Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Relativity

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Relativity
Post by tlb   » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:26 am

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

cthia wrote:It has been fixed! It has been fixed for those who so choose to have everlasting life. It has been fixed for those who so choose to have everlasting condemnation in the pits of hell.

tlb wrote:But if that "choice" is foreordained, then it is not a choice at all. If there is no "free will", then the destination of heaven or hell has already been determined and was set at the point of the creation of the universe.

cthia wrote:Foreordained or predestination are other cans of worms. But both are irrelevant. God knows which path you will take. He knows how you will spend your freedom of choice. He knows if you will be for or against him because He enjoys a God's-eye view of the Universe. Wouldn't you choose a horse you already know will win? In a way, treecats do the same with their insight.

Some people argue the point further by saying that God's lack of choosing you causes your sin, as if God's interaction skews or taints the results. But I always argue the point that God putting his reservation in ahead of time in no way affects man's ultimate choice. God choosing the winners ahead of time is a passive affectation that only becomes active in the end.

That may make sense to you, but it reads like gibberish to me. If God knows the results beforehand, then it is because that is the way the universe was created. If a person can only make the choices in the way they were created to make, then there is no moral content in their choice. The Creator is NOT a passive observer of the creation.

Yes, I would chose a horse that I knew would win; but I did not create that horse as a winner and the other horses as losers. I am responsible only for my knowledge of the outcome, I am not responsible for having created the outcome.
Top
Re: Relativity
Post by cthia   » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:13 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12985
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
cthia wrote:We also don't know what immediate or long term effect it will have on local space-time. We will be meddling with the fabric of space without being aware of any consequences. Star Trek tries to acknowledge that by limiting casual travel to Warp 3 except in cases of dire "emergencies" because it damages the fabric of space.


Warp 5, not 3, TNG 7th season episode "Force of Nature" (and I remember even the episode name without having to google for it). That speed limit lasted less than one season, because the next year we saw USS Voyager launched with "folding warp drive," whatever that is, but its warp nacelles moved during the opening sequence in a nice FX. Voyager not only travelled frequently above Warp 5, it could reach Warp 9.975. About billion km/s.

This is an example of writers coming up with a plot without thinking of the consequences.

Does the future exist? The Bible says God says yes. I propose that the whole future and man's time was written as soon as the first moment of man's life began. Philosophical existentialism if you want to open that can of worms. For God to know each man's days before he is even born, suggests that a lot of hints or even answers to man's conundrums can be gleaned from the Bible. Quantum mechanics? God claims to be in more places simultaneously.


I'll leave the theological discussion aside. I was raised being told that there are three things you don't discuss at the dinner table: religion, politics, and football (and by that we meant the variety played with feet).

Interestingly, the very next episode of PBS Space Time from the one I linked above is called Is the Future Predetermined (by quantum mechanics). Matt O'Dowd argues that, from a purely physical point of view, it isn't, regardless of which interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. He doesn't go into metaphysics and I won't go either.

I have theories of my own which posit that Einstein's failure to find a TOE (an all encompassing equation, a theory of everything) lies in his dismissal of one very important variable in his equations. God. I have oftentimes tried to spark conversations on this most elusive topic, to no avail. They always get shut down. The title of the thread was blamed. "God Exists." 'Tis a bold statement to make amidst unbelievers. But 'tis a statement that should be accepted coming from the faithful. I pondered trying once again with what I wanted to be the ultimate goal of the previous religious thread, but, alas, it never made it to that point.


We're skipping a step. Before we get to Theory of Everything, we need the Grand Unified Theory and we don't have that yet either. TOE is supposed to merge Relativity and Quantum. There are a lot of brilliant minds trying that and we're still unable to come up with a theory.

This thread had also made me ponder this: why does gravity propagate at the speed of light, if gravity is a fake force that we perceive due to the curvature of space-time, when space-time can expand faster than light? (We can also say that light propagates at the speed of gravity).

Namely, "What if God does exist?"

What would that do for mathematics and the sciences.


Until there's a quantifiable measurement, the existence is meaningless for mathematics and sciences. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's faith here. I'm simply saying that if you can't put something into a mathematical model and predict cause and consequence from it, even if statistically, the presence or absence of that something has no effect in the result.

Let me apply the same for a more "physical" concept: multiverse. By definition, anything outside the universe can't affect us (and even some things inside the universe can't, if they're beyond the particle horizon). If nothing that happens there can ever affect us, then it might as well not exist and you can ignore it in formulae and models.

You may be right that there's something more that we need to add to our equations. In fact, no one doubts that you're right: the simple fact that our two best theories can't be merged indicates there's something we're missing. The problem is our inability to quantify that "something else" and to devise experiments to measure it and its effects.

But I digress, cerebrally.


Yes.

You may be right about Warp 5. I was unsure of it even as I typed, and I meant to include a question mark. In fact, in the Compendium I think it is explained that Warp 3 is the maximum cruising speed that does no damage to the space-time continuum. Warp 5 is the maximum cruising speed with minimal "reversible" damage. Space-time is supposed to be able to "heal itself" over time like our planet. IINM.

Dismissing the metaphysical because it cannot be quantified is a gross error. Understanding a higher power will point us the way when we get lost in life and in our equations. We have a concept which we call infinity yet we fail to try to understand the entity which tells us that "HE IS," indeed, infinity. We have a "number" that is NaN which we call ∅.

As students we learn that ∅ is but a placeholder when our minds become ripe for that knowledge. At some point our mind will also become ripe for knowing what place the placeholder holds - between the positive and the negative. Abstraction trips us up, ultimately.

