people who actually invented and designed computers just did so by rule of thumb and creativity. the 'physics' involved (not really) are an afterthought. something people came up with after the REAL minds had already made it work.

science was literally not involved in the creation of computers. sure, some math to get currents right in certain place and calculate requirements. but carpenters do this also.

you all need to be saved by my fucking grace. you are disconnected from reality.

>>8698163

this person is not me. some ass-ravaged psuedo-scientist is having an existential crisis brought on by yours truly and is turning to homeopathic medicine as we speak to cure his panic attacks.

>>8698171
>science was literally not involved in the creation of computers.
It's one thing to get a transistor somehow working, but it's a wholly different thing to miniaturize and optimize them for specific task, and believe me, you need some serious theory for this shit.

>>8698171
If you had even the basest understanding of relativity, you would know that the entire theory is based on only two principles, mixed with a lot of mathematics. If light can be bent by gravity, you can guess how strong the gravity is based on how bent the light is. Is it a coincidence that the guess for the galaxy's mass is correct using relativity vs any other means? I don't think so.

>>8697772
This. Feynman gets into this in one of his interviews
https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

Are gravity waves faster than light?

>>8698185

the theory kind of writes itself as you try different things. the manuals and technical dossiers you'd find in a texas instruments or raytheon dev lab are entirely cogent and precise. they make sense. they work. they're a product of success.

they're the accretion of an iterative process of people working hard at making something happen with strong incentives driving them.

yes, as they approach the ars perfecta, the strictness of the principles guiding the next step increases exponentially. it eventually becomes very complex and very abstract.

however, there is something holding it down to reality, something ensuring that no matter how far they go, they go not too far: the fucking transistor. this thing has to work reliably for them and even make money for them. and no matter what they do, that is their touchstone. there is a carrot for being correct in their theory, and a stick for being wrong.

this is why it will be industry that pushes progress. not science. science will for the foreseeable future be riding on the coattails of innovators until the conditions are once again right for true scientists to have the freedom they need to engage the audacious task in front of humanity.

>>8698196

fuck off, punk. i can figure out how big an object is by throwing something at it a lot easier than by checking the way light curves around it. and i can literally do better piloting a spaceship between galaxies by hand than your equations could.

>>8698216
you know there are other components besides transistors, right?

>>8698216
>he thinks he can interact with something 100 million light years away
this must be a troll otherwise i dub thee king of kings of brainlets

>>8698207
Gravity propagates at the speed of light

>>8698011
>or whatever the fastest thing that could transmit information was

In this hypothetical universe there is no 'fastest thing', that's the whole point. Without a limiting speed, causality isn't an issue.

>>8697772
>Not really a question for science. At a certain point you just need to accept it: that's the way it is.
Brainlet reasoning.

>>8698039

It will still be dragged in because the black hole's escape velocity is still greater than c. That's why it's a black hole.

>>8698286
>Feynman was a brainlet

>>8698049
>your personal reference frame doesn't mean jack shit.

It does when you're talking about the speed of information travelling, in a universe where there's a fundamental limit to that speed.

>>8697796
>photon
>massless particle

Is this not the real issue here? What the fuck is a photon? Massless? How? That's just retarded. We obviously don't understand light/electromagnetic radiation very well.

>>8698296

information is non-local. how stupid do you have to be to actually think that a planet across the universe needs to tell us where it is in order to be there?

there's something deeply sick about the mind that could imagine this.

>>8698304
Photon is one of the possible perturbations ("waves") of vacuum energy which is by definition zero energy point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Photon does have mass when it is moving, but it doesn't have a rest mass.

>>8698309

Information has to become local, (in a manner limited by the speed of light) for you to have any way of knowing it. It's true that causality can't be broken by events that you never become aware of, obviously.

>>8698309
science works through observation

>>8698331
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
It is all based around the uncertainty principle though, which is problematic to say the least. Basically humanities way of saying, "we are incapable of measuring/understanding this so lets use this rightly named principle to describe it".

>>8698348

you say that and then in the same breath say that the universe is like a fucking video game that has to inform the server of what it's doing in order for it to be done, and if you try to go faster than the latency between your computer and the server is, you'll lag/break causality.

you seriously believe that.

think about that.

>>8698341

>information has to be local for you to have any way of knowing it

knowing about it doesn't make it real and not knowing about it doesn't make it not real. information is non-local.

epistemologically broken. i tell ya.

