Yup, the fact that the gravity has the speed limit and that it affects by distorting space-time (at least according to general relativity theory) led me to the thought that any space-time distortion is limited to the speed of light too. So no matter how we screw ST around the spaceship, the screwiness can travel with lightspeed at maximum anyway.

This whole theory is the kind of theory that non-scientists cannot really reason about and real scientist just dismiss and don't point out the flaws to us non-scientist. So again: we believe anything that is told to us because we are not scientists in the matter.

(that's why this thread is a bit pointless, scientists about the matter are either not replying in the thread or replying but no one understands them. Science is about facts, not opinions and feelings)

It was my understanding that this essentially made a discrete bubble of space-time that could travel faster than light because it was the bubble that was moving rather than any particles inside of that bubble. Maybe I misunderstood it.

As a Catholic, surely you take the existence of God as an unquestionable fact in the same way?[/quote]
I do not view that as a fact. As from my previous post, facts are objective truths. Religious faith is based on subjective truth, or it wouldn't be called faith. I apologize for mistaking your intent, but read with that understanding it reads like, "religious people don't know what facts are," rather than the intended, "religious people are more certain about the things they believe in."

As a Catholic, surely you take the existence of God as an unquestionable fact in the same way?

I do not view that as a fact. As from my previous post, facts are objective truths. Religious faith is based on subjective truth, or it wouldn't be called faith. I apologize for mistaking your intent, but read with that understanding it reads like, "religious people don't know what facts are," rather than the intended, "religious people are more certain about the things they believe in."[/quote]
There you have some mighty confusing semantics. As I see it, science doesn't accept the possibility of facts, at all. Which makes faith the only framework under which facts have any meaning.

Well axioms would have to be facts, wouldn't they? Infallible truths which all of math and science rests on.

Well axioms would have to be facts, wouldn't they?

You can choose to regard them that way (and they may be used that way in popular parlance), but by their very nature, we can't prove these axioms.

Infallible truths which all of math and science rests on.[/quote]
Because math and science rely on them, they must be true? That's at best an empty tautology.

Sure, we have a body of evidence that suggests our axioms are most likely valid. But in the end we take said axioms on faith. It's really not much different from having faith in life after death, or faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Just more layers of self-supporting cruft added on top.

Well axioms would have to be facts, wouldn't they? Infallible truths which all of math and science rests on.

I wouldn't use the term "infallible" or "fact" to describe an axiom. Consider the Parallel Postulate/Euclid's Fifth Postulate in geometry; it is an axiom in Euclidian geometry, but not all forms of geometry have it as an axiom. Spherical geometry is a easy example of a geometry that doesn't have the Parallel Postulate as an axiom - consider that in Euclidian geometry, the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees; but in spherical geometry, one can have a triangle that has three right angles! So, having accepted that the Parallel Postulate is used as an axiom in at least one formal system (Euclidian geometry), is the Parallel Postulate a "fact?" Is it an "infallible truth?"

Spherical geometry is a easy example of a geometry that doesn't have the Parallel Postulate as an axiom - consider that in Euclidian geometry, the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees; but in spherical geometry, one can have a triangle that has three right angles!

Considering that the Parallel Postulate even states that it only applies to two dimensional geometry, the fact that it doesn't hold in three dimensional geometry is hardly surprising.

[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1348402270' post='4982890']
Yup, the fact that the gravity has the speed limit and that it affects by distorting space-time (at least according to general relativity theory) led me to the thought that any space-time distortion is limited to the speed of light too. So no matter how we screw ST around the spaceship, the screwiness can travel with lightspeed at maximum anyway.
This whole theory is the kind of theory that non-scientists cannot really reason about and real scientist just dismiss and don't point out the flaws to us non-scientist. So again: we believe anything that is told to us because we are not scientists in the matter.
(that's why this thread is a bit pointless, scientists about the matter are either not replying in the thread or replying but no one understands them. Science is about facts, not opinions and feelings)

It was my understanding that this essentially made a discrete bubble of space-time that could travel faster than light because it was the bubble that was moving rather than any particles inside of that bubble. Maybe I misunderstood it.
[/quote]

The speed of the medium is different than speed of the object traveling through it. This is akin to traveling faster than the wake in water and traveling faster than the sound in the air. Just because the medium has a maximum propagation speed, does not mean you're limited to that speed while traveling through it. Thus the assumption that gravity waves can only propagate through space at the speed of light and thus would limit a distortion in space from traveling faster than light is incorrect. Gravity != Space-time and as such a distortion itself is not limited by Gravity's propagation speed, because a space-time distortion does not have to be gravitational in nature

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1348411832' post='4982929']

As a Catholic, surely you take the existence of God as an unquestionable fact in the same way?

I do not view that as a fact. As from my previous post, facts are objective truths. Religious faith is based on subjective truth, or it wouldn't be called faith. I apologize for mistaking your intent, but read with that understanding it reads like, "religious people don't know what facts are," rather than the intended, "religious people are more certain about the things they believe in."[/quote]
There you have some mighty confusing semantics. As I see it, science doesn't accept the possibility of facts, at all. Which makes faith the only framework under which facts have any meaning.
[/quote]
I agree with that, but my point was just that religious faith shouldn't be considered fact even by religious people by nature of it not being able to be proven. That's all I was getting at, not that science is definitely factual. Though I'd say if you're willing to accept axioms as true (though non factual), there are facts that can extend from them.

The speed limit is derived entirely from causality AFAIK. It states that there is an ultimate speed limit to everything (light is no special in that regard. It clearly states that any for of information is subject to speed limit). Is that disproved (by quantum physics? I recall some twin particle thingy)?
And (correct me if I'm wrong) gravity IS described as space-time distortion in general relativity.

The speed limit is derived entirely from causality AFAIK.

how exactly does a limit get derived from causality?, i'm assuming this is going off the understanding that going faster than light can theoretically mean going back in time(which i never really understood why this is so, all i ever find on the subject is that's it's apparently possible, but nothing ever explains why it's possible).

Is that disproved (by quantum physics? I recall some twin particle thingy)?

i'm assuming you mean quantum entanglement, and i don't believe it disproves it since quantum entanglment doesn't allow useful information to be transmitted(or at least we've yet to discover a way to transmit useful information anyway.)