Why does light move at the speed that it does?

Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

source:
arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics
page 7

Attached: electroVShydro.jpg (697x389, 45K)

>ask super open ended philosophical question
>one vague, unsupported answer is proposed to you
>ok I believe everything you say, how could any other answer possibly be valid????
god I hate this board.

"Photons are not moving at all. They are states of a Quantum field that has modes that move at the speed of light in vacuum. The photons themselves only exist where they are being measured. These modes do not define valid coordinate systems so one cant transform in and out of them" - some comment on stack exchange that might make sense

Uncertainty and quantum mechanics in general is just a result of poor resolution at those scales.

>you could call it the speed of information or the speed of causality for our universe.
wrong.
the speed of information is instantaneous.

and light travels at the speed it does because its a relative thing. photons for us only exist because the wavelength of a certain band of electromagnetic radiation is close enough the the overall vibrational frequency of the matter that makes up not only us, or earth but our solar system. Hawking radiation is an example if this, it actually travels to fast for us to even observe(well with any degree of certainty anyway)
>WHY 2.99*10^8m/s and not faster or slower?
has to do with both the medium of space and the flow of time. think about it really hard for a bit. What really is time?
its the flow of energy, and what is light? It is energy

>ironically believing the simulation theory =/= believing the simulation theory
also im a physicslet

>the speed of information is instantaneous

no, it's not

mabye not in conventional science but the information transfer when two particles have experienced quantum entanglement is instantaneous over any distance. Information is generally carried in light/energy, but it is not information itself.

Funny enough, the speed of light is actually a defined quantity. The reason it was DEFINED to be 299792458 m / s is because its convenient for our historical system of measurements.

As for WHY it's a defined quantity, the answer is because it is a constant, and not measured to some absolute background coordinate system. In fact, when working on special relativity problems, it's convenient to set c=1.

there's no true information transfer in entanglement, the pair of particles is described by a single system and two people can see that single system of particles however far apart they wish to be, but there's no actual information transfer

your question dosnt make sense senpai. EM wave velocities were measured and found to be invariant of frame , so they move at the invariant velocity c.
you cant ask why that is so because that assumes there's a reason and we dont know if there is.

is your question basically
>whats the next level of reductionism about the speed of light ?
?
because reductionism is about explaining shit with simpler and more fundamental shit and the lorentz transform is as simple and fundamental as we can get now.

Attached: 1517729326715.jpg (720x720, 54K)

>time is the flow of energy
Strange statement. Just because flow of energy only occurs when time flows does not imply that time is equal to energy flow. I may as well state that time = perception since perceptions cannot happen without time. In fact, it is hard to imagine a single phenomenon that exists without time that is not space, therefore you could equate any phenomenon that is not space with time and get away with it.

>you cant ask why that is so because that assumes there's a reason and we dont know if there is.
Surely some property of the universe is what sets the speed of light.

Note that im not asking about definitions of units "the speed of light is 3*10^8m/s because thats from how we define meters and seconds" isnt the answer im looking for.
Assume we define 1 second as the time it takes for an average person to blink 3 times, and 1 meter as the distance between the arms of a 5 year old.

Then the speed of light measured in m/s would be approximately 3*10^8m/s. Im asking what actual property of the universe limits the speed of light to this.
"Its that speed because thats how we measure it" isnt an answer. Why isnt it faster or slower? What thing in the universe determines the speed of it? Regardless of in what units we humans measure it - it will still have the same speed. And why does it have this speed?

>Just because flow of energy only occurs when time flows does not imply that time is equal to energy flow.
no, but we measure time as the flow of energy, or more so the rate of flow relative to another body, that body being the sun. its the only way to measure time because time is the flow of energy. energy is the force that produces time/motion/change

>Surely *thing you cant possibly be sure of*
yea senpai
light has this speed because it has no mass , so by the laws of mechanics it cant have a rest frame . the more interesting question is why the invarient speed is the invarient speed

>>Surely *thing you cant possibly be sure of*
>yea senpai
what else? i think its a very fair assumption to make. Or are you saying the laws of the universe arent what determines the speed of light? How does that make sense.
physical constants must be the result of a property of the universe.

