kindly debunk this

[KrazyHorse]

Tardbow:

1) No, you can have FTL in a relativistic framework. You just have to give up causality, as I've been explaining.
2) Even if relativity is wrong IT IS MORE RIGHT THAN SIMPLE GALILEAN TRANSFORMS (we have OBSERVED Galilean transforms being wrong, while SR is right to as many decimal places as we can currently measure). You have been implicitly presuming that Galilean transforms are correct in order to "demonstrate" that FTL does not violate causality.

Now just admit that you didn't have any clue what the **** you were talking about, and that you should have listened and asked questions instead of responding angrily from ignorance as you did.

For your edification, start reading here and continue as far as you need:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4770753&postcount=95

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, KH and KH Jr, back off. Stray is right that relativity doesn't describe reality.

Just as Galilean transforms are an approximation, so are Einsteinian mechanics. Where did stray say that he thought that the Galilean transforms were more accurate?

[KrazyHorse]

The chances of you having anything worthwhile to say are nil, BK. I'm not clicking on your message. You don't even understand the coordinate singularity in a simple Schwarzchild metric.

[Asher]

Schwarzchild

The Felch - Starchild lovechild.

[David Floyd]

BK and Strawbow vs. KH in a physics (although you can probably replace "physics" with "x", if "x" is defined as any rational topic) debate =

[Straybow]

[Q=KrazyHorse;4770761]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!!!![/Q] Correct, but for the wrong reasons, moron. The graph is wrong, moron. The red horizontal arrow is wrong, moron, that is instantaneous communication. There is nothing empowering C to communicate in the -t direction as portrayed, moron.

I've fixed the image. The yellow lines are the c-limited communication lines (delta t = delta x/c). If Edward could move or communicate faster than light (pink line), he could see A communicating to B (orange line), and tell Dave about it at the pink dot before Dave intercepts the communication to B at the orange dot. No causality violation. Learn, and stop being a moron.

[Felch]

Schwarzchild

The Felch - Starchild lovechild.

You've discovered our terrible secret.

One time I got really high, and came to the conclusion that the entire universe is inside of a low density black hole, with a gigantic Schwarzchild radius. That's the danger of mixing a liberal arts education, weed, and wikipedia.

[Kuciwalker]

he continues! And he shows EVEN MORE that he doesn't actually understand the principle of relativity!

[Kuciwalker]

Correct, but for the wrong reasons, moron. The graph is wrong, moron. The red horizontal arrow is wrong, moron, that is instantaneous communication.

The graph is of instantaneous FTL radio. Moron.

[KrazyHorse]

I can't even read his post. The stupidity was giving me a headache.

It's hilarious that he can't admit how wrong he was even after all this.

[KrazyHorse]

The key point about relativity is that time and space are not what you think they are. Every relativistic "paradox" I've seen boils down to this.

[Straybow]

[Q=Kuciwalker;5721719]

Correct, but for the wrong reasons, moron. The graph is wrong, moron. The red horizontal arrow is wrong, moron, that is instantaneous communication.

The graph is of instantaneous FTL radio. Moron.[/Q] Actually, no. Instantaneous communication would be parallel to line Q-R. From C's perspective, it is P-Q that travels in the -t direction, arriving before it was transmitted.

This tells me that the mathematical model is incomplete. It can't accommodate any FTL motion or communication because that violates it's initial conditions as a model. It doesn't tell us anything except that the math doesn't apply.

[Ramo]

You tell 'em, Stray.

[Kuciwalker]

[Q=Kuciwalker;5721719]

Correct, but for the wrong reasons, moron. The graph is wrong, moron. The red horizontal arrow is wrong, moron, that is instantaneous communication.

The graph is of instantaneous FTL radio. Moron.[/Q] Actually, no. Instantaneous communication would be parallel to line Q-R. From C's perspective, it is P-Q that travels in the -t direction, arriving before it was transmitted.

OMG are you even reading what you write.

Alice communicates instantaneously with Bob, i.e. in Alice's reference frame the time component of the vector separating the events "Alice sends a transmission" (P) and "Bob receives a transmission" (Q) is 0. Alice and Bob are both at rest relative to our frame of reference and each other. Therefore the line between P and Q is horizontal.

Bob transmits Alice's message to Carol, who happens to be whizzing by him at the exact moment (Q) at some nonzero speed wrt both himself and Alice. Carol immediately uses her instant radio to send the message to Dave, who is at rest relative to Carol and moving (at the same speed as Carol) wrt us, Alice, and Bob. Because it is an instant radio, this means that the time component of the vector separating events "Carol sends a transmission" (again Q) and "Dave receives a transmission" (R) is again 0 in Carol's reference frame. When you translate said vector into our reference frame, it turns out that R is strictly prior to P.

Poof. Causality broken.

If you say "well that proves the math is wrong", all you're doing is reaffirming the statement "relativity, causality, FTL: pick two".

[Asher]

I believe Straybow is trying to open a rift in the space-time continuum with his argument.