Again that stupid false never proven statement about "nothing can leave light cone". It is perfectly possible moving faster than light and nothing will happen, just your space-time trajectroy will have larger angle to the time axis and that's all.
Minkovsky diagram is complete bullshit taken out from his ass without any foundation at all.
It just loosely describes limitations of observing universe using light (electromagnetic waves) and nothing else. Jus like all special relativity crap.
Special relativity have nothing to do with how things really go. It just describes a couple of corrections you have to apply to your observations if you do that observations using EM waves that propagates with limited speed, but it turned inside out like it is not observation distortions, but some perverted reality.
You will end up with exactly same Lorenz transformations formulas if you decide to study things using acoustic waves instead of light waves, just instead of speed of light you will get speed of sound everywhere in that formulas.
For any sane person it is obvious, that speed of sound in Lorenz transformations does not prove that nothing could travel faster than sound and if something will do, there will be all that crap with travelling back in time or other shitty paradoxes. Speed of light is not any different from speed of sound in that case.
So, "special relativity" is just purposeful perverting of observation corrections necessary due to limited speed of observation data, turned inside out in attempt to cancel any development in the areas of travel and data transmission to keep humanity on a planet.
When somebody began his lecture from that Minkovsky space-time diagram and light cone crap - this lecturer does not worth any of your time.
And it would not be violated due to moving fater than light, just exactly like it is not violated if you move faster than sound.
Special relativity have absolutely nothing to do with casuality, time and everything. In reality, it is just a description of observation distortions you will get if you will use light (EM waves in general) to do your observations. All that slowing time, length changes and other stuff is nothing more than illusion created by the fact that you use something with limited speed to get observation data.
Just imagine you use speed of sound to observe an object moving at the speed close to speed of sound. You will get exactly same distortions, like all that Einshtein crap, just with speed of sound in formulas.
"Special relativity" just show that using light for observations and data transmission on object moving close to speed of light will bring distortions to your observations. There are no any paradoxes at all, not even talking about casuality breaks.
FTL just can't break casuality, just like supersonic can't do it. Observer, who use sound to observe supersonic movement will get weird results, including even illusionary casuality break and time travel. This means absolutely nothing, except that observer selected wrong tool for making observations and just don't want to fix them using Lorenz transformations to get real picture.
FTL travel or data transmission is exactly same as sublight travel and data transmission. Just object or information will arrive faster and that's all. It still will arrive after departure. Illusion that arrival happened before departure in case you choose inapropriate slow EM waves for observation vapourises as soon as you account speed of arriving your observation data. Just like in case of using sound for observing supersonic events. You will acoustically observe arrival event before departure event, but show me any sane person who wil insist that this is true state of things.
Forget all that casuality/time paradoxes bullshit. It is all scam, and unlike in many cases you could easily check it by yourself using only pencil and paper.
Just sit and derive mathematical descriptions of observations distortions you will get using sound for observations of object moving close to speed of sound. You will get exactly same formulas as in "special relativity" just with speed of sound instead of speed of light. Then you can came out and began to arrogantly declare that nothing can move faster than sound, because you got that formulas, that obviously show impossible casuality breaks and time paradoxes we will observe if something will travel faster than sound. It will be hilarious. :)
It would be easy if we knew all there was. But we dont even know a fraction of a fraction of everything that has, or in the future will exist.
Thing about the speed of light, it can theoretically change depending on the medium it goes through. The speed of light isnt the same in the stretches between galaxy as it is in in the middle of one. Because space/time are so inextricably linked.
Which is why I wonder why, if say something like planet 9 existed and it was a brown dwarf, tiny but massive. If say it was approaching the earth, and of course the fastest something will move is at the very last step of its journey before its spit back out into space.
Would it distort time, and would we even be aware of it? I think it would and we prolly wouldnt be able to tell, without looking at space outside of our bubble, but part of us might be able to sense something.
There are a lot of things that we do not actually know. It's sad we cant trust a damn thing our leaders tell us anymore. I believe numbers over words though.
Not to mention, FTL travel could be achievable if higher dimensions do exist. If the math is even somewhat right, they are a fraction of the size of our universe.