>"Its that speed because thats how we measure it" isnt an answer

That's not what and are saying.

The speed of light isn't defined by meters and seconds, meters are and seconds are defined by the speed of light. The distinction is subtle but therein lies the answer to your question. The reason it's defined, NOT measured, as 299792458 m / s is so everyone didn't have to start using a difference system of measurements. Prior to the meter being defined by the speed of light, it was defined as 1/40,000,000 of the the Earths meridian. The current number of 299792458 m / s was CHOSEN so that the meter, as defined by the speed of light, was the same as the meter as defined by the Earth's meridian.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to ask "Why is the speed of light not faster or slower?" Because it would STILL be a constant, and any units we derive from it are arbitrarily chosen

>Then the speed of light measured in m/s would be approximately 3*10^8m/s. Im asking what actual property of the universe limits the speed of light to this.

The medium of aether.

Attached: sgu042310.jpg (425x277, 64K)

It doesnt fucking matter how the speed of light is defined. The speed of light is a constant no matter how the fuck you define it. And why is the constant (by whatever definition you want to use) that specific constant for that specific definition is what im asking.

There are 2 points in space A and B. The distance between them is constant over any time frame. Define a time unit T however you want.
T can be the average time it takes for someone to blink 3 times, T can be the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 meter. T can be the time it takes for a normal person to sneeze.

Regardless of how you define T, the time T it takes for light to travel from A to B will be constant, and it will be a specific constant depending on how you define T. But WHY is it this specific constant?

How am i not getting my point across? Am i retarded?

I'm kinda confused as to how, "Why is it that speed?" would generate any other sort of response.

I mean, if someone asks "Why is the speed limit on the highway 55mph?" - "Because the sign says so!" or "25+30 = 55" or "Cuz miles are arbitrary!", aren't legitimate answers.

information isn't transferred in entanglement. you're misunderstanding what it means for two particles to be quantumly entangled.

Space is not empty. All waves require a medium to propagate and aether is that medium. Aether can be described as a subatomic plasma. This also means faster-than-light travel is possible with the right propulsion methodology.

>assumption
yea thats exactly what it is
>physical constants must be the result of a property of the universe.
physical constants are a property of the universe.

Because there must be some reason for it being that speed. A reason with roots in the laws of the universe.

People are just saying "The speed is that speed because thats the way it is". But there must be a REASON it is the way it is

Look at this more precise question:

The time it takes for light to travel between A and B is T.
Assume A and B are in a vacuum
Why does it take T amount of time and not something else?

>physical constants are a property of the universe.
So you dont believe they originate from anything, that they cant be explained by a set of logical rules?

Are you serious. There is a max speed. There just is. You can call it c. Why is c = 2.99e8. Because we made the length of a meter arbitrarily and the math just works out that way.

Heres the thing, all the information the universe contains isnt observable. The key part to any simulation is just rendering the relevant data, and making up the rest as needed. When you play a video game, the entire universe isnt renders, just whats in front of you.

>But WHY is it this specific constant?

The speed of light, c, DOESN'T have a specific value, which may be hard to grasp. This is why it doesn't make sense to ask,"Why doesn't c have a specific higher or lower value", because it doesn't have a specific value in the first place. All the matters is the recognition that is a constant.

And the reason we can arbitrarily attach a value to c is BECAUSE there is no specific value.

>Why does it take T amount of time and not something else?

It is literally because our units of time and distance are derived from the ARBITRARY constant, c

there isn't anything that the speed of light is defined by

you might think of the electric/magnetic constants, but this isn't accurate
[math]\mu_0[/math] is defined by the value such that when [math]\displaystyle \frac {F}
{\Delta L} = \frac {\mu_0I_1I_2} {2r\pi}[/math]=2*10^-7 when I1 & I2 are 1 amp. but wait, that's also the definition for an amp: it's circular. so the value of [math]\mu_0[/math] isn't exactly dependent on the definition of an amp. in a way it is, the 2*10^-7 from [math]\mu_0[/math]=4pi*10^-7 comes from the definition of current

