Is the entire universe just a simulation ?

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks sci-nerd.     See, that's what always confuses me....the universe is EVERYTHING. ...oh, Except for,. The endless space AROUND it.      How can EVERYTHING.  . . .have Something AROUND it?

We actually don't know whether or not there is emptiness beyond the borders. That's why there are two ways to look at it.

[lightly]

19 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

We actually don't know whether or not there is emptiness beyond the borders. That's why there are two ways to look at it.

Ah,  thanks.   Every cosmologist I have ever heard or read has said that space itself was CREATED by/in the Big Bang. .  Not that space is expanding into some sort of pre-existing space or Nothingness/emptiness.

Edited May 27, 2020 by lightly

[zep73]

26 minutes ago, lightly said:

Ah,  thanks.   Every cosmologist I have ever heard or read has said that space itself was CREATED by/in the Big Bang. .  Not that space is expanding into some sort of pre-existing space or Nothingness.

They are right, and they are wrong. I think it's a matter of preferred perception.
If M-theory is correct, there is a void, but it's not spacetime. I call it emptiness or nothing or "does not exist". Either way, that's the place universes exist in.
That void could be there, even if our universe is alone. We just don't know. But the standard model is without such a void.

Edited May 27, 2020 by sci-nerd

[lightly]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

They are right, and they are wrong. I think it's a matter of preferred perception.
If M-theory is correct, there is a void, but it's not spacetime. I call it emptiness or nothing or "does not exist". Either way, that's the place universes exist in.
That void could be there, even if our universe is alone. We just don't know. But the standard model is without such a void.

Thanks...I'll have to look into M-theory .  ( that probably refers to Multiple universe theory? ).  I believe the standard model posits that All space is expanding...at Every point in the UNIverse, which would include of course, the space within our solar system and even our own atoms !   I love that Idea.   Our solar system ,and atoms, are held together,  in expanding space,  by "local forces" ..gravity etc. (I learned that from Harte ).     

We hear about space expanding faster ..the farther away we go from (here). .  I could be Wrong. ,but I have this notion that it's a cumulative effect...and that the more expanding space between here and there adds up to a perceived exceleration ..from our point of view.   And that if we were (there) it would appear to be expanding faster here...from that perspective/point of view.   

   I expect Harte to drop in and correct any and all of my misconceptions ...and I will, as always ,be infinitely grateful.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by lightly

[zep73]

15 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks...I'll have to look into M-theory .  ( that probably refers to Multiple universe theory? ).  I believe the standard model posits that All space is expanding...at Every point in the UNIverse, which would include of course, the space within our solar system and even our own atoms !   I love that Idea.   Our solar system ,and atoms, are held together,  in expanding space,  by "local forces" ..gravity etc. (I learned that from Harte ).     

We hear about space expanding faster ..the farther away we go from (here). .  I could be Wrong. ,but I have this notion that it's a cumulative effect...and that the more expanding space between here and there adds up to a perceived exceleration ..from our point of view.   And that if we were (there) it would appear to be expanding faster here...from that perspective/point of view.   

   I expect Harte to drop in and correct any and all of my misconceptions ...and I will, as always ,be infinitely grateful.    

He's more than welcome.

All I can say is that, when Einstein questioned whether the universe was endless or not, it was that void he was talking about. If it's there, the universe is endless. If it's not (standard model), the universe is finite.

[Horta]

5 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You're right. You should tell him that. Although I consider him a good source for arguments, he's not the best, and not the only one. I see his site as more of an introduction to the subject.

It's interesting and he does have some good points as an "introduction" to the topic. It is reminiscent of intelligent design.

Quote

Matter responding to observation is extremely odd. Just because some physicists have gotten used to it, does not make it less of a weird thing.
There's a reason why some professors use the motto: Shut up and calculate.

That's somewhat misleading though. It is responding to measurement. It's part of the process of quantum measurement that after measuring, the probability of what you measure has to be 1 (wave function collapse). Otherwise it would be impossible to measure it. The same principle applies to everything apparently, it's just that at the larger scale/shorter wavelengths it gets complicated and classical measurements work.

There are other processes equally as weird, though they match with intuitive expectations (what we're used to), so it just gets accepted as run of the mill.

