3 ms·

Misconception: > because the only way to go back in time is to have a speed greater than infinity > Instead of an answer, it seems like today I'll be getting

Misconception: > because the only way to go back in time is to have a speed greater than infinity > Instead of an answer, it seems like today I'll be getting downvotes and ad hominem dismissals. Oh well. Probably because your approach is very confrontational for someone who claims to be "just asking questions" e.g. "unsound", "not remotely adequate". And then you're dismissive - get directed to a wikipedia page where it's answered, and the mechanics of it are done in mathematics, and: "That doesn't answer the question. ... by what mechanisms?" OK, maybe that approach isn't for you you. Pop science books are a thing, try those instead? I'll add one thing: I'm a software engineer, but if you gave me 1000 lines of Rust to read, all I could say is "I have a very superficial reading of this code based of function and struct names, because I don't really know Rust at all." There's nothing wrong with that: specialised topic is specialised. It's ok to admit you don't know the details. What I would not say is "this program is not an answer, because I don't understand it." That would just be an egocentric misconception. > nobody is forcing you to You're right, if someone is being obnoxious and pointlessly confrontational, they won't get the best from the people who interact with them. No-one is forcing them to do it! But combining that with "oh why am I getting downvoted and dismissed" wailing seems disingenuous though.

yellowapple 6y ago
> because the only way to go back in time is to have a speed greater than infinity And how is that a misconception? That seems to be exactly the thing the "answers" describe: the time it takes to travel from point A to point B being negative, somehow. Even when discussing problems where we've defined that duration to be positive. > Probably because your approach is very confrontational Just because you perceive it to be so doesn't mean it is. Just like, relevantly, how two signals arriving at a reference frame doesn't necessarily indicate the causality of whatever generated those signals. > get directed to a wikipedia page where it's answered It's not answered in said page. If it was then I'd be discussing that answer, rather than continuing to ask for that answer. (Not to mention that just linking some Wikipedia page without any attempt at providing context is itself pretty dismissive, but whatever) Specifically, the "answer" in that page only seems to describe the situation where the signal in its own reference frame is actually travelling faster than c, whereas the very premise of things like warp drives is to, you know, warp spacetime such that the distance covered in that signal's own reference frame is substantially shorter than normal. That is: a tachyonic antitelephone assumes that, you know, the signal exists as tachyons. Citing the concept of a tachyonic antitelephone in the context of a discussion around warping spacetime to shorten the distance entirely (i.e. remove the reliance on tachyons entirely) suggests - to me, at least, with my dumb dropout monkey brain - some implication that any situation where a signal from Point A arrives at Point B (where A and B are, say, 1 lightsecond away) any sooner than 1 second after being sent from Point A necessitates that signal to be treated as tachyonic, no matter what the signal "perceives" in its own reference frame. Thus, my question: why? And if you can't answer that question, then that's perfectly fine! I can't answer that question, either, so it ain't like I'd hold it against you. But if you're going to take the time to dismiss that question as being stupid or misguided or what have you, the least you could do is attempt to explain why it's a stupid question - or, better yet, just answer the question. > Pop science books are a thing, try those instead? Would you care to recommend one? > But combining that with "oh why am I getting downvoted and dismissed" wailing seems disingenuous though. If you actually believed me to be the disingenuous one in this conversation, then why bother continuing to comment? If you don't have anything to contribute, and don't believe I have anything to contribute, then, you could always, you know, leave me to my ignorant wailing :)
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > Just because you perceive it to be so doesn't mean it is. Yes, I see that you're capable of being confrontational all day, and unwilling to follow up via clicking links on your own. Why don't you find someone else to troll?
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    Right, because daring to ask "why" is trolling. Apparently it's entirely inconceivable that I did already click the one link provided, read through it yet again (as if it's the only time someone's thrown a Wikipedia link at me), and - finding that it still does not answer my question - indicated such. Asking why tachyonic antitelephones are relevant to a discussion about forms of superluminal communication that do not involve tachyons is not trolling. Like, I'm really not trying to be confrontational here (well, at least I wasn't, until you decided I was and immediately decided to be a jerk about it). These are honest questions I'm asking, and I wouldn't be asking them if the answers were really so obvious that no explanation (beyond "here's a tangentially related Wikipedia link, now bug off") is worthwhile.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > Asking why tachyonic antitelephones are relevant to a discussion about forms of superluminal communication that do not involve tachyons is not trolling. If it's not trolling it's completely missing the entirely of the point. I mean, really? There are no tachyons, it's just a way to talk about literally any forms of superluminal communication. The maths is the same. Are you familiar by "proof by contradiction"? (if not, google it and don't bother me) It's a very basic thing, that proceeds along the lines of "assume not x ... steps ... therefor 1=2" and it proves x, because "not x" cannot be true. Now "tachyon" above is merely "assume something faster than light". and it gives rise to contradiction. I can talk about it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Are you familiar with "thought experiment"? > I immediately decided to be a jerk Jerk is as jerk does. We're at the point where it's impossible to say if your misunderstanding are deliberate or not, since you admit to jerkiness.

