Relativity

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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 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.