You're not implying that it is responding to "consciousness" are you?

[Horta]

6 hours ago, Horta said:

The same principle applies to everything apparently, it's just that at the larger scale/shorter wavelengths it gets complicated and classical measurements work.

This is wrong, obviously, although it is becoming more relevant to macro objects. My misunderstanding of a discussion with a mathematician.

[Horta]

^^^

For those interested, this is more the correct way to view quantum effects at the macro level. It is generally believed that macro objects also behave quantum mechanically, but due to factors such as mass, wavelength and so on the effects are not measurable small at this scale. Fascinating none the less.

Quote

The question is, does quantum mechanics (QM) apply to large objects as well as to small ones?  If it does, then why don’t we see the same weird QM effects with baseballs as with electrons and other microscopic objects ?  In particular, if an electron can be in two places at the same time, why don’t baseballs exhibit the same behavior?

This is a very interesting question.  I will give you an answer, but beware: The right answer is, we don’t know.  The reason is that, although most physicists believe that large objects (including you, me, and the Sun) all behave quantum mechanically, the predicted effects are much too subtle to have been observed with current technology. For this reason, we can’t be sure that the answer I’m about to give is correct...............

...............Why can’t we see this effect with large objects (baseballs)?  Look at the first photo again.  The distance between the locations of constructive and destructive interference is approximately equal to the wavelength.  Therefore, we need to know the wavelength of a moving baseball.  I’m not going to go through the details here.  Because a baseball is much, muchmore massive than an electron, its wavelength is much, muchsmaller.  In fact, the wavelength of a pitched baseball is about 10^-34 meters.  That’s an incredibly small distance, much smaller (by a factor of a quadrillion, or so) than any distance that we have ever measured.  That’s the reason that we don’t measure the weird QM effects that are much more obvious for tiny particles at the atomic scale.

 

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43002&t=does-quantum-mechanics-apply-to-large-objects

 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Horta said:

This is wrong, obviously, although it is becoming more relevant to macro objects. My misunderstanding of a discussion with a mathematician.

Collapse of the wave function might be a mystery, but I agree in that I feel a simulation hypothesis is just a secular god. 

If I hit a pool ball, and it while heading for a hole if changed direction, I wouldn't conclude immediately that some miraculous thought form was the catalyst because I couldn't see what caused the change in direction. I'd consider other possibilities, and seek further answers.

[zep73]

13 hours ago, Horta said:

That's somewhat misleading though. It is responding to measurement. It's part of the process of quantum measurement that after measuring, the probability of what you measure has to be 1 (wave function collapse). Otherwise it would be impossible to measure it. The same principle applies to everything apparently, it's just that at the larger scale/shorter wavelengths it gets complicated and classical measurements work.

There are other processes equally as weird, though they match with intuitive expectations (what we're used to), so it just gets accepted as run of the mill.

You're not implying that it is responding to "consciousness" are you?

Ahhh... consciousness. I've come to hate that word in this context. It implies woo. Forget the woo!
Is the brain not an instrument? It bares the trademarks of one. It's much more advances than the ones we make, but it basically is an instrument. So if you claim that instruments cause wave collapse, I say: sure they do! Even the ones we have between our ears.
And, isn't a man made instrument just an extension of the human mind? The mind designed it, operates it, and it would be useless without it.

You say that wave collapse has to happen upon measurement. That is an incoherent statement. It is a universal law, that when you add an element to a closed system, it will increase entropy. But in the double slit experiment the opposite happens. The detector decreases entropy!
It might make sense mathematically, I've never questioned that, but it defies basic natural laws. And before you say that basic laws don't apply to QM, I say 'hold your horses'. The whole universe is causal, so you can't take causality away from anywhere in it. If you do that, you question causality itself.

Also keep in mind that duality is not a quantum only phenomena, and the name wave-particle duality is misleading. Duality is both a macro and quantum phenomena. It has been since it was observed with fullerines, and recently with amino acids as well.

 

Ps. I did not read your added remarks after the post I quoted you from.

Edited May 28, 2020 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

I regret making Whitworth's contribution seem less relevant, or faulty.