Which kinda lines up with my beliefs, I believe our "souls" our "spark" is part of this higher dimension. Our limited brains and bodys cannot comprehend the raw input/energy.
Our subconscious's are likely some kinda gateway between this "soul" and what we consider "us". Only here do we have individuality, and emotions. Whatever there is, we only exist as pure energy with no sense of being or any will at all. Just existence.
I would chomp at the bit to be born into a life even as shitty as this I guess.
This is one of many attempted explanations for near Earth gravity using General Relativity. Relativists can't agree on this because none of their explanations make any sense.
"The apple falls because it's future points downwards"
Not even remotely possible, since even in relativity time is not a spacial dimension so it cannot point something "downwards" or at an object in space. That's beyond stupid stacked on top of an already stupid model of reality.
"The apple falls because it's future points downwards"
I supposed general relativity was major bs, but now I'm absolutely sure of it. Time has nothing to do with space - those idiots are collapsing two discrete metaphysical categories into one.
This has more to do with Hegelian dialectics than physics (thesis+antithesis=synthesis translates to space+time=spacetime). Only spergs who have no knowledge of philosophy, like the establishment shill Neil DeGrasse who said philosophy is useless, and those who look at scientism ("Trust the Science, chud") for all the answers could believe this idiocy.
For sure. When someone starts talking to me about the science and argues from authority, I ask them "which science, the one saying men can become women?"
But the normies are indoctrinated in this worldview. I know I was ignorant like that years ago too, parroting the same tired bs narratives and trusting the good scientists, historians and philanthropists who care for all of us but above all - the truth.
The last 6 minutes talk about a fictional "black hole".
Space and time are supposedly so "curved" within it, that nothing escapes. That's undefined nonsense because these are terms with no physical understandings attached to them.
Someone first needs to define what a "non-curved" space physically is and what a "curved" space is. What are their properties? What are the forces it exerts on an object and why? Why does a non-curved space seem to exert no forced on anything, but a "curved" space does? How does it exert a force on both light and matter? If a weight is put on a spring, how does "curved" space make the apple push down the spring?
And once again, time can't "point" to the center of a blackhole because in GR the "time" axis is orthogonal to space. It doesn't point AT individual objects within space.
What happened to the rigorous scientific method where you're supposed to observe the phenomena before formulating a hypothesis and a theory? This "theoretical physics" bs is not science, it's sci-fi narratives and speculation. Math could be forced to work with the model but that doesn't mean the model is what is observed in reality.
How can any of this be proven when no one has control of the variable being examined, so that they could remove it and introduce it in their experiments, proving causality? How could this bs be falsified?
From the very beginnings of chemistry, mathematics was used to create quantitative and qualitative models for helping comprehend the world of chemistry
No quantum effects isnt the same as "space" travel, but they all kinda work the same. Millions of people have done experiments and done the math, to give us a current explanation for the reality we live in.
But yes, I actually enjoyed physics and calculating trajectory's and I think its rather amazing that the military had these nerds on the battlefield with notepads and papers calculating this shit by hand before they had devices and eventually computers to do it all for them. Could you imagine trying to solve a algebra equation while bullets are flying by your head rofl. Sounds fun, except for the whole killing others and possibly dying part.
I really question, what math did you guys finish in highschool. I actually did not know how to add/subtract fractions in the 9th grade. By grade 10 I was in geometry and algebra, by 11 I was in algerbra 2 and I aced that class, somehow.
I failed out of precalc the next year though. Spent more time daydreaming about someone who didnt even know I existed rather than focusing on the school work. The teacher wasnt bad, but he wasnt the teacher from the year before playing fuel albums during quizzes and tests. I did end up passing precalc in college and making it to calculus. In fact calculus and linear algerbra was the last of my generic classes I needed. Its bullshit that most of the degree wont transfer to any other school.
I dont claim to be smart, but ive done alot of this math and checked it out myself. I deal with alot of it doing the game engine thing. Its why im convinced there is more to this universe than we can see/comprehend. You may believe in god, but we can both agree on that at least?
Math can even describe the breakdown of the very smallest particles that we know for sure can exist. Why would it be fake for the observable universe. Think about it.