however this tells us nothing since the entire formula is based off the biot-savart law, which is experimentally derived. maxwells laws were shaped around those as well, literally just summing all the observations together (amperes circuital law was incomplete until maxwell combined two different observations together)
this is important because many people assume those laws to be fundamental and grounded, when in reality they have a potential for having missing terms or simply being incorrect. it's unlikely, but still possible

now you might be wondering why the hell c has anything to do with the magnetic/electric constants and this is because we strategically defined a magnetic field, B, as a way to account for the fact that the "appeared" charge will be closer due to the charges movements, as there will be a contraction of length [math]\Delta d \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}[/math]. this gives a new "force" which pulls it in a different direction based on its velocity. this is where qv x B comes from. there's only one force and that's coulombs force, B is just a way to explain it
because of this you see an extra c term in our other equations (try testing with F=q(E+v x B)), which makes the magnetic constant exactly 4pi*10^-7, independent of any laws and only dependent on the definition of current (which is dependent on c)
the same can be said about the electric constant, meaning c is more fundamental than either of those.
(1/2)

i dont know if they originate or can be explained and neither does anyone else .

Motherfuck. Are you dense or do i suck at making myself clear?

There is a limit to the speed regardless of what units you want to define it in.

Redefine a meter as the distance between the average 5 year olds' arms. Redefine a second as the time it takes for an average person to blink 3 times.

With there REDEFINED units, c ~3*10^8m/s.
WHY isnt it 3*10^5m/s?

Is the speed of light (regardess of what fucking units you want to use) the result of a physical law?
How can it not be? And what is that law?

Ok thats the answer i was looking for

to clarify on
>this is because we strategically defined a magnetic field, B, as a way to account for the fact that the "appeared" charge will be closer due to the charges movements
i mean that when you move a charge, there will be an appeared charge at a different distance because of lorentz contractions
as time goes on it gets pushed around from this force, in reality it's just the coulombs force but with special relativity

you'll find that a lot of these units are strategically defined, coulomb on current, current on experimentally derived data (it used to be different before biot-savart), and everything else from there
the definition of a meter is based ENTIRELY on the fact that the speed of light is a fundamental constant which never changes. before this, accuracy would be god awful because we based meter off of the earths meridian, which changes over time for one and secondly to get that number we'd use equations using other "fundamental" constants
this way, meters are constant and easier to measure
can't really say the same thing about weight units, however
>well how did they get 299792458 if meter wasn't defined that well yet
because the definition of meter at the time gave around that much (+/- 1 or so), and to avoid creating a new standard that no one will adapt to, they made the new definition very close to the old

but to answer your main question, c is entirely fundamental, there is no equation that just gives c that we know of, so we just use what we've experimentally shown
why isn't it higher? why isn't it lower? why isn't it half the speed it is? the answer anyone will ever give you is: i don't know

this was (2/2) btw

(3/2)

Which came first? The unit of speed or the discovery of the speed of light.

The reason why the speed of light doesn't change (in a vacuum,) is because the rate at which time passes would also change. What this means is that the speed of light is always preserved from an internal reference frame.

No. The tests of Bell's inequalities show that you are wrong. The experimental evidence is simply incompatible with a model of local hidden variables.

I'm starting to think you are a bit fucking dense. If everything(and I'm not talking about our units of measurement/time here) moves in a way fundamentally proportional to the constant c, then it doesn't fucking matter what arbitrary value is ascribe to the constant. To illustrate, consider this:

Suppose that you are some magical observer who can separate yourself from the physical universe you are observing. Now suppose that the speed of light, as measured by secondary observers INSIDE the universe, suddenly changes. Now what would you, as the magical observer see? You would see EVERYTHING in the universe moving faster or slower, but would the secondary observers inside the universe see?
They would notice no change and would still measure the speed of light as having the same value as before, because every secondary observer is FUNDAMENTALLY part of the universe and so their perceptions of distance and time would change along with the changing(as observed by you, the magical observer) speed of light. So it doesn't make any fucking sense to ask why it isn't higher or lower because we would never be able to detect it. All that fucking matters is that to every secondary observer INSIDE the universe, c is constant.

>Because there must be some reason for it being that speed. A reason with roots in the laws of the universe.
There does not need to be a reason.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

Limit?
Limiting how?