>>8698360
different anon, anon

>>8697743
Lightspeed =/= C

Also, light does not always travel at the same speed.

>>8698360
>knowing about it doesn't make it real and not knowing about it doesn't make it not real. information is non-local.
What's the difference between the non existence of object A and existence of object A that doesn't send any information to us?

>>8697743
Do not listen all these stupid retarded..nobody knows why the speed of light is the speed limit of the macroscopic world..Einstein relativity is based on that assumption but don't explain why. There are a lot of theories trying to explain why but are expecially math theory not physical ones; anyway actually there isn't a correct answer to your question.
PS the best theory trying to explain why the speed of light is a limit derives from relativity and depends on the space-time features. Particularly Einstein believed that when a mass reach the speed of light the time would stop, so go over that speed (in theory) means that time should go backwards. But this is only a consequence of an incomplete theory. Personally I don't think that speed of light is the speed limit of the universe (see entanglement and speed of space-time), new studies seems to confirm that but is to early to even think about a new theory.

>>8698383

existence and non-existence. the difference is that one exists and the other doesn't.

it's called reality.

>>8698354
You absolutely do not understand the uncertainty principle.

So 4chan doesn't have an "ignore" function?

>>8697743
>This thread is still living

>>8698403
You're still so mad.

>>8698546

>basic 'if a tree falls in the woods' question
>assertion: reality exists independently of the observer, on a superficial level at the minimum

response:

>so mad xDDD111!!!

kys

File: image.png (187KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x375px

>>8697842
>it has nothing to fucking do with time.
WTF?

>pic related

File: 1487905166168.jpg (42KB, 335x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 335x500px

>>8698756

nice fucking meme.

unfortunately, everything you believe is false.

>>8697758
Because speed is distance over time and time stops at the speed of light. It may as well be infinitely fast.

A photon is emitted 100,000,000 light years away. From it's perspective it is created and reaches it destination instantly, having covered 0 space and 0 time.

Correct me if I'm wrong /sci/ I'm not a Physicist

>>8698775
Technically the perspective of the photon is not a valid frame of reference for an observer as I understand it. Relativity can't really describe it and doesn't try to. This is why the "what happens if you turn on your headlight while traveling at light speed?" questions are dumb.

But if we just wanna think about it for funzies yea it's probably something like that.

>>8697743
Could there hypothetically exist some part of the universe were the speed of light differs from what it does in our part of the universe?
And if there was would it be possible to perceive such a difference or would time also be slowed or accelerated accordingly?

>>8698882
>Could there hypothetically exist some part of the universe were the speed of light differs from what it does in our part of the universe?

It's possible but we don't have any evidence that actually exists.

>>8697928

Underrated

>>8698905
>It's possible but we don't have any evidence that actually exists.
Which was why I prefaced the question with "hypothetically"

>>8698909
K, and I answered it. Hypothetically yes.

>>8697777
>7777
Checjeck

>>8697758
Because that's the spees of one tile per tick in the underlying cellular automaton.
Dumbass

>>8697796
>photons
kill yourself particle shill. read up on some tesla.

>>8698360
You know bgaede, go check his explanation. just ignore /sci/. it just a bunch of idiot who think they were genius

>>8697743
>Lightspeed is always the same
Top kek

goddamn sci i though i was stupid

>>8697743
>>lightspeed is always the same
>why the heck is lightspeed so special?
That's what I was wondering. Someone here will "know" it. They're special, absorbed all infinite relevant data, analyzed it and concluded...everything.

>>8697854
Comparing sound to light when talking about relativity, are you uneducated or just autistic.

>>8697743
already proven incorrect. if you throw two magnets at each other the net force of the polarity increases the velocity at which the magnets were moving. Science should agree that the same shall happen given any light with a polar charge moving towards its opposite polarity. Einsteins theory of tachyon.

>>8697774
>If we didn't have this limit on the transmission of information our universe would be a very different very non causal place

quantum tunneling.

>>8697743
Because the universe is a hologram

>>8701305
this.

light is data.

>>8701268
>does not enable FTL communications

there you go, you forgot some stuff before you put that period

>>8697743
It's always the same now, but we don't actually know if it was always the same from the very beginning. I think it was, but hey, could be one of those things that ends up being a discovery.