He's a mathematician, for god's sake! Math is one of the main pillars of science. He knows what he's talking about! His reasoning is based on it.
When someone poses a new theory or challenges an existing one, the first thing they are asked to provide is the math.
So making him questionable was a mistake.
His mistake is to not show the math on that site I referred to.

He made a publication. In the bottom of the publication are numerous references to all the science and math behind his conclusion.

[Horta]

On 5/28/2020 at 11:34 PM, sci-nerd said:

Ahhh... consciousness. I've come to hate that word in this context. It implies woo. Forget the woo!
Is the brain not an instrument? It bares the trademarks of one. It's much more advances than the ones we make, but it basically is an instrument. So if you claim that instruments cause wave collapse, I say: sure they do! Even the ones we have between our ears.
And, isn't a man made instrument just an extension of the human mind? The mind designed it, operates it, and it would be useless without it.

As far as I know it is interaction with the physical macro world that causes wave function collapse. Namely measuring devices in this instance. Not interaction with "consciousness". 

If you're implying "consciousness" plays any part, this first requires a definition of consciousness and demonstration that what is being defined actually exists. Otherwise you might as well be talking about "fairy dust". This is another area where quantum mysticism falls down. Especially from physicists inclined this way, who make so many half baked assumptions and seem to have very little working knowledge of the complexity of the subject of "consciousness".

Quote

You say that wave collapse has to happen upon measurement. That is an incoherent statement. It is a universal law, that when you add an element to a closed system, it will increase entropy. But in the double slit experiment the opposite happens. The detector decreases entropy!

No, I don't say that exclusively.

I feel your own claim here is incoherent. How is the path of a photon, that is now being measured (which requires the addition of devices and energy, among other things) a closed system? Surely adding an element to a any system should result in sort of change...but more importantly...if you can add an element to a "closed system" that's pretty good indication that it isn't a closed system to begin with.

I have doubts about the claim the entropy decreases at all, but it doesn't matter. It only requires that the entropy in the universe increases (which might be the only truly "closed system" there is?).

This seems very similar to the creationist claim that complex biology on our planet violates the principles of thermodynamics (entropy).

Quote

It might make sense mathematically, I've never questioned that, but it defies basic natural laws. And before you say that basic laws don't apply to QM, I say 'hold your horses'. The whole universe is causal, so you can't take causality away from anywhere in it. If you do that, you question causality itself.

Also keep in mind that duality is not a quantum only phenomena, and the name wave-particle duality is misleading. Duality is both a macro and quantum phenomena. It has been since it was observed with fullerines, and recently with amino acids as well.

I think causality has been thrown into doubt in some instances. The very fact that some outcomes appear to be unpredictable even in principle already does that doesn't it? 

As to the rest, the moon is still there when no one is looking. Shrodingers cat will be %100 alive or dead regardless, not a mixture of both.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe could be a simulation. Though only for reason's of logic. I don't find the evidence used to support the idea compelling. It seems to require unreasonable level of acceptance that it is a simulation to begin with, and then look for what might be interpreted in such a way that supports it. Similar to creationism and the god hypothesis. Though even if it is, I can think of other ways and reason that it might be that don't involve anthropomorphism or mysticism and where what we term "consciousness" is still simply an unimportant epiphenomena in the grand scheme of things.

 

[zep73]

15 minutes ago, Horta said:

As far as I know it is interaction with the physical macro world that causes wave function collapse. Namely measuring devices in this instance. Not interaction with "consciousness". 

If you're implying "consciousness" plays any part, this first requires a definition of consciousness and demonstration that what is being defined actually exists. Otherwise you might as well be talking about "fairy dust". This is another area where quantum mysticism falls down. Especially from physicists inclined this way, who make so many half baked assumptions and seem to have very little working knowledge of the complexity of the subject of "consciousness".

Your answer tells me that you didn't understand, or read, what you replied to. I am dismissing consciousness as a player. I am calling the brain an instrument.
But what is really at play here seems to be knowing the path of the particle. Wheeler's delayed choice eraser experiment proves that. Unless you believe in time travelling particles.

23 minutes ago, Horta said:

How is the path of a photon, that is now being measured (which requires the addition of devices and energy, among other things) a closed system?

Any quantum experiment is a closed system. Most experiments are. They need to be closed to rule out contaminating elements affecting the results.

