0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The point with using causality is simple. That is our common SpaceTime, the gold standard telling you that we all are here together. And tachyons would not fit.=that give one some choices. Time is an illusion? Sure, and so must causality be if that is correct, and so you, and me too, become a illusion.Time exist? Then causality is what I wrote above, a proof of our 'common SpaceTime', but tachyons have no place in it.Time is not like a ocean having different undercurrents. Time is a direction, locally defined, and equivalent to 'c'. There is only one direction for you, not several.
I still do not see how reversal of events can happen here.
One of the really big problems, leading people astray is the assumption of 'c' as being solely a speed.
If it is a speed, then why can't there be stuff moving 'faster'?
In my view it is a constant, …
…what defines causality, it is also what defines your local arrow.
It is SpaceTime, described from a container model.
And the container model is what makes us able to communicate.
When it comes to my definitions then I define 'c' as a speed from SR, also define it as equivalent to ones local arrow, splitting it, and argue that it can be seen as what defines causality.
Well Pete, big words and postures aside. Present one original thought here, please
And you want that to count as a original thought from you?
Give me something, or stop acting as a sage.
And Phyti, you're wrong. 'c' is 'c', you can test it, it's one of the most tested ideas that exist. So that 'proof' of yours is just conjecture. I base mine on simplicity, not fantasy.
Pythi, there is no point missed. Both are theoretical conjectures, coming from mathematical propositions without experimental proofs.