Warp - any scientific take on it?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Perfection
Makes your eyes go crosseyed? As opposed to you ears going crosseyed?

That only happens when it's delivered via audio media.

[Perfection]

Oh well you stick one end of the cable next near to some handy source of high gravity and watch as the cable ends move out of sync.

Womhole, cable, superman in a tube, it's all the same.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Perfection
Oh well you stick one end of the cable next near to some handy source of high gravity and watch as the cable ends move out of sync.

Womhole, cable, superman in a tube, it's all the same.

that's what I figured. Even if it was ESP or the force or something the causality problem would still be encountered.

[Kuciwalker]

Geronimo - assuming the non-wormhole in your example connects solely events A and B, it doesn't break causality because no second message can be sent FTL.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Geronimo - assuming the non-wormhole in your example connects solely events A and B, it doesn't break causality because no second message can be sent FTL.

I think he mean location A and B not events A and B.

[Kuciwalker]

Hm.

Then it breaks, for the same reason regular FTL communication breaks.

[_BuRjaCi_]

I'm sory to bother you guy's, but the diagrams on the previous pages, explaning why you can not go faster than C, without enabiling time-travel, I was wondering if I got them right. Is it right to imagine that 4D space-time has a constant maximum speed and if you wanted to go faster than C in 3D space your "speed" in the temporal dimention would be "negative"? Please don't mock me.

[TCO]

1. I still don't think there is a problem with instantaneous message info transfer from one fixed place to another (in terms of causality). Maybe there are other problems that make it impossible. But not "sending a message back to one's self in the past".

2. Even with the moving ships, I'm not seeing why instantaneous message transfer will allow to send a message back to one's self in the past:

A passes B. At that time B sends an instant message 100 light years to C. One minute later D passes C. At that time (of second passing), D (or C, it doesn't matter), sends an "instant message" back to A. A will now be one minutes run time (d=t/r) past A. That's where, when he gets it. He sends it right back to B. A gets it a minute after he sent it. Even though it traveled more than 200 light years in a minute, it did not go back in A's time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo


In the scenario you quoted there was no wormhole.

In any event I already acknowledged the practical objections to wormholes. This was addressing possible theoretical objections to wormholes being expected as a consequence of current trends in phyics. That is to say I was asking if its expected that large scale wormholes will be found to not be even theoretically possible.

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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Hm.

Then it breaks, for the same reason regular FTL communication breaks.

No, it doesn't...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
1. I still don't think there is a problem with instantaneous message info transfer from one fixed place to another (in terms of causality). Maybe there are other problems that make it impossible. But not "sending a message back to one's self in the past".

You are completely wrong.

Unless you have declared a preferred frame (verboten by SR) then I gave you an example where ships only use FTL when at rest relative to one another.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
1. I still don't think there is a problem with instantaneous message info transfer from one fixed place to another (in terms of causality). Maybe there are other problems that make it impossible. But not "sending a message back to one's self in the past".

2. Even with the moving ships, I'm not seeing why instantaneous message transfer will allow to send a message back to one's self in the past:

A passes B. At that time B sends an instant message 100 light years to C. One minute later D passes C. At that time (of second passing), D (or C, it doesn't matter), sends an "instant message" back to A. A will now be one minutes run time (d=t/r) past A.

Seriously, learn what the Lorentz transforms do or stop talking...

[TCO]

I think part of the problem is that you are invoking something that was already broken with the FTL assumption. My issue is not the FTL is impossible. It very well may be. And I admit to not knowing the math. My kvetech is with the sending messages back in the past to one's self comment. I just showed you how info is transferred 200+ light years in a minute. But that doesn't go back in time to one's self. It goes forward a minute.

[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!!!!

NO. C sends the signal to D, sure. But D already passed A. You said that in the beginning. So it gets back to D, whereever D is now that he passed A.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
I think part of the problem is that you are invoking something that was already broken with the FTL assumption

?

All I'm presuming is Lorentz transforms