No quantum effects isnt the same as "space" travel, but they all kinda work the same.
Using quantum mechanics to defend relativity seems like a non-sequitur. Relativity has never been unified with quantum theory.
Math can even describe...Why would it be fake for the observable universe
There is more to physics than just math. Physics has physical concepts and models which can either be logically consistent or inconsistent. However even looking at pure mathematics, mathematician Stephan Crothers rips General Relativity to pieces from that perspective.
I was going to edit this in, but its a lengthy explanation. Had to make sure my physics teacher from highschool wasnt yankin my leg.
"Basically maths is used to aim a mortar (I'm excluding direct fire where you can see the target from the mortar here, which uses part of what I describe).
First you need the direction, in degrees or mils (miliradians 6400 to a circle).
In older times this could be done with a map and a protractor. Now it's done with GPS positioning (for the target you combine your own GPS position with a laser range finder + compass to get the direction and distance to target, and from there its position), and a computer that does some basic trigonometry.
Then you need range, also pretty simple with a map and ruler, or GPS coordinates and simple maths.
Then you need to aim the mortar.
Fairly simple to set the direction using a compass (they set up sticks at certain directions and then measure offsets. If you set up a stick at due north and want to fire at 10 degrees, the you set your mortar sight to 10 degrees left of gun, and rotate your mortar so the sight is looking directly at the stick. You know know your mortar is facing 10 degrees right of north).
For the range, the old system was to use a range table. Either a mathematician worked out ranges to produce a table, or more likely they literally fired the mortar are various angles and measured to range the shell went.
The range table was a list of elevations in degrees or mils and the range the shell would travel. When you knew the range you could look it up on the table to get the elevation.
Modern systems use formulas built into a computer to generate the required elevation.
Elevation can be set fairly easily using a spirit level/bubble to get level and a measuring device to shows how many degrees you are from that level."
Like “purely one-dimensional high frequency vibrations at the Planck scale which emit electromagnetic force sufficient to make them appear to be solid point sources of mass.”
And no, no one has even observed quarks, which are 10^16 times larger than strings have to be.
Sounds like a cool story. What causes those vibrations and what is the actual matter that's vibrating? We're entering metaphysics at this point - I might as well talk to the hippy girl next door about astral energies and the cosmic vibes surrounding us all. Or maybe revert back to the Pythagorean theory about the music of the spheres.
I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE]
"What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.
Yes, just as I thought. They're basically in fairy land. As if being able to model something using math proves its existence. If they can do that with math why not just use words and create their own larp reality? Oh wait, they did and men can be women now. Their metaphysics and epistemology are arbitrary.
The whole general relativity project was just another step in the revolution against objective reality and ultimately against God. Einstein was a Kabbalistic degenerate demon who fed the gullible masses falsehood with tiny bits of truth mixed in there. Most notably, he normalized the notion of "theoretical physics" and made it cool. Physics is not theoretical or abstract, it's always observable and subject to the scientific method. It's a hard science dealing with matter and its behavior.
Precisely. I'm glad to see someone else who sees this for what it is. Seeing the truth is the first step to any meaningful progress in science.
I wonder what would happen if more believers came together to advance physics in the absence of arrogant atheists and the Synagogue of Satan. Perhaps not sharing anything with those types at all.
True science leads to God because science is knowledge of His creation and the rules and regularities He enacted. Sadly, it has been perverted by those waging war against God, the Synagogue of Satan and as with anything the father of lies touches, it becomes a weapon of destruction and deception.
There's nothing more irrational than being an atheist and a materialist - those people have no justification for knowledge, truth or logic on which the pseudo-science they worship is supposed to be built. They have absolutely no reason to believe there is order or meaning in the universe (Hume's problem of induction for one) yet they act like there is.
Again that stupid false never proven statement about "nothing can leave light cone". It is perfectly possible moving faster than light and nothing will happen, just your space-time trajectroy will have larger angle to the time axis and that's all.
Minkovsky diagram is complete bullshit taken out from his ass without any foundation at all.
It just loosely describes limitations of observing universe using light (electromagnetic waves) and nothing else. Jus like all special relativity crap.