27 minutes ago, Horta said:

I don't find the evidence used to support the idea compelling.

It brings logic and causality to quantum mechanics and solves the fine-tuned universe and its speed limitation. That's at least four problems solved, without the magical woo of theism.
But I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you just can't see it, you just can't see it.

[Horta]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Your answer tells me that you didn't understand, or read, what you replied to. I am dismissing consciousness as a player. I am calling the brain an instrument.
But what is really at play here seems to be knowing the path of the particle. Wheeler's delayed choice eraser experiment proves that. Unless you believe in time travelling particles.

So you're dismissing consciousness as a player, while at the same time giving it primacy lol. The "knowing the path of the particle" part has me thinking I think I understood you just fine.

That experiment seems to indicate that we don't understand causality at the quantum level afaik. Like lots of other things we don't understand. It also does seem to leave open the possibility of retro causality. Then again there do seem all sorts of interpretations and explanations of the experiment that claim not to require this anyway. It's not much to hang VR on.

Quote

Any quantum experiment is a closed system. Most experiments are. They need to be closed to rule out contaminating elements affecting the results.

Well, I'm certainly not up on (quantum especially) physics and am using the classical idea that truly closed physical systems and isolated thermodynamic systems amount to the same thing. One that "does not interact with any other physical system" or where that "is not subject to any force whose source is external to the system". That type of thing. 

Though I'm very open to the possibility this could be wrong regarding quantum experiments.

Afaik, your claim about entropy is only relevant to isolated systems.

Quote

It brings logic and causality to quantum mechanics and solves the fine-tuned universe and its speed limitation. That's at least four problems solved, without the magical woo of theism.
But I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you just can't see it, you just can't see it.

What brings "logic and causality" to quantum mechanics. The idea that causality requires that some entity "knows" as a cause of the measurement problem/observer effect?  I still doubt that.

Isn't the "fine tuned" universe just an anthropomorphic type of musing/observation relevant only to humans? My cat doesn't notice it. What is to be solved about the speed of light anyway? It's just is the way it is, as far as we know and there is lots we still need to learn.

I agree about perspective, and am open to the possibility (for other reasons) and it is an interesting idea. But similar to god will only see it as having any genuine likelihood when something directly and unambiguously indicates that it is in fact, likely.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Horta

[zep73]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:01 AM, Horta said:

So you're dismissing consciousness as a player, while at the same time giving it primacy lol.

I don't think it's the same thing. Depends how we define "knowing". Maybe "being aware" is a better choice of words. Machines can be. Animals can be.

Quote

It's not much to hang VR on.

Matter behaving like pixels on a screen is not much to hang VR on??

Quote

Afaik, your claim about entropy is only relevant to isolated systems.

Not at all. Think of a game of pool.

Quote

What brings "logic and causality" to quantum mechanics.

If the collapse of the wave is graphics rendering, it suddenly makes perfect sense. If all particles are controlled from the same central unit, nonlocality suddenly makes sense.

Quote

Isn't the "fine tuned" universe just an anthropomorphic type of musing/observation relevant only to humans?

All science is relevant only to humans.

[Horta]

14 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I don't think it's the same thing. Depends how we define "knowing". Maybe "being aware" is a better choice of words. Machines can be. Animals can be.

Thats pretty vague. It certainly needs better definition lol.

Quote

Matter behaving like pixels on a screen is not much to hang VR on??

That sounds somehow like assuming the consequent, but matter doesn't necessarily do that anyway. At a certain level it can be inferred or claimed to be by those predisposed. But our knowledge is still very lacking. With no experimental way to demonstrate the likelihood of this, it is interesting but isn't convincing.

Quote

Not at all. Think of a game of pool.

Entropy can decrease locally without breaking any rules of thermodynamics. It just can't decrease overall. It can also decrease via external input. Think of earth, the way biology sprang up and arranges itself. 

Electricity using power that relies on coal shipped from India to heat steam turbines, transmitted over a grid to power a source that fires photons at a screen. With the addition or subtraction of other instruments (that actually changes the result) by biological entities that are powered by other biological entities that are themselves powered by the sun. Through an atmosphere full of air molecules, currents and pressure dictated by the sun/ weather patterns/air conditioning systems and so on...Not seeing how you can make any meaningful pronouncements about entropy.

