3 ms·

> An observer moving with respect to A and B can "hack" this to produce effects before cause in their frame of reference. Again, though: how? Specifically: ho

> An observer moving with respect to A and B can "hack" this to produce effects before cause in their frame of reference. Again, though: how? Specifically: how would a third observer have any impact at all? He's an observer. Judging by that new Wikipedia article, the answer seems to be "well the observer will perceive events at different times from when they actually happened, and therefore two simultaneous lightning strikes weren't actually simultaneous because the observer didn't see them simultaneously", but I'm failing to see why we should be treating the observer's interpretation as fact: just because the observer perceived something at various times doesn't mean that's how they actually played out. Further: > It's no co-incidence that Alice and Bob in the Tachyonic antitelephone are moving with respect to each other, therefor with different frames of reference. Are they, though? This seems to assume that their movement around and perception of each other is only happening through "normal" space, but the very premise of this discussion states otherwise: that they are communicating via a region of spacetime where their distance is fixed (or at least changing much more slowly than the relativistic speeds given in those Wikipedia examples). If Alice and Bob are talking to each other through a wormhole, for example, then through that wormhole they are (approximately) stationary, and therefore there'd be no significant time dilation as far as that communication is concerned. Same deal if they're communicating via "miniature starship enterprises", as you put it. The very premise of a warp drive is to get an object from A to B without any actual movement from A to B - specifically by warping spacetime such that the distance from A grows and the distance from B shrinks. This therefore creates a pathway between A and B where they are effectively stationary relative to one another, specifically because the message is stationary relative to each of them. Therefore, messages conveyed on this pathway don't seem to leave any possibility of time dilation, and therefore no possibility of inverted causality. Now, obviously I'm missing something here, but from what I can tell, the math checks out fine. And a lot of physicists who are not community college dropouts like I am seem to agree (or else they wouldn't be putting forward hypotheses involving warp drives and wormholes and such as a means to achieve superluminal communication without time-dilation-related effects).

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject; Posting long rants on the internets won't get you anything. You're clearly not learning, and neither are you intellectually impressing anyone. > get an object from A to B without any actual movement from A to B This sentence is pure gibberish: You got from A to B in time T ... but you also didn't get from A to B in time T? Ok, whatever. You're splitting hairs about "actual movement" and again in the long and utterly incoherent text about "Alice and Bob in the Tachyonic antitelephone" moving but also not, which I can't be bothered to untangle because I'm not paid to teach people who think they already know a lot more than they really do. Buy a book on the subject, those authors do get paid for this. This kind of posting doesn't help you learn anything. > but from what I can tell, the math checks out fine. I'm going to draw a line here, and I don't mind being a Jerk now, so: What the actual fuck are you talking about? In Physics, "the math" isn't a metaphor, it's math. The math checks out? What math? There's no math here, just waffle. The math is the real thing, as observed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Welp, looks like this turned sour again. Whoops! But hey, I tried, I guess. > Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject Got any recommendations? In fact, I asked you this already, the last time you dickishly suggested I go read books (as if I haven't done that already). > This sentence is pure gibberish Then go read Alcubierre's paper[1]. Expanding spacetime on one side of an object and contracting it on another is exactly what's being described. Maybe "without acceleration in the local frame of reference" rather than "without movement" makes more sense to you? > The math checks out? What math? [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 Oh, or this one from NASA, which even includes pretty slides that your galaxy brain can understand: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20110015936.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20... Now, I tried to be civil, and even went so far as to recognize when I stopped being civil, apologized for it, and tried again. Yet you still insist on being an asshole about it. Well guess what: > There's no math here, just waffle. Yep, "just waffle" is all you've contributed to this discussion, and by the looks of it all you intended to contribute. Gotta flex your intellectual superiority, right? Too bad you're - like me - just another guy on the Internet, so any such superiority you think you might have is illusory, at best. > and I don't mind being a Jerk now You clearly didn't mind being a jerk from the get-go. Probably because that's all you can contribute, but here I was hoping that maybe you'd contribute something else. Oh well. Have a good one, I guess. Maybe next time we run into each other it'll be on more civil terms.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject; Posting long rants on the internets won't get you anything. You're clearly not learning, and neither are you intellectually impressing anyone. > get an object from A to B without any actual movement from A to B This sentence is pure gibberish: You got from A to B in time T ... but you also didn't get from A to B in time T? Ok, whatever. You're splitting hairs about "actual movement" and again in the long and utterly incoherent text about "Alice and Bob in the Tachyonic antitelephone" moving but also not, which I can't be bothered to untangle because I'm not paid to teach people who think they already know a lot more than they really do. Buy a book on the subject, those authors do get paid for this. This kind of posting doesn't help you learn anything. > but from what I can tell, the math checks out fine. I'm going to draw a line here, and I don't mind being a Jerk now, so: What the actual fuck are you talking about? In Physics, "the math" isn't a metaphor, it's math. The math checks out? What math? There's no math here, just waffle. The math is the real thing, as observed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbzWYjVrvpI&t=55s

yellowapple 6y ago
Welp, looks like this turned sour again. Whoops! But hey, I tried, I guess. > Can recommend again that you turn to books on this subject Got any recommendations? In fact, I asked you this already, the last time you dickishly suggested I go read books (as if I haven't done that already). > This sentence is pure gibberish Then go read Alcubierre's paper[1]. Expanding spacetime on one side of an object and contracting it on another is exactly what's being described. Maybe "without acceleration in the local frame of reference" rather than "without movement" makes more sense to you? > The math checks out? What math? [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 Oh, or this one from NASA, which even includes pretty slides that your galaxy brain can understand: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20110015936.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015936/downloads/20... Now, I tried to be civil, and even went so far as to recognize when I stopped being civil, apologized for it, and tried again. Yet you still insist on being an asshole about it. Well guess what: > There's no math here, just waffle. Yep, "just waffle" is all you've contributed to this discussion, and by the looks of it all you intended to contribute. Gotta flex your intellectual superiority, right? Too bad you're - like me - just another guy on the Internet, so any such superiority you think you might have is illusory, at best. > and I don't mind being a Jerk now You clearly didn't mind being a jerk from the get-go. Probably because that's all you can contribute, but here I was hoping that maybe you'd contribute something else. Oh well. Have a good one, I guess. Maybe next time we run into each other it'll be on more civil terms.