Special relativity have nothing to do with how things really go. It just describes a couple of corrections you have to apply to your observations if you do that observations using EM waves that propagates with limited speed, but it turned inside out like it is not observation distortions, but some perverted reality.
You will end up with exactly same Lorenz transformations formulas if you decide to study things using acoustic waves instead of light waves, just instead of speed of light you will get speed of sound everywhere in that formulas.
For any sane person it is obvious, that speed of sound in Lorenz transformations does not prove that nothing could travel faster than sound and if something will do, there will be all that crap with travelling back in time or other shitty paradoxes. Speed of light is not any different from speed of sound in that case.
So, "special relativity" is just purposeful perverting of observation corrections necessary due to limited speed of observation data, turned inside out in attempt to cancel any development in the areas of travel and data transmission to keep humanity on a planet.
When somebody began his lecture from that Minkovsky space-time diagram and light cone crap - this lecturer does not worth any of your time.
You can’t violate causality. No one with even the slightest understanding of this topic and its implications would say “nothing will happen.”
And it would not be violated due to moving fater than light, just exactly like it is not violated if you move faster than sound.
Special relativity have absolutely nothing to do with casuality, time and everything. In reality, it is just a description of observation distortions you will get if you will use light (EM waves in general) to do your observations. All that slowing time, length changes and other stuff is nothing more than illusion created by the fact that you use something with limited speed to get observation data.
Just imagine you use speed of sound to observe an object moving at the speed close to speed of sound. You will get exactly same distortions, like all that Einshtein crap, just with speed of sound in formulas.
"Special relativity" just show that using light for observations and data transmission on object moving close to speed of light will bring distortions to your observations. There are no any paradoxes at all, not even talking about casuality breaks.
FTL just can't break casuality, just like supersonic can't do it. Observer, who use sound to observe supersonic movement will get weird results, including even illusionary casuality break and time travel. This means absolutely nothing, except that observer selected wrong tool for making observations and just don't want to fix them using Lorenz transformations to get real picture.
FTL travel or data transmission is exactly same as sublight travel and data transmission. Just object or information will arrive faster and that's all. It still will arrive after departure. Illusion that arrival happened before departure in case you choose inapropriate slow EM waves for observation vapourises as soon as you account speed of arriving your observation data. Just like in case of using sound for observing supersonic events. You will acoustically observe arrival event before departure event, but show me any sane person who wil insist that this is true state of things.
Forget all that casuality/time paradoxes bullshit. It is all scam, and unlike in many cases you could easily check it by yourself using only pencil and paper.
Just sit and derive mathematical descriptions of observations distortions you will get using sound for observations of object moving close to speed of sound. You will get exactly same formulas as in "special relativity" just with speed of sound instead of speed of light. Then you can came out and began to arrogantly declare that nothing can move faster than sound, because you got that formulas, that obviously show impossible casuality breaks and time paradoxes we will observe if something will travel faster than sound. It will be hilarious. :)
It would be easy if we knew all there was. But we dont even know a fraction of a fraction of everything that has, or in the future will exist.
Thing about the speed of light, it can theoretically change depending on the medium it goes through. The speed of light isnt the same in the stretches between galaxy as it is in in the middle of one. Because space/time are so inextricably linked.
Which is why I wonder why, if say something like planet 9 existed and it was a brown dwarf, tiny but massive. If say it was approaching the earth, and of course the fastest something will move is at the very last step of its journey before its spit back out into space.
Would it distort time, and would we even be aware of it? I think it would and we prolly wouldnt be able to tell, without looking at space outside of our bubble, but part of us might be able to sense something.
There are a lot of things that we do not actually know. It's sad we cant trust a damn thing our leaders tell us anymore. I believe numbers over words though.
Not to mention, FTL travel could be achievable if higher dimensions do exist. If the math is even somewhat right, they are a fraction of the size of our universe.
Which kinda lines up with my beliefs, I believe our "souls" our "spark" is part of this higher dimension. Our limited brains and bodys cannot comprehend the raw input/energy.
Our subconscious's are likely some kinda gateway between this "soul" and what we consider "us". Only here do we have individuality, and emotions. Whatever there is, we only exist as pure energy with no sense of being or any will at all. Just existence.