A wave function collapse only relates to (partial) knowledge of something (there is no wave) before and or after its measured. Without full knowledge, how can any pronouncement about entropy be made anyway?

Quote

If the collapse of the wave is graphics rendering, it suddenly makes perfect sense. If all particles are controlled from the same central unit, nonlocality suddenly makes sense.

"If".

Quote

All science is relevant only to humans.

The "fine tuning" idea isn't science. It's an "intuitive feeling" that it could or perhaps should be some other way. Often giving rise to claims that the odds of our universe being the way it is are some astronomical figure. When the reality is the odds of our universe occurring exactly as it is are 1/1.

[Horta]

Quote

 

It brings logic and causality to quantum mechanics and solves the fine-tuned universe and its speed limitation.

ps. How on earth does the bolded say anything at all about the possibility of VR?

To my puny logic it could just as easily be made into an argument against it.

[zep73]

3 hours ago, Horta said:

"If".

If is a must in science. Certainty belongs to religion.

Quote

ps. How on earth does the bolded say anything at all about the possibility of VR?

Because lightspeed is a constant and not relative.
It adjusts its speed according to the object it comes from. How does it do that??

Edited June 12, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Horta]

6 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

If is a must in science. Certainty belongs to religion.

That's misleading though. Not claiming certainty is required. Only that because something is possible, it does't necessarily mean it is probable. It is only (preferably experimental) evidence that will do that.

Quote

Because lightspeed is a constant and not relative.
It adjusts its speed according to the object it comes from. How does it do that??

Not relative? Have you heard of special relativity lol?

On the contrary, that light never "adjusts its speed" seems to be the point. From any particular frame of reference it always travels at the speed of light.

For instance. Tell me if I have the general idea all wrong here.

You take off from earth in a spaceship at 90% light speed. When you turn your headlights on you will notice light being emitted in front of you at the speed of light. It won't slow down to account for your speed, because it doesn't matter how fast you are going (in your frame of reference).

Someone observing from earth will see the light travelling only 10% faster than your space ship though. Because from that reference it will also be travelling at the speed of light.

Then there are the "time dilation"effects where time will seem to go quicker for someone on earth, relative to (if they could observe what is happening) in the spaceship. 

Then again, for light itself things like velocity and distance would be irrelevant (as theoretically, distance becomes 0 in direction of travel and time stops at the speed of light).

This is mightily weird, but unless my understanding of this is wrong (which it might be), I don't understand how this infers or supports VR?

[lightly]

Fascinating conversation you guys.    A bit deep,for me, but making me think, and learn.   I just wanted to add ...as to causality,  I think any " outcome ". .must have an initial cause ?     and.. Perhaps the universe is more balanced  than  tuned ?

[zep73]

16 hours ago, Horta said:

because something is possible, it does't necessarily mean it is probable

In this case it is, because there are no other causal, logical ways to interpret it. It is the winner of the battle, and if nothing better comes along, also the winner of the war.

16 hours ago, Horta said:

You take off from earth in a spaceship at 90% light speed. When you turn your headlights on you will notice light being emitted in front of you at the speed of light. It won't slow down to account for your speed, because it doesn't matter how fast you are going (in your frame of reference).

That's actually not correct. The light emitted from said spaceship will only travel at 10% of the speed of light, from the pilots perspective. It should be emitting at 190% lightspeed, seen from an outside perspective (and 100% from the pilots), and there is really nothing to stop it from doing that, but it does not.

5 hours ago, lightly said:

I just wanted to add ...as to causality,  I think any " outcome ". .must have an initial cause ?

Yes, correct. But some physicists have abandoned that logic when it comes to QM, because they don't like the implications. So they claim QM is non-causal and non-logic. It "has its own rules" - which is BS. Taking causality out of QM is wrong, and a violation of universal causality.

[Horta]

4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

In this case it is, because there are no other causal, logical ways to interpret it. It is the winner of the battle, and if nothing better comes along, also the winner of the war.

Lol. Congratulations. Veni vidi vici.

Quote

That's actually not correct. The light emitted from said spaceship will only travel at 10% of the speed of light, from the pilots perspective. It should be emitting at 190% lightspeed, seen from an outside perspective (and 100% from the pilots), and there is really nothing to stop it from doing that, but it does not.