But we do not understand division/∅. God ordered man to go forth and multiply. The opposite of multiplication is division. Satan divides and conquers. If God is real, we should draw inspiration from absolute truth.

Certainly a Unified Field Theory to tie the two equations together comes first. I'm saying the glue is the creator himself. If you claim the missing link is irrelevant because your understanding is limited, you've already lost the game. If you say the variable is difficult because our lack of faith does not allow us divine understanding, I'll agree.

About skipping a step. I agree again, many giant baby steps actually. But before a UFT, we may need to solve the Milllenium Problems. The baby steps. But hey, they have a million dollar bounty on each of their heads if you can do it.

Darn straight we are missing a variable in our equations. If God Exists, the missing variable should be within our reach and intuitive. The answer is right in front of us. But our eyes, hearts and minds are closed.

I'll say it again as I said it in another thread.

Man thinks that one day he will be able to create life in the form of an artificial intelligence. But the arrogance of man simply cannot "believe" that an entity may already have beaten him to it. ;)

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Relativity
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:56 pm

Loren Pechtel
Commodore

Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:24 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
tlb wrote:Is it possible that the Alpha Wall provides the frame of reference in the Honorverse? Would that help explain the way the spider drive works?


Loren Pechtel wrote:That's what I'm figuring and the Alpha Wall is stationary with regard to the dominant mass in the area.


I agree too. The Alpha Wall is the thing whose frame of reference the bleed of transiting is calculated against. This implies the Alpha Wall is a physical, tangible thing, not just an abstract / metaphorical thing that separates normal space from hyperspace, like the line of a shadow. Makes sense, since the spider drive can grab it.


While it must have more reality than abstract I think it's more likely somehow energy states or the like, not a physical thing.

Also note that absolute time implies an absolute frame of reference. But I'm not entirely convinced about absolute time. I'd need to sit down and draw some light cones in a Fermi Diagram with three or more observers moving at different speeds (one of them FTL) to see if you can or not violate causality. The FTL traveler never ends up in their own past; the question is whether one of the observers can observe a violation in their frame of reference. The very good graphics in the PBS Space Time video I linked to are the basis of this.


I only considered the FTL guy, I don't see how the presence of an FTL guy could change the interaction of two STL guys.

I'm also wondering if there's a way to go further: what else is that that in the same frame of reference to? The options are:

  • local star's frame of reference. This is important because the hyperlimit moves along with the star (or planet, for that matter) and the hyperlimit affects the transition into and out of alpha;
  • some local distance that includes anywhere between the local star system to millions of stars (this w would be important for binary star systems, for example);
  • some galactic distance or even extra galactic
  • the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame of reference;
  • the Cosmic Neutrino Background (CνB) frame of reference -- whether it's the same as the CMB is unknown today;
  • the Cosmic Graviton Background, if such a thing exists

All of those are within ±200 km/s of one another, though, so they may not be important at all. Even in the hypervelocity star I mentioned before.


I'm thinking it's a matter of the slope of the gravity well, the steepest gravity well is what counts. (The hyper limit clearly has to be based on the slope of the gravity well, so it's reasonable to think the rest is also.) It can't simply be the depth as in many cases you're deeper in the galatic gravity well than the stellar one.
Top
Re: Relativity
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:08 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Loren Pechtel wrote:While it must have more reality than abstract I think it's more likely somehow energy states or the like, not a physical thing.


(it = alpha wall)

I disagree. An energy state is like a difference between solid and liquid: it's increase the energy and it changes state. But if you remove energy from it, it falls back into the lower energy state. That is not the case with hyperspace. Clearly, if your hypergenerator is damaged, you can't change bands at all, instead of falling back to real space. If they are simply energy levels, at the very least they would have to be minimum levels across a barrier.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the spider drive and the fact that FTL comms worm by vibrating the alpha wall.

I only considered the FTL guy, I don't see how the presence of an FTL guy could change the interaction of two STL guys.


See the video. The problem is that for two events outside the light cone, two observers can disagree which one is past and which one is future. Relativity removed the concept of absolute time: when you're moving at speed relative to another observer, under the effects of time dilation and space compression, the axes in that diagram get closer.

Imagine a regular cartesian chart with space on the X axis, time on the Y axis, and the speed of light is 45° (this is a Penrose or Minkowski Diagram[1]). If an observer is moving at 0.5c, their path is a line 22.5° from the time (Y) axis. If this traveller were to draw their axes, their time axis would match the line the other observer drew, representing that, from their point of view, they are inertial (sitting still). But the traveller's space axis is not 22.5° on the same direction, forming a 90° angle; instead, it's -22.5°, so the two new axes form a 45° angle on the diagram.

See the examples Wikipedia.

Freaky!

[1] I wrote "Fermi Diagram" before, but I got confused with the Fermi-Dirac diagrams for particle physics, which I was looking at a few days before.

I'm thinking it's a matter of the slope of the gravity well, the steepest gravity well is what counts. (The hyper limit clearly has to be based on the slope of the gravity well, so it's reasonable to think the rest is also.) It can't simply be the depth as in many cases you're deeper in the galatic gravity well than the stellar one.


True. The hyperlimit seems to be proportional (not linearly) to the mass of the object in question. If mass creates curvature in space time and hyper limit is related to mass, then hyperlimit is related to the curvature too.

I wonder what the hyperlimit is on the 4 million M☉ supermassive black hole at the centre of our Galaxy.
Top

Return to Honorverse