3 ms·

While there are a lot of big words being used, there appears to be a gap in understanding the core principles related to the article. > If that were true parti

While there are a lot of big words being used, there appears to be a gap in understanding the core principles related to the article. > If that were true particle physics wouldn’t need dark matter/energy to balance conditions that are irregular upon observable matter alone. You responded to my vacuum statement as if we agree the vacuum is perfectly empty. In relativity, the vacuum is not considered empty[0]. Maybe I should have used "patch of space", but more importantly I said "if the spacetime curvature is the same". That literally defines how causality moves through it so that would be inclusive whatever was there including dark matter/energy, which brings us to... > Causality, at least in physics, is an abstract notion and not an empirical notion... but is not necessarily measurably accurate or expected. No it's not... From the wiki you quoted: "In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone." We're talking about relativity here, not philosophy or another topic where causality isn't well defined. It is not abstract. It is explicitly defined as "c" in Einstein's equations. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove/disprove here. You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited. So now, I don't know. I recommend PBS SpaceTime[1] - I still don't understand a lot of things in this space even after watching many videos multiple times, but it really helped put pieces together. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#:~:text=According%20to%20present%2Dday%20understanding,into%20and%20out%20of%20existence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#:~:text=According.... [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g

austincheney 6y ago
There were no big words or any form of exotic vocabulary. > No it's not Causality states that the order of effects must match the order of events. The Wikipedia articles states that almost verbatim. The mention of a light cone binds the general use of the word to its application of physics without changing the definition. No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable. > You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited. It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. I am living on the otherside of the world from the US in a far away timezone.
- irjustin 6y ago
  > No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable. Ah, you're right, I didn't realize you dropped the "speed of" in the "speed of causality" (because the "speed of causality" can be measured and expected... what does "expected" even mean in this context?!). So going 2 replies up you linked to Causality and made a statement about causality but ignored the "speed of causality". So nothing was said? So you agree with me! > It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later thanks to Hackernew's API[0][1] and that I'm half a world closer in SGT, and that I was originally replying to something that was edited away. [0] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?print=pretty https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?pri... [1] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?print=pretty https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?pri...
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later I don't find that as reassuring. Instead of an editing/time conflict the problem is just poor reading comprehension.

austincheney 6y ago

There were no big words or any form of exotic vocabulary. > No it's not Causality states that the order of effects must match the order of events. The Wikipedia articles states that almost verbatim. The mention of a light cone binds the general use of the word to its application of physics without changing the definition. No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable. > You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited. It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. I am living on the otherside of the world from the US in a far away timezone.

irjustin 6y ago
> No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable. Ah, you're right, I didn't realize you dropped the "speed of" in the "speed of causality" (because the "speed of causality" can be measured and expected... what does "expected" even mean in this context?!). So going 2 replies up you linked to Causality and made a statement about causality but ignored the "speed of causality". So nothing was said? So you agree with me! > It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later thanks to Hackernew's API[0][1] and that I'm half a world closer in SGT, and that I was originally replying to something that was edited away. [0] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?print=pretty https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?pri... [1] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?print=pretty https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?pri...
- austincheney 6y ago
  > Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later I don't find that as reassuring. Instead of an editing/time conflict the problem is just poor reading comprehension.