As one of the links below says, it doesn't matter whether you are standing still or even if you are travelling at 99.99999% the speed of light and turned on your headlights, you will still measure the emitted light travelling away from you at the speed of light. To a person observing from earth and not in the spaceship, light would still travel at the speed of light. In other words, from their reference if you were travelling at 90% the speed of light, they would see light only travelling 10% faster than your spaceship.

 

"Light in vacuum always travels at the same speed c, exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, no matter how it is created or in what frame it is observed. If you drove a car close to the speed of light relative to the ground (neglect air effects) and turn on the headlights, light would leave your headlights at speed c the way it always does. To you in the speeding car, the light would be traveling away at speed c. Your friend at rest on the ground would also measure the light traveling at speed c."

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/04/30/what-would-happen-if-you-drove-your-car-close-to-the-speed-of-light-and-turned-on-the-headlights/

 

"The car is travelling, say, at 99% of the speed of light (c). To an observer on the side of the road the light from the car headlights is travelling at c and pulling ahead of the car at .01c.

The puzzle is that to the occupants of the car the light is leaving the car at c. That is, whatever the speed at which you are travelling you always measure the speed of light as the same value of c, approximately 300,000 km per second. This constancy of the speed of light is the main plank of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity published in 1905."

https://maas.museum/observations/2010/08/17/what-happens-when-a-car-travelling-near-the-speed-of-light-turns-on-its-headlights/

 

"Even if you're traveling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light, you will still find that light travels exactly at C, relative to you."

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1715

Edited June 13, 2020 by Horta

[zep73]

16 minutes ago, Horta said:

You might need to brush up on the basics of special relativity sci-nerd. As one of the links below says, even if you are travelling at 99.99999% the speed of light and turned on your headlights, you will still measure the emitted light travelling away from you at the speed of light. 

 

"Light in vacuum always travels at the same speed c, exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, no matter how it is created or in what frame it is observed. If you drove a car close to the speed of light relative to the ground (neglect air effects) and turn on the headlights, light would leave your headlights at speed c the way it always does. To you in the speeding car, the light would be traveling away at speed c. Your friend at rest on the ground would also measure the light traveling at speed c."

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/04/30/what-would-happen-if-you-drove-your-car-close-to-the-speed-of-light-and-turned-on-the-headlights/

 

"The car is travelling, say, at 99% of the speed of light (c). To an observer on the side of the road the light from the car headlights is travelling at c and pulling ahead of the car at .01c.

The puzzle is that to the occupants of the car the light is leaving the car at c. That is, whatever the speed at which you are travelling you always measure the speed of light as the same value of c, approximately 300,000 km per second. This constancy of the speed of light is the main plank of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity published in 1905."

https://maas.museum/observations/2010/08/17/what-happens-when-a-car-travelling-near-the-speed-of-light-turns-on-its-headlights/

 

"Even if you're traveling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light, you will still find that light travels exactly at C, relative to you."

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1715

I think we are misunderstanding each other. But never mind that, as long as we agree that nothing can go faster than c, no matter the circumstances.

[Horta]

17 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I think we are misunderstanding each other. But never mind that, as long as we agree that nothing can go faster than c, no matter the circumstances.

I don't think we are misunderstanding each other. Your below quote seems to make this obvious. There is no frame of reference where light isn't observed traveling at the speed of light. From the pilot's perspective light travels away from him at the speed of light (300,000 kps roughly) regardless that he is already travelling at 0.9c. That seems to be the point of SR.

As to a previous point, this fact could just as well provide an argument against VR.

Quote

That's actually not correct. The light emitted from said spaceship will only travel at 10% of the speed of light, from the pilots perspective.

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Horta

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, Horta said:

I don't think we are misunderstanding each other. Your below quote seems to make this obvious. There is no frame of reference where light isn't observed traveling at the speed of light. From the pilot's perspective light travels away from him at the speed of light regardless that he is already travelling at 0.9c. From the pilots perspective the light from his headlights will travel at the speed of light, not 10% the speed of light.

I stand by what I said. I may have issues explaining myself though, not having English as my native language.

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

As to a previous point, this fact could just as well provide an argument against VR.