3 ms·

How do you keep saying this regarding communication through time? You're going on about science fiction. Time dilation and "trivial communications backwards in

How do you keep saying this regarding communication through time? You're going on about science fiction. Time dilation and "trivial communications backwards in time" are a stretch, though I am not placing limits in reality, only pointing out that it's nature is not fully worked out.

com2kid 2y ago
> How do you keep saying this regarding communication through time? You're going on about science fiction. That is my point, if we assume instant communication of information is possible, then communication through time is possible. Since that is rather ridiculous, we can assume that instant communication is not possible. Due to time dilation, people traveling on the international space station are actually traveling slower than we are. This isn't just a theoretical problem, GPS satellites have to account for time dilation. This means people on the ISS are literally living a little bit "in the past". Using this fun bit of physics, it becomes a pretty easy thought experiment to figure out a way to get people on rocket ship significantly out of sync with Earth time (just make the rocket ship go really fast for awhile) such that any information sent to the rocket ship, if it was sent using instantaneous communication, would create all sorts of horrible time paradoxes. Again, this isn't some science fiction thing, this is a practical problem with faster than light communication, and it is a really strong commons sense argument for why information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
- illuminant 2y ago
  Your account of the implications of time dilation is completely incorrect. It would be impossible for me to persuade you without a wall of text. They are not "living in the past". Imagine two gears, one smaller and one larger. The smaller makes more iterations. The gears in the larger aren't rotating in the past, they are merely turning more slowly. Your understanding of these matters is not accurate. You mistake your conventional learnings with truth. (Everything you've regurgitated has been popularly conjectured for decades, I could have gotten your reply from Universe in a Nutshell or some similar pop sci anology.)
  - com2kid 2y ago
    > They are not "living in the past". Imagine two gears, one smaller and one larger. The smaller makes more iterations. The gears in the larger aren't rotating in the past, they are merely turning more slowly. I understand how reference frames work, and my point is your explanation falls apart if instantaneous communication is possible, because instantaneous communication breaks the entire idea of reference frames. It doesn't make any sense to instantly send information from one reference frame to another. The entire concept just... like it isn't even a thing that can happen because it literally makes no sense. Shove a ship into space with a magic instantaneous entangled data transmitter that is paired to one on Earth. Have the ship go really fast then land back a few hundred years in the earth's future compared to when it took off. If that ship uses its transmitter, information would be sent "back in time" on Earth, and that makes no bloody sense. And I say magic entangled transmitter because it breaks all the laws of physics and common sense! Information cannot travel instantly, reality falls to pieces if it does. There are circumstances we can come up with where random noise can travel faster than light, but that is the extent of it. > It would be impossible for me to persuade you without a wall of text. > (Everything you've regurgitated has been popularly conjectured for decades, I could have gotten your reply from Universe in a Nutshell or some similar pop sci anology.) The strange part here is you are seemingly well read on the topic but you believe entangled particles can communications faster than light!
    - illuminant 2y ago
      > information would be sent "back in time" You are wrong. Instantaneous communications is possible, and the information would merely be sluggish (like a signal with a much longer sync rate) not go "back in time." Besides, one cannot travel at the speed of light, that is science fiction. An ~80% clip is probably as fast, or comfortably fast as we will ever likely get (in a thousand years at our rate of development.) And you're right, I am well read, and have fifteen years of experience communicating with disembodied jackasses through entanglement (and I've been on the other side of the world, these signals are not propagated classically.) Good luck with your studies, don't let your certainties impair your learning.
      - deleted 2y ago

com2kid 2y ago

> How do you keep saying this regarding communication through time? You're going on about science fiction. That is my point, if we assume instant communication of information is possible, then communication through time is possible. Since that is rather ridiculous, we can assume that instant communication is not possible. Due to time dilation, people traveling on the international space station are actually traveling slower than we are. This isn't just a theoretical problem, GPS satellites have to account for time dilation. This means people on the ISS are literally living a little bit "in the past". Using this fun bit of physics, it becomes a pretty easy thought experiment to figure out a way to get people on rocket ship significantly out of sync with Earth time (just make the rocket ship go really fast for awhile) such that any information sent to the rocket ship, if it was sent using instantaneous communication, would create all sorts of horrible time paradoxes. Again, this isn't some science fiction thing, this is a practical problem with faster than light communication, and it is a really strong commons sense argument for why information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

illuminant 2y ago
Your account of the implications of time dilation is completely incorrect. It would be impossible for me to persuade you without a wall of text. They are not "living in the past". Imagine two gears, one smaller and one larger. The smaller makes more iterations. The gears in the larger aren't rotating in the past, they are merely turning more slowly. Your understanding of these matters is not accurate. You mistake your conventional learnings with truth. (Everything you've regurgitated has been popularly conjectured for decades, I could have gotten your reply from Universe in a Nutshell or some similar pop sci anology.)
- com2kid 2y ago
  > They are not "living in the past". Imagine two gears, one smaller and one larger. The smaller makes more iterations. The gears in the larger aren't rotating in the past, they are merely turning more slowly. I understand how reference frames work, and my point is your explanation falls apart if instantaneous communication is possible, because instantaneous communication breaks the entire idea of reference frames. It doesn't make any sense to instantly send information from one reference frame to another. The entire concept just... like it isn't even a thing that can happen because it literally makes no sense. Shove a ship into space with a magic instantaneous entangled data transmitter that is paired to one on Earth. Have the ship go really fast then land back a few hundred years in the earth's future compared to when it took off. If that ship uses its transmitter, information would be sent "back in time" on Earth, and that makes no bloody sense. And I say magic entangled transmitter because it breaks all the laws of physics and common sense! Information cannot travel instantly, reality falls to pieces if it does. There are circumstances we can come up with where random noise can travel faster than light, but that is the extent of it. > It would be impossible for me to persuade you without a wall of text. > (Everything you've regurgitated has been popularly conjectured for decades, I could have gotten your reply from Universe in a Nutshell or some similar pop sci anology.) The strange part here is you are seemingly well read on the topic but you believe entangled particles can communications faster than light!
  - illuminant 2y ago
    > information would be sent "back in time" You are wrong. Instantaneous communications is possible, and the information would merely be sluggish (like a signal with a much longer sync rate) not go "back in time." Besides, one cannot travel at the speed of light, that is science fiction. An ~80% clip is probably as fast, or comfortably fast as we will ever likely get (in a thousand years at our rate of development.) And you're right, I am well read, and have fifteen years of experience communicating with disembodied jackasses through entanglement (and I've been on the other side of the world, these signals are not propagated classically.) Good luck with your studies, don't let your certainties impair your learning.
    - deleted 2y ago