Why don't you just Google it?

"Speed just is. In natural units it is a value of 1. The reason the speed of light (or of any massless thing) seems to be something specific is its relationship to other things"

>Why does light move at the speed that it does?
No one currently knows. It's like asking "how do magnets work?".
youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

This guy gets it.

Or to use another analogy:

If you are watching a movie at 60fps, everything that's happening on screen happens relative to that rate. If you fast forward the movie, all the action on screen moves faster proportionally. To a magically self-aware character in the movie, they wouldn't be able to tell if the movie was being fast forwarded or not. All they could know, and all that would matter for any practical purpose, is that everything that happens according to what they would perceive as a fundamental constant of their universe.

It's logical, sure. But it's not an explanation.

>But there must be a REASON it is the way it is
You seem very sure of this. Do you have a good reason to believe this (that things must have a reason to be the way they are)?

If you are bothered for why the constant doesn't have a more elegant number, its because of how we define the meter. It's just an arbitrary scale that we made up.

There are physicists that do their calculations based off of setting c = 1 and setting up everything from there.

It's arbitrary.

Why's the fine structure constant what it is and what does it have to do with flipping burgers
Thanks in advance

He's not talking about the numeric value of the constant, he's asking why the speed isn't faster or slower.
It's like asking why a particular car's top speed isn't faster or slower, regardless of what numbers are showing on the speedometer
some of you people are so dense

>If you are bothered for why the constant doesn't have a more elegant number
Im not, which i have stated probably 7 times
If everything that exists exists within the universe, then everything in it must follow the laws of the universe. What is the universe other than a set of laws? And isnt it fair to say that these law manifest in the form of space, and time and other stuff, including all physical constants. The constants must be derived from the set of laws i.e the universe.
How else would they come about?
This

>Run both your fields perpendicular to each other
>Get c
>Line both fields up
>Get c*(2/pi)

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder what a wave is....

>He's not talking about the numeric value of the constant, he's asking why the speed isn't faster or slower
We know, and we're telling him why it doesn't make sense to ask that.
>It's like asking why a particular car's top speed isn't faster or slower, regardless of what numbers are showing on the speedometer
No, it's not like that at all.

The speed of light is really the speed of causality. To us, or any observer in our universe, it will always be constant. THERE IS NO HIGHER OR LOWER VALUE for the speed of light. See for a good analogy.

>THERE IS NO HIGHER OR LOWER VALUE for the speed of light

You don't know that. Light slows down and speeds up all the time.

You mean our perception if time would speed up/down according to changes in the speed of light, making it seem its still the same constant?
Why would time perception have ties to c? Chemical reactions are indifferent to c, right?
And what about time perception underwater. c_water>c but time perception is the same

i meant c_water

It's all bullshit. The speed of light exactly proves light is moving through a medium because the speed is limited on Earth.

It's the same properties for making waves in a puddle of water versus a puddle of curdled milk.

These fucking stupid ideas of causality and time bending once that speed is reached is all just fucking nonsense.
But of course someone will just come here and post Wikipedia articles about satellites and atomic clocks or something.

>But of course someone will just come here and post Wikipedia articles about satellites and atomic clocks or something.

It's hard to argue with solid evidence, i.e. the vital use of general relativity in GPS.

Yeah, real to argue against that when NASA's layered greenscreen feed cuts out so you can't see the Earth.

Real hard to argue with the idea that two different reference frames can even be measured correctly. Lucky light is always constant! Except when it's in an atomic clock exactly used to measure it.

Lucky GPS works! Except that the internal CPU clock on these things would mess all the measurements up for not abiding to the atomic clock rules.

So, there's a worldwide conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, etc., from a plethora of different fields?

gb2 /x/

Atomic clocks measure aether drag, not time/space as relativity suggests.

You just proved his point, user. The reason GPS works is because relativity is taken into account.

I'm genuinely curious about why you want to believe that the scientific community is duping you and the rest of the world. Is it that you lack the intelligence to understand the concepts/proof, or is it that maybe you like feeling like you're part of an insular group with "secret knowledge" of how things work? Maybe bragging about that "knowledge" makes you feel less insignificant in a world of seven billion minds? I don't know, but you need to fucking stop it.

