kindly debunk this

[Gibsie]

To re "appear" there, or to actually be there? If you start off in position A, then go to B, and then go to A, why does travelling faster than X mean that you'd get back to A before you left it? What is it about the speed of light that makes that correct..?

[KrazyHorse]

To actually be there. Do a search through the forums. I explained to GP/TCO how the setup for FTL radio -> sending info back in time works. If you can transport physical objects at FTL then you get physical time travel.

[Straybow]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5699499]Try again. Traveling faster than the speed of light from A to B and then back from B to A would cause the traveler to reappear at A prior to departing A.[/Q]Wrong, doofus. Do the math.

Example: I leave Earth and travel at 365c to Alpha C, the journey takes 4 days and a bit. Then I take the ship back to Earth at the same speed. I get to Earth 8 days and a bit after I left.

If you were observing Alpha C with a super-duper telescope, you would have to wait four years to see my arrival in Alpha C and my departure back to Earth. But that doesn't mean that I actually left Alpha C four years after I returned.

[snoopy369]

I'd agree with you, Straybow, but I'm also aware that physics in the near-c/past-c range makes not the slightest bit of sense to me...

[KrazyHorse]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5699499]Try again. Traveling faster than the speed of light from A to B and then back from B to A would cause the traveler to reappear at A prior to departing A.[/Q]Wrong, doofus. Do the math.

Thanks, but I've taught special relativity, you ****ing moron.

The trick is that even sub-c velocity transforms of FTL travel give travel in negative t

Perhaps you should hold off explaining basic SR to the theoretical physicist again, you ********.

[Ramo]

"Doing the math" without mentioning a Lorentz transform.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, who needs relativity at all? Just ask Straybow what the preferred reference frame is and he'll let you know.

[Kuciwalker]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5699499]Try again. Traveling faster than the speed of light from A to B and then back from B to A would cause the traveler to reappear at A prior to departing A.[/Q]Wrong, doofus. Do the math.

Example: I leave Earth and travel at 365c to Alpha C, the journey takes 4 days and a bit. Then I take the ship back to Earth at the same speed. I get to Earth 8 days and a bit after I left.

If you were observing Alpha C with a super-duper telescope, you would have to wait four years to see my arrival in Alpha C and my departure back to Earth. But that doesn't mean that I actually left Alpha C four years after I returned.

Please tell me this is some lame attempt at satire.

[Dauphin]

Cerenkov proved FTL is possible. Old news.....but then he was a liar and a commie.

And KH, Scarnhorst was also German, but I freely admit I don't know what the basis of his work was but the article above sounds very similar.

[snoopy369]

Thanks, but I've taught special relativity, you ****ing moron.

The trick is that even sub-c velocity transforms of FTL travel give travel in negative t

Perhaps you should hold off explaining basic SR to the theoretical physicist again, you ********.

This of course [travel in -t] is where relativity turns into magic wand waving to me... [either, 'science sufficiently advanced as to be like magic', or, actual magic wand waving, depending on whether the physicists know what they're talking about, or just think they do...]

[Straybow]

*Sigh* Seems KH wants to resurrect this.

My prediction on Saturday: "probably something I wrote off-the-cuff, in which you found some use of layman's terms that didn't exactly describe relativity to suit your PhD understanding, and which you then used to feed your sense of superiority"

I'll again try to explain this with small words. I know, the technique has failed so far, but I still feel it promises a higher probability of success.

If somebody can travel faster than light, then relativity is wrong as presently formulated. It doesn't matter if every egghead physicist says the Lorentz transformation yields a negative or imaginary value at v>c, mathematics is not reality.

I'm sure that last bit will come as a surprise, KH. Sit down, have a drink, breathe deeply for a moment.

[Kuciwalker]

If somebody can travel faster than light, then relativity is wrong as presently formulated.

No.

[Kuciwalker]

Jesus Christ. You're an engineer, right? That means you actually studied physics in college, right? Why the **** am I so much better at it than you are?

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong, doofus. Do the math.

.

mathematics is not reality.

[Asher]

Is he an engineer?