4 ms·

You are clinging to light cones because that is what you know about relativity, but you don't understand it intuitively. I didn't get any new information from y

by w0000t 11y ago

You are clinging to light cones because that is what you know about relativity, but you don't understand it intuitively. I didn't get any new information from you last comment, just what has already been said. Warp and light cones clearly don't work. Does that mean that warp couldn't work at least in theory, no. Learn more about relativity( it is really interesting ), otherwise you will always be stuck in your frame of mind.

drdeca 11y ago
Ok, heres another explanation which does not refer to light cones. Take some ftl causation (i.e. two points in spacetime such that one is a causal influence on the other, and such that the spacetime interval between them is spacelike). Take the one which has a causal influence on the other to be first. Then, by relativity of simultaneity for things which are separated by a spacelike spacetime interval, there is another frame of reference in which the point which is causally influenced by the other point occurs before the point which causally influences the other point. That is, A influences B, and B is before A. Which is retrocausality. Therefore, because any two points in mostly flat spacetime (so like, no black holes or anything) which have spacelike separation can be taken to be before or after eachother, if one has a causal influence on the other, there is a frame of reference in which that would be retrocausality. edit: also, do you mean that I don't intuitively understand relativity, or don't intuitively understand light cones? I don't understand where you are getting the idea that "warp and light cones clearly don't work". Light cones are still used in general relativity (at least locally). Shifting things based on frame of reference still works in general relativity. Do you have anything to back up your claim that light cones "don't work" with "warp"? At the very least a good search term? edit2: further, consider this quote by alcubierre: ' Miguel Alcubierre briefly discusses some of these issues in a series of lecture slides posted online,[31] where he writes "beware: in relativity, any method to travel faster than light can in principle be used to travel back in time (a time machine)." ' [31] http://ccrg.rit.edu/files/FasterThanLight.pdf http://ccrg.rit.edu/files/FasterThanLight.pdf So, you can see, Alcubierre (who, iirc, first showed the negative energy density method of ftl mentioned in the article), also states that it could be used for retrocausality (though there's a caveat based on the “chronology protection conjecture"). So, I think my arguments are fairly well supported.
- w0000t 11y ago
  I read the real( peer reviewed ) paper, and it contradicts your ideas. Your final conclusion is a strawman argument. Those quotes are referring to normal travel through space.

by w0000t 11y ago

drdeca 11y ago

Ok, heres another explanation which does not refer to light cones. Take some ftl causation (i.e. two points in spacetime such that one is a causal influence on the other, and such that the spacetime interval between them is spacelike). Take the one which has a causal influence on the other to be first. Then, by relativity of simultaneity for things which are separated by a spacelike spacetime interval, there is another frame of reference in which the point which is causally influenced by the other point occurs before the point which causally influences the other point. That is, A influences B, and B is before A. Which is retrocausality. Therefore, because any two points in mostly flat spacetime (so like, no black holes or anything) which have spacelike separation can be taken to be before or after eachother, if one has a causal influence on the other, there is a frame of reference in which that would be retrocausality. edit: also, do you mean that I don't intuitively understand relativity, or don't intuitively understand light cones? I don't understand where you are getting the idea that "warp and light cones clearly don't work". Light cones are still used in general relativity (at least locally). Shifting things based on frame of reference still works in general relativity. Do you have anything to back up your claim that light cones "don't work" with "warp"? At the very least a good search term? edit2: further, consider this quote by alcubierre: ' Miguel Alcubierre briefly discusses some of these issues in a series of lecture slides posted online,[31] where he writes "beware: in relativity, any method to travel faster than light can in principle be used to travel back in time (a time machine)." ' [31] http://ccrg.rit.edu/files/FasterThanLight.pdf http://ccrg.rit.edu/files/FasterThanLight.pdf So, you can see, Alcubierre (who, iirc, first showed the negative energy density method of ftl mentioned in the article), also states that it could be used for retrocausality (though there's a caveat based on the “chronology protection conjecture"). So, I think my arguments are fairly well supported.

w0000t 11y ago
I read the real( peer reviewed ) paper, and it contradicts your ideas. Your final conclusion is a strawman argument. Those quotes are referring to normal travel through space.