No, there's just people under the wrong assumptions.
And everyone gets the evil eye as soon as you move away from any of it.

that's quite the refresh rate! whatever entity coded these laws of physics really knew what they were doing...

>Why would time perception have ties to c
Through relativity? Time dilation increases the closer your speed gets to c. The perception of time is very much related to the speed of light.

>And what about time perception underwater. c_water>c but time perception is the same?
You're combining two different phenomena in this question. c_water is the speed that photons propagate through water, true. But if you were calculating the energy contained in the mass of the this water, you wouldn't use E = (m_water) * (c_water)^2. Do you see the difference?

Ok. So what's your alternative model of reality that also explains how applying General Relativity has been so wildly successful in GPS?

Einstein was popular because he played along with the establishment. He was their darling. One of his responsibilities involved hiding how nuclear energy and other exotic forms of energy works from the public.

To this day, Tesla's papers are being held by the same organization Einstein worked with. Tesla believed that all energy originates from an external source such as the aether. Today, modern physics calls it zeropoint energy. You are being misled.

Let's think about it hard for a second.

So light is apparently constant across existence, or the speed of it is. We'll take that.

As soon as the concept of reference frames comes in, forget that it's almost unfathomable that the universe isn't in a constant moment, you can't measure anything. Not even with the light loophole.

Time is just motion measured against motion. It's a metric. Not a physical/literal dimension that can be altered. It's arbitrary. It's counting your footsteps in accordance with the shadows being cast by the sun.

So as soon as everything itsn't "All at once" in regards to existence, you can't measure anything because every single reference becomes null.
You could never measure this abstract warping of time in another space because you would always be measuring it from your space against YOUR motions.
And even with the light postulate, that speed is still constant and voids the idea anyway.
If you can measure against light at any point in any place, then it's all constant anyway and it doesn't matter, so immediately all time is at once.

In other words, does your model vary from the predictions of General Relativity? If not, why should I care? If yes, what are the different predictions?

Well mine's just a model too right? Who's to say I'm right.
But better to think you're wrong than put anything on a pedestal.

>Who's to say I'm right.

Tests. Evidence.

>But better to think you're wrong than put anything on a pedestal.

If that's what the evidence indicates, then yes, something like that.

Take an electricity and magnetism course at a community college. You will learn the equations that govern the dynamics of electricity and magnetism - these are called Maxwell's equations.

The two ones which are important for your question are Ampere's law (with Maxwell's correction term) and Faraday's law. Essentially these describe the 'curly' magnetic and electric fields that happen when you have currents and changing magnetic fields.

If you try to treat both of those equations as a system of equations, you end up with two solutions: one trivial (electric and magnetic field both zero), and one complicated, which is the electromagnetic wave equation. This is the case where an electric and magnetic field can propagate as 'light'.

By algebraically manipulating it, you find that the speed at which the wave propagates is equal to 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 * mu_0). Those are both constants which you can measure empirically and assign units to. Punch in those constants in, and you get the speed of light.

This is partially how Maxwell knew that his equations were the proper explanation for how light works - he derived the speed of light from completely unrelated constants and found that it gave the correct number.

I only go against Relativity because the ideas translate into the quantum realm. That and maybe gravity being the defining force of existence. And maybe that would be okay if gravity was understood.

>That and maybe gravity being the defining force of existence

mate, do you even know what you're talking about?

But now you're back at the same point.
Why do both fields have a limit? Why do the fields curve?

>Let's think about it hard for a second

Einstein already did that.
>"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

>you can't measure anything. Not even with the light loophole.

You can, but you need differential equations.

>so immediately all time is at once.
No. Time is relative.

>Why do both fields have a limit?

I don't know what you mean by a 'limit'. The reason why there exists a speed of light is because light is a propagating electromagnetic wave, and if you solve for the speed of propagation in a vacuum, you receive a number which agrees with empirical measurement.

Science doesn't deal with 'why' because you end up falling down an endless rabbit hole with that kind of question. Why do things have inertia? Why is charge an existent property, rather than a non-existent one? None of these questions are answerable via experimentation and thus fall outside the purview of science.

