Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6547121" data-attributes="member: 177">That would depend on what you call a "flaw", I suppose.  Current theories are not perfect, if that is what you mean.  However, I think our positions are based less in the math, and more in what is observed in the universe, and that happens to be consistent with the math.The time and distance differences are not arbitrary, and are linked to the relative speeds involved - we can't end up with them being at just any old time, and the math works out such that we will not disagree on what actually happened.  The only things that we will disagree about the time-order are things that are "non-causal" - we will only differ on whether event A came before event B when A could not have affected B, due to the lightspeed barrier.  If not even light could have passed from one event to the other, then they could not impact each other, and their order is largely arbitrary.See the above answer.  If it is a matter of life and death, then the order of events will be preserved, whoever is looking at it.  General Relativity preserves causality.  Two things:  1) "tiny inconsistencies" sounds like it isn't a big deal, but the word "tiny" is being used in a human subjective sense, not in a technical sense.  The corner cases those supposedly tiny inconsistencies can generate are going to be issues.  2) You are leaving out a major point - in the client/host arrangements, for any given fact, one client will need updating, and another will not.  The view of two observers will  not be consistent - thus we call it an inconsistency.  In the real world, as we've pointed out, for both GR and QM, we don't disagree about events that can impact each other.  Our observed universes are consistent!  If we had cases where one observer saw an electron, and another saw an interference pattern, then you'd have a point.  But we *BOTH* see an interference pattern - so it isn't an inconsistency at all.</blockquote>

Verification