yellowapple 6y ago

> because the only way to go back in time is to have a speed greater than infinity And how is that a misconception? That seems to be exactly the thing the "answers" describe: the time it takes to travel from point A to point B being negative, somehow. Even when discussing problems where we've defined that duration to be positive. > Probably because your approach is very confrontational Just because you perceive it to be so doesn't mean it is. Just like, relevantly, how two signals arriving at a reference frame doesn't necessarily indicate the causality of whatever generated those signals. > get directed to a wikipedia page where it's answered It's not answered in said page. If it was then I'd be discussing that answer, rather than continuing to ask for that answer. (Not to mention that just linking some Wikipedia page without any attempt at providing context is itself pretty dismissive, but whatever) Specifically, the "answer" in that page only seems to describe the situation where the signal in its own reference frame is actually travelling faster than c, whereas the very premise of things like warp drives is to, you know, warp spacetime such that the distance covered in that signal's own reference frame is substantially shorter than normal. That is: a tachyonic antitelephone assumes that, you know, the signal exists as tachyons. Citing the concept of a tachyonic antitelephone in the context of a discussion around warping spacetime to shorten the distance entirely (i.e. remove the reliance on tachyons entirely) suggests - to me, at least, with my dumb dropout monkey brain - some implication that any situation where a signal from Point A arrives at Point B (where A and B are, say, 1 lightsecond away) any sooner than 1 second after being sent from Point A necessitates that signal to be treated as tachyonic, no matter what the signal "perceives" in its own reference frame. Thus, my question: why? And if you can't answer that question, then that's perfectly fine! I can't answer that question, either, so it ain't like I'd hold it against you. But if you're going to take the time to dismiss that question as being stupid or misguided or what have you, the least you could do is attempt to explain why it's a stupid question - or, better yet, just answer the question. > Pop science books are a thing, try those instead? Would you care to recommend one? > But combining that with "oh why am I getting downvoted and dismissed" wailing seems disingenuous though. If you actually believed me to be the disingenuous one in this conversation, then why bother continuing to comment? If you don't have anything to contribute, and don't believe I have anything to contribute, then, you could always, you know, leave me to my ignorant wailing :)

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> Just because you perceive it to be so doesn't mean it is. Yes, I see that you're capable of being confrontational all day, and unwilling to follow up via clicking links on your own. Why don't you find someone else to troll?
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Right, because daring to ask "why" is trolling. Apparently it's entirely inconceivable that I did already click the one link provided, read through it yet again (as if it's the only time someone's thrown a Wikipedia link at me), and - finding that it still does not answer my question - indicated such. Asking why tachyonic antitelephones are relevant to a discussion about forms of superluminal communication that do not involve tachyons is not trolling. Like, I'm really not trying to be confrontational here (well, at least I wasn't, until you decided I was and immediately decided to be a jerk about it). These are honest questions I'm asking, and I wouldn't be asking them if the answers were really so obvious that no explanation (beyond "here's a tangentially related Wikipedia link, now bug off") is worthwhile.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > Asking why tachyonic antitelephones are relevant to a discussion about forms of superluminal communication that do not involve tachyons is not trolling. If it's not trolling it's completely missing the entirely of the point. I mean, really? There are no tachyons, it's just a way to talk about literally any forms of superluminal communication. The maths is the same. Are you familiar by "proof by contradiction"? (if not, google it and don't bother me) It's a very basic thing, that proceeds along the lines of "assume not x ... steps ... therefor 1=2" and it proves x, because "not x" cannot be true. Now "tachyon" above is merely "assume something faster than light". and it gives rise to contradiction. I can talk about it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Are you familiar with "thought experiment"? > I immediately decided to be a jerk Jerk is as jerk does. We're at the point where it's impossible to say if your misunderstanding are deliberate or not, since you admit to jerkiness.