I would chomp at the bit to be born into a life even as shitty as this I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lGsRgeDzhI
One of my favorite bands, which is coincidentally christian.
Just watch the first 6 minutes of the video.
This is one of many attempted explanations for near Earth gravity using General Relativity. Relativists can't agree on this because none of their explanations make any sense.
"The apple falls because it's future points downwards"
Not even remotely possible, since even in relativity time is not a spacial dimension so it cannot point something "downwards" or at an object in space. That's beyond stupid stacked on top of an already stupid model of reality.
I supposed general relativity was major bs, but now I'm absolutely sure of it. Time has nothing to do with space - those idiots are collapsing two discrete metaphysical categories into one.
This has more to do with Hegelian dialectics than physics (thesis+antithesis=synthesis translates to space+time=spacetime). Only spergs who have no knowledge of philosophy, like the establishment shill Neil DeGrasse who said philosophy is useless, and those who look at scientism ("Trust the Science, chud") for all the answers could believe this idiocy.
That is almost every modern physicist today. It's like covid and climate change. Question relativity and the NPC lynch mob forms pretty quickly.
Perhaps all part of the strong delusion.
For sure. When someone starts talking to me about the science and argues from authority, I ask them "which science, the one saying men can become women?"
But the normies are indoctrinated in this worldview. I know I was ignorant like that years ago too, parroting the same tired bs narratives and trusting the good scientists, historians and philanthropists who care for all of us but above all - the truth.
The last 6 minutes talk about a fictional "black hole".
Space and time are supposedly so "curved" within it, that nothing escapes. That's undefined nonsense because these are terms with no physical understandings attached to them.
Someone first needs to define what a "non-curved" space physically is and what a "curved" space is. What are their properties? What are the forces it exerts on an object and why? Why does a non-curved space seem to exert no forced on anything, but a "curved" space does? How does it exert a force on both light and matter? If a weight is put on a spring, how does "curved" space make the apple push down the spring?
And once again, time can't "point" to the center of a blackhole because in GR the "time" axis is orthogonal to space. It doesn't point AT individual objects within space.
I simply ask the relativists - what is spacetime made of?
If you try to pin them down on that, eventually they will say "well the math works so the theory is true".
What happened to the rigorous scientific method where you're supposed to observe the phenomena before formulating a hypothesis and a theory? This "theoretical physics" bs is not science, it's sci-fi narratives and speculation. Math could be forced to work with the model but that doesn't mean the model is what is observed in reality.
How can any of this be proven when no one has control of the variable being examined, so that they could remove it and introduce it in their experiments, proving causality? How could this bs be falsified?
Your typing on the proof, imo.
The transistors work on quantum effect.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-interference-transistor
The processor does too.
https://semiengineering.com/quantum-effects-at-7-5nm/
So does the plastic. (works on math)
No quantum effects isnt the same as "space" travel, but they all kinda work the same. Millions of people have done experiments and done the math, to give us a current explanation for the reality we live in.
But yes, I actually enjoyed physics and calculating trajectory's and I think its rather amazing that the military had these nerds on the battlefield with notepads and papers calculating this shit by hand before they had devices and eventually computers to do it all for them. Could you imagine trying to solve a algebra equation while bullets are flying by your head rofl. Sounds fun, except for the whole killing others and possibly dying part.
I really question, what math did you guys finish in highschool. I actually did not know how to add/subtract fractions in the 9th grade. By grade 10 I was in geometry and algebra, by 11 I was in algerbra 2 and I aced that class, somehow.
I failed out of precalc the next year though. Spent more time daydreaming about someone who didnt even know I existed rather than focusing on the school work. The teacher wasnt bad, but he wasnt the teacher from the year before playing fuel albums during quizzes and tests. I did end up passing precalc in college and making it to calculus. In fact calculus and linear algerbra was the last of my generic classes I needed. Its bullshit that most of the degree wont transfer to any other school.
I dont claim to be smart, but ive done alot of this math and checked it out myself. I deal with alot of it doing the game engine thing. Its why im convinced there is more to this universe than we can see/comprehend. You may believe in god, but we can both agree on that at least?
https://www.murky.org/blog/2020-8/big-european-bubble-chamber
Math can even describe the breakdown of the very smallest particles that we know for sure can exist. Why would it be fake for the observable universe. Think about it.
