Warp - any scientific take on it?

[TCO]

Kitty: thanks for typing the math, but it does not help.

a. I don't know the theory.

b. I still think there is a logical inconsistency in how you are using diagrams and stuff to say that my IMer won't work in the common-sense way that I described. THere might be something in relativity that prevents IMing. But not the back in time thing.

[KrazyHorse]

You are seriously way out of your depth here. I have my doubts that you understand special relativity at all.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
Kitty: thanks for typing the math, but it does not help.

a. I don't know the theory.

b. I still think there is a logical inconsistency in how you are using diagrams and stuff to say that my IMer won't work in the common-sense way that I described. THere might be something in relativity that prevents IMing. But not the back in time thing.

No, you don't know the theory. And this is leading you to state all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. You are making bull**** assumptions about how space and time work. FTL displacement in one frame = backwards in time in another frame. It's as simple as that.

By the way, this is standard material for any class teaching special relativity to undergrad physics students. Either learn the theory (it's not that hard) or accept that your ignorance of the theory is what's causing you to miss the point. Because thousands of physicists understand the causality objection and accept it, and they do know the theory.

[KrazyHorse]

If your IM system works between A and B it has to work the same way between C and D. That's the whole basis of relativity. No preferred frame.

The problem is that what looks like a spacelike communication between C and D looks like a signal moving backward in time to A and B.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Read link. Experiment goes as follows:

A and B at rest. C and D travelling at same constant v relative to A and B.

D passes A at some time before A sends signal. C passes B at exact moment A sends signal to B. C sees B receive signal, sends signal to D. D receives signal when he passes A, before A even sends signal

WTFFFFF!!!!

I think my point was that the concept on it's own does not cause people to get messages back in time.

Look (your same example):

Time 0: D passes A at 60 mph (perpindicular...or is that an issue? I'm just going off our diagram.)

Time 1 minute later, by A's clock: A sends signal to B. B is 100 light years away. Message is IMed.

Time 1 minute later (still): C is passing B. B hands message to C. Or the same message gets to both C and B at same time. (It's an IMer rememeber). Or B IMs it over to C, even though they are right on top of each other.

Time 2 minutes later: Either one of those dudes IMs response messaage to D. D is now 2 minutes down the track.

Time 2 minutes later (still): D forwards the IM to A right away.

Time 2 minutes later (still): A gets a response to his message to B 1 minute AFTER he sent it (not back before he sent it!) IT went over 200 light years in a aminute to get his answer, but he still did not get it bfore he sent it.

Time 2 minutes later

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


I think my point was that the concept on it's own does not cause people to get messages back in time.

Look (your same example):

Time 0: D passes A at 60 mph (perpindicular...or is that an issue? I'm just going off our diagram.)

Not perpendicular. In those diagrams the vertical axis is time and the horizontal space (specifically, x). All this is happening colinearly.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You are seriously way out of your depth here. I have my doubts that you understand special relativity at all.

I'm surprise, you thought I ever knew anything about it. I've never claimed to.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not perpendicular. In those diagrams the vertical axis is time and the horizontal space (specifically, x). All this is happening colinearly.

Is that important? What if it is perpindicular? How about my IMing. I'm starting to really enjoy the play on words.

[Jon Miller]

SR is really very easy. And unintuitive. So break out a book!

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


I think my point was that the concept on it's own does not cause people to get messages back in time.

Look (your same example):

Time 0: D passes A at 60 mph (perpindicular...or is that an issue? I'm just going off our diagram.)

Time 1 minute later, by A's clock: A sends signal to B. B is 100 light years away. Message is IMed.

Time 1 minute later (still): C is passing B. B hands message to C. Or the same message gets to both C and B at same time. (It's an IMer rememeber). Or B IMs it over to C, even though they are right on top of each other.

Time 2 minutes later: Either one of those dudes IMs response messaage to D. D is now 2 minutes down the track.

Time 2 minutes later (still): D forwards the IM to A right away.

Time 2 minutes later (still): A gets a response to his message to B 1 minute AFTER he sent it (not back before he sent it!) IT went over 200 light years in a aminute to get his answer, but he still did not get it bfore he sent it.

Time 2 minutes later

No. No, no, no. No.

You have separated time and space. They are not separate. When C sees B get the message, he is at time t = 1 minute. BUT HE OBSERVES A SEND THE MESSAGE AFTER HE OBSERVES B RECEIVE IT. And not just because of lightspeed delay. When I use the word "observes", it accounts for lightspeed. B and C's clocks are synchronised at the same point in space, and A and B's clocks are synchronised everywhere, BUT A's CLOCK IS NOT SYNCHRONISED WITH C. If you ask A and B what time it is at B, they will agree. So will C. But if you ask what time it is at A, A and B will agree, but C will DISAGREE.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


Is that important? What if it is perpindicular? How about my IMing. I'm starting to really enjoy the play on words.

Perpendicular boosts don't affect measurement along x

If it's perpendicular then things work more intuitively.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Perpendicular boosts don't affect measurement along x

If it's perpendicular then things work more intuitively.

So if they move perpindicularly, they can IM and not get messages from a couple minutes before they sent them?

[KrazyHorse]

I think so, yes.

[Jon Miller]

perpindicular is just classical relativety. So I would think so as well.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If there was an obvious causality problem with wormholes I would probably know about it.

What about my time dilation arguement through GR?