Warp - any scientific take on it?

[TCO]

I think I know where you are going wrong, Kitty.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
But I thought you said in the very beginning, that D was past A, when the IMing started. How can D be past A at that time. But then be at A also?

What. The. ****.

D is past A when IMing starts. THE FIRST IM GOES BACKWARDS IN TIME IN D's FRAME!!!!!

WHEN IM GETS TO B, D IS AT A IN HIS FRAME

JESUS ****ING CHISDGFLKDFASDL::SDLG:LKSDJGSDSD:LKSDJGSDLKSDJFLSD K:FSDGLKJSDGF

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
I think I know where you are going wrong, Kitty.

Where I went wrong was in trying to explain this to somebody who doesn't ****ing listen.

[KrazyHorse]

This is either a great troll, or just sad.

[KrazyHorse]

I ****ing posted diagrams for you. Jesus Christ.

I've worked over every part of the problem a half dozen times.

And yet you still refuse to budge from your initial position that an IM in one frame cannot be a backwards time transmission in another frame.

[KrazyHorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[TCO]

It's sad, kitty. Not a troll. Although I'm unsurprised (and at this point amused) at the aggravation. I agree that I need to look and think more seriously about what you wrote. This does not come easy for me. I have zero background in this. Let me put some skull sweat against it, when I am less tired. M'kay?

[KrazyHorse]

nb rtvtrewxd n5i nu 5fvc

[TCO]

no return no not ****?

[KrazyHorse]

I think you need to start more basic.

You have two spaceships. One of them measures things in frame S. The other is moving with velocity in +x direction. Instantaneously at time t=0 (in both frames)they are coincident. This last bit is not necessary, but it makes things simpler.

The question SR seeks to answer is:

if S observes something happening at (t,x,y,z), where does S' observe it happening? i.e. what is (t',x',y',z')?

If we were galileo, we would say the following:

(t,x-vt,y,z)

The term x-vt is there because if an event happens at time t then S' has moved relative to S. This means that the event looks vt further to the left to S'. If the event was at large +ve x to S then it's at a smaller +ve x' to S'. If the event was at -ve x to S then it's at more -ve x' to S'

That's galilean relativity. The position in the direction of motion is relative. Nothing else is relative. Particularly the time component.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

Instead, SR tells us that the answer should be:

(g(t-vx/c^2),g(x-vt),y,z)

Now let us conduct a couple of simple calculations.

Forget about A,B,C and D

At time t=t'=0, George is sitting still in his spaceship.

Matt comes speeding past him at velocity v relative to him in the +x direction

They pass each other, as I said, at t = t' = 0

At some point, whether it's before or after, light from some distant event gets to George. He plots back the time the light took to get to him, and says "Aha!!! That event happened some time after Matt and I passed each other"

He's feeling goofy, so he figures out where the event happened exactly. In his frame, it was:

(vd/c^2,d,0,0)

"What an odd coincidence", he thinks to himself. "There's no particular reason that any event should happen at a time which is such a precise combination of its distance from me, the velocity of Matt with respect to me, and the speed of light". Oh well.

Now, at some other point, Matt gets the light from the same event. He plots back where and when the light came from, and he gets an even more surprising answer.

What is that answer? To get it you must apply the Lorentz transform I taught you earlier.

y = z = 0

t = vd/c^2, x = d

So, the 4-vector of the event, in Matt's observation, is
(g(t-vd/c^2),g(x-vt),y,z) =

(g(vd/c^2-vd/c^2),g(d-v*vd/c^2),0,0) =
(g(0),gd(1-v^2/c^2),0,0) =
(0,d/g,0,0) because 1-v^2/c^2 = 1/g^2

So Matt says: "wow! That happened at the exact moment George and I passed each other!"

Who's right? Who's wrong?

[TCO]

Dude, let me think about it. Perhaps part of the problem comes from your term "observe". That implies light bouncing off an object no? If it is all IMing maybe it's not a problem?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not if a stargate acts like a wormhole.

Yeah huh! Wormhole + Time Dilation = Time travel!

And since it happened in Stargate (the true measure of physical possibility when it comes to these sorts of things) it musts be true!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
If it is all IMing maybe it's not a problem?

Relativity is not merely describing how things look, but how they are. If it looks like something went backwards in time it's because it did. Simple gedankenexperiments like the one of closing the loop with second IM shows that.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not if a stargate acts like a wormhole.

Wait, if,you could create a stable "movable" wormhole, you could create a time machine. I mean just put one end of it on a space ship that travels at near C speed, where time dialates.

But to have a wormhole you would need "exotic matter".

[Perfection]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


Wait, if,you could create a stable "movable" wormhole, you could create a time machine. I mean just put one end of it on a space ship that travels at near C speed, where time dialates.

But to have a wormhole you would need "exotic matter".

Naquadah FTW!