Using quantum mechanics to defend relativity seems like a non-sequitur. Relativity has never been unified with quantum theory.
There is more to physics than just math. Physics has physical concepts and models which can either be logically consistent or inconsistent. However even looking at pure mathematics, mathematician Stephan Crothers rips General Relativity to pieces from that perspective.
I was going to edit this in, but its a lengthy explanation. Had to make sure my physics teacher from highschool wasnt yankin my leg.
"Basically maths is used to aim a mortar (I'm excluding direct fire where you can see the target from the mortar here, which uses part of what I describe).
First you need the direction, in degrees or mils (miliradians 6400 to a circle).
In older times this could be done with a map and a protractor. Now it's done with GPS positioning (for the target you combine your own GPS position with a laser range finder + compass to get the direction and distance to target, and from there its position), and a computer that does some basic trigonometry.
Then you need range, also pretty simple with a map and ruler, or GPS coordinates and simple maths.
Then you need to aim the mortar.
Fairly simple to set the direction using a compass (they set up sticks at certain directions and then measure offsets. If you set up a stick at due north and want to fire at 10 degrees, the you set your mortar sight to 10 degrees left of gun, and rotate your mortar so the sight is looking directly at the stick. You know know your mortar is facing 10 degrees right of north).
For the range, the old system was to use a range table. Either a mathematician worked out ranges to produce a table, or more likely they literally fired the mortar are various angles and measured to range the shell went.
The range table was a list of elevations in degrees or mils and the range the shell would travel. When you knew the range you could look it up on the table to get the elevation.
Modern systems use formulas built into a computer to generate the required elevation.
Elevation can be set fairly easily using a spirit level/bubble to get level and a measuring device to shows how many degrees you are from that level."
They tend to say “strings” these days.
Like guitar strings? Has anyone observed those? But I guess it sounds fancy and sciency enough for the soyence goobers.
Like “purely one-dimensional high frequency vibrations at the Planck scale which emit electromagnetic force sufficient to make them appear to be solid point sources of mass.”
And no, no one has even observed quarks, which are 10^16 times larger than strings have to be.
Sounds like a cool story. What causes those vibrations and what is the actual matter that's vibrating? We're entering metaphysics at this point - I might as well talk to the hippy girl next door about astral energies and the cosmic vibes surrounding us all. Or maybe revert back to the Pythagorean theory about the music of the spheres.
Exactly.
I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE] "What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
[END QUOTE]
So
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.
Yes, just as I thought. They're basically in fairy land. As if being able to model something using math proves its existence. If they can do that with math why not just use words and create their own larp reality? Oh wait, they did and men can be women now. Their metaphysics and epistemology are arbitrary.
The whole general relativity project was just another step in the revolution against objective reality and ultimately against God. Einstein was a Kabbalistic degenerate demon who fed the gullible masses falsehood with tiny bits of truth mixed in there. Most notably, he normalized the notion of "theoretical physics" and made it cool. Physics is not theoretical or abstract, it's always observable and subject to the scientific method. It's a hard science dealing with matter and its behavior.
Precisely. I'm glad to see someone else who sees this for what it is. Seeing the truth is the first step to any meaningful progress in science.
I wonder what would happen if more believers came together to advance physics in the absence of arrogant atheists and the Synagogue of Satan. Perhaps not sharing anything with those types at all.
True science leads to God because science is knowledge of His creation and the rules and regularities He enacted. Sadly, it has been perverted by those waging war against God, the Synagogue of Satan and as with anything the father of lies touches, it becomes a weapon of destruction and deception.
There's nothing more irrational than being an atheist and a materialist - those people have no justification for knowledge, truth or logic on which the pseudo-science they worship is supposed to be built. They have absolutely no reason to believe there is order or meaning in the universe (Hume's problem of induction for one) yet they act like there is.
The only problem I saw with the video was the concept of a singularity. The reality is that our universe is inside a black hole.
Check out the mirror universe theory.
Also to answer some of the questions, everything is waves of nothing, ultimately.