>Why do the fields curve?

I don't follow. Are you asking about the 'curly' electric and magnetic fields that I mentioned in the last post?

That's the idea from the Relativistic point of view isn't it? Formations are all physical.

>the speed at which electromagnetic fields propagate in a vacuum is equal to the speed of light. the photon (quanta of light) is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic force.

That still doesn't answer OP's question. Pi and e are mathematically pure... c isn't.

Forgot to include the link whoopsies

Remember measurements are a mental construct. Many of our constants are not nice and neat as a result.

>Pi and e are mathematically pure... c isn't.

This is because the physics of everything is an unsolved problem. You use empirical constants to fill in the blanks until the theory becomes more robust.

Let's go even simpler then. The idea will be that you can't measure anything outside of you reference frame.

You want the effect of time on a different planet's surface compared to your planet.
You can only measure it from two points, that planet or yours.

You can never measure either as being outside of the other's reference because they can never be.
Even if this other planet did experience time at twice as slow as your planet, you could never measure it.
Because as soon as you measure it on your planet, everything is nominal and that planet's motions are in sync with yours, and vice versa.

It's simple, but the idea is to punctuate how perverted the whole space-time thing is in science.
You can't measure something's motion as outside your reference frame because it will always exist inside your reference frame, which is everything at once.

You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed.

>The reason why there exists a speed of light is because light is a propagating electromagnetic wave

That's circular logic. The reason there's a limit is because it's propagating through something offering a limit, a resistance. That's evident in every single physical phenomena on Earth.

Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void. The center of a magnet of celestial body proves that.

>You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed.
No you don't.

>Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void. The center of a magnet of celestial body proves that.
What?

You don't have to answer it, but isn't it better if you can?
You don't need to understand how your digestion system works, but isn't it beneficial to understand it?

The very principle of science is the pursuit of "Why?"
To say the question doesn't really matter is almost dogmatic.

"time" as we think of it isn't really accurate. It's more like a fourth dimensional plane that all matter is moving in the same direction in but at different speeds.

solving classical physics problems with single variable calculus works because it's assumed that all the objects are on the same planet or something, but if you change the reference frame you have to use differential equations because you can't simply take time derivatives or integrals anymore.

>You don't have to answer it, but isn't it better if you can?
Fundamentally, you cannot. You misunderstand the power of science, and epistemology in general.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed.

Nobody can though, that's the thing. Certain things 'are' because they 'are'. It's inherently tautological. Even if we explain every part of the universe's physics from the Big Bang until the modern age, we're still going to be deriving fundamental constants from the boundary conditions of the early universe. We won't know why things work the way they do - we'll just be able to describe it with perfect predictive accuracy.

Scientists don't have to answer "why?" in the way you're asking because it's fundamentally outside the bounds of what we do. If the model can agree with all empirical observations, no matter how many times you run it, then it's a perfect theory.

If the inability for human beings to explain natural phenomena in a way which survives your mode of pseudo-Socratic questioning poses a problem for you, then you have to take it up with God since it's his fault, not ours lol

>Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void

Perfect vacuums cannot exist, and even the vacuum of space is full of electromagnetic radiation. The fundamental idea behind field theory is that a field is something which has a value at every point in the universe. Even if a space appears to be empty, there's still an x% probability that something is in it.

Also, what if the computer that's emulating us, is in a universe that has laws more complex than our own

Time isn't a physical dimension. It's a measurement.
Everything moves in one singular frame of reference. Everything. It can't work any other way.

Ok. The evidence says otherwise. For example, two events can be simultaneous to one observer but happen at different times according to another observer. Again, GPS wouldn't work if it were otherwise.

your refutation of simulation theory is bullshit.

If you knew the initial state of the universe and also had a GUT, you'd be able to predict every instance of its outcome mathematically.

Simulation theory doesn't stipulate that our universe is being emulated. That's why it's called simulation theory, not emulation theory; the hypothetical universe we're being in simulated with would have to have drastically different laws and way more computing resources.

Up isn't a physical dimension, it's a measurement

Everything that's up is moving either up or down. Everything. It can't work any other way.