Do you believe in special or general relativity? Do they have

i was about to make a serious reply to this because i thought i was still on /x/. you don't believe in science, science gets proven. it's not faith-based.

>>9105599I also is it a coinicedence that Evolution, Gravity, and relativity are all theories or are they intertwined

>>9105604
I probably should have said what evidence shapes your opinions on relativity. I study genetics but I think that relativity is particularly fascinating.

>>9105609
this post gives me significant reason to believe you are not studying genetics
>>9105620

>>9105623
epigenetics requires an understanding of how genes interact with the environment. Physics can help you understand the environment better

>>9105623
Unfortunately genetics research requires breeding the organims so theres a lot of dead time while you wait for the data to process. But i dont have to prove anything to you

>>9105604
once it gets proven do you believe it or not?

>>9105635
buster if you think evolution could be connected to relativity because they're both theories you're certainly not a biologist

>>9105599
>Do you believe in special or general relativity?
>(Checks if cell phone still knows where I am)
Yes.

>Do they have anything to do with why we age?
Not, really.

I mean, relative positions and relation to a gravity well and different points in space affect the relative flow of time, but be you stationary or moving at the speed of light, relative to another object, time remains the same in your own reference frame.

If you go nearly the speed of light for 45 years, you still age 45 years. It's just everyone you knew will be long dead when you finally stop.

>>9105660
But in everyone else's reference frame something taking 45 years to go almost 45 light years away doesn't speed up time and kill you.

>>9105679
No, because in everyone elses reference frame your trip took a hell of a lot longer than 45 years.

>>9105686
If we picked a star 45 light years away and you rocketed there at close to c then why would I think it took you way longer than 45 years to get there?

>>9105700
To everyone on Earth, you travelling at almost-c would take (a little more than) 45 years to get to that star and 45 years to get back.

But to you, it would feel like much, much shorter than 45 years. I mean, how long it takes in your frame of reference is inversely proportional to your velocity. There is a velocity you could go where in your reference frame it would take a day to get there and back, meanwhile on Earth 90 years have passed.

File: timey-wimey.jpg (156KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 450x450px

>>9105679
>>9105700
Relativity is difficult to grasp, but basically, relative velocity to different points in space means time passes differently, relative to those objects. You can't move through space without affecting your placement in time relative to other objects. At extremes involving three or more points of reference, it can get to the point where Dr. Who's "timey wimey" explanation becomes more true than not, but for us, the differences are minor enough that we generally only have to worry about it when it comes to extreme precision at high speeds and distance over lengthy periods, such as anything involving a geosynchronous satellites, like your phone or car's GPS.

I think this abridged PBS pop-sci explained it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

Though that scene from "Insignificance" explains it with a bit more heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS0n_fr1Fyo

>>9105658
communication is difficult... This is Science AND Philosophy so we're allowed to get kinda wierd. I think of evolution as biological history and if its pushed by the forces of physics, then spacetime must have something to do with our struggle to survive. It is strange that our molecular soul is far away in our nucleus. Too much pop-sci I guess

>>9105609
>>9105819
Well, evolution and relativity are only intertwined insomuch as they both involve time, much like geology and evolution are only entwined cuz fossils tend to be buried.

Relativity we use every day though, and is fairly simple to prove. I suppose we use evolution every day, in the grand sense, but micro evolution, at least, is fairly simple to prove:
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1502758755009.webm

Now, some of the creationists will try to grab a middle ground, and admit micro-evolution is true, while somehow macro-evolution is not... But it just begs the question, how many micro-evolutions can you have before you get a macro-evolution? (And then they toss in flat/young Earth, and everything goes to hell.)

Not that I don't get the ideological argument against evolution - truth can be destructive, if used to destructive ends, particularly a partial truth. The traditional religious models are at least designed to give one a certain perspective as to one's place in the universe, while the scientific models are, well, just what is, thus they are not necessarily as conducive to social stability. Granted, it's also pretty simple to take a religious truth and apply it in a destructive fashion, but at least the tool is designed for a certain purpose with a certain intent, unlike scientific truths, which just are as they are.

>>9105863
Ill give you some /x/ god shit: what if we live within a superior organism like how bacteria live in us. That being said, I dont give a shit what my bacteria do so I really doubt the universe was designed specifically for us.

>>9105728
>There is a velocity you could go where in your reference frame it would take a day to get there and back
Are you sure? Isn't that in Earth's frame?
There's a velocity I could go at relative to the stationary Earth-star frame where time dilation makes Earth count 45 years every time they count 1 of my days, but that's them counting my time, not me, right?
I'm stationary in my own frame and Earth is moving relative to me so I count 45 years for me and 1 day for Earth.

>>9104747

>>9105876
Meh, we have ten times as many anti-science threads as science threads on this board - nothing new.

This is a nice troll thread

>>9105599
Why do so many people reply to these shit threads without saging ffs