Back to a little science!!! The real reason why we may not be able to travel faster than light.

[RolandCuthbert]

Most folks know about the speed of light and all of the problems with trying to build a ship that could travel at that speed.

1. As you approach the speed of light the mass of your ship would approach infinity.

2. Time dilation. Even if you were able to build the craft that could do it, from your perspective, you would never process the second or millisecond where you reached the speed of light.

3. It would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.

These barriers are the result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. But even Einstein gave us an out when it comes to traveling faster than light. The trick is not to move an object through space. But to move the space the object is in. Einstein's laws say nothing about space itself being moved. So there are models and theories now about how to build a warp bubble, allowing for this type of travel.

But there is also the possibility of constructing or using a wormhole. You could have a path through spacetime that connects two distant points. And the wormhole through spacetime would give you almost instantaneous travel no matter how far away these locations are from each other.

Then lastly, there is teleportation. We could build a device that could analyze a person's body at the planck length of spacetime. Each planck unit could be copied and transported via a form of "entanglement" to a distant location.

But all of this could be moot.

Because of the one thing we have overlooked for decades;

FTL travel breaks casuality.

We could literally break the universe by building a successful FTL ship or simply by building a FTL message system. Consider that if we built a ship and traveled to a distant location. The ship doesn't even FTL capability. Let's just say it went at 90% of the speed of light. If we started off on a distant journey, we would experience time dilation. According to Einstein, our "clock", our time", would tick slower than a person's time here on earth.

Now imagine if a person wanted to send us an instantaneous message using some FTL messaging system. A person could send a message to us, four hours after we left the earth. That's four hours from his/her perspective. We would receive that message approximately two hours into our journey. Actually it would be slightly less.

And here is the important thing. We receive the message two hours into our journey. . .but message is received in the past for the person on earth. Remember, our clock is moving half as fast as a clock on earth. So we could reply. . .and our reply would travel back in time from the perspective of anyone who is still here on earth.

They would receive a reply to a message, that they never sent. Or more accurately have not sent yet. You might say what's the big deal? What if the message says. . ."do not send any messages, it is a matter of life or death".

How could we receive a message that was never sent? And the paradoxes just get worse from there. If you are traveling faster than light, you can go to a distant world and come back before you left. You can cause all manner of nonsense because the rules of casuality do not apply anymore.

Once I read about this, it kind of messed me up. I am a big fan of Star Trek.

https://www1.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section10.html

[Daniela1982]

How can you even send a message to someone who is traveling at faster than light speed when the message is only traveling at the speed of light. It could never catch up with you. Not only that, traveling that fast, if you even hit a grain of sand it would create catastrophic damage and possibly destroy your ship.

[Daniela1982]

Also you couldn't teleport anyplace without having a receiver on the other end.

[RolandCuthbert]

We didn’t send a message to someone traveling at light speed. We sent an instantaneous message. That is much faster than light speed. And we did to a ship that was traveling about 90 percent of light speed.

Why respond to a take you didn’t even bother to read?

[RolandCuthbert]

So dull. All you have to do is send a ship with all the necessary equipment, supplies, etc. needed. It could navigate the dangers of space without the need to sacrifice human beings.

[Daniela1982]

Please explain an instantaneous message. I'm not seeing how that is possible. It can happen on Earth because the distance is not far. But when we are talking hundreds of light years it's a different matter.

[RolandCuthbert]

If you have watched Star Trek or Star Wars you have seen a fictional
depiction of instantaneous communications. Whenever Uhura contacted a distant planet or station that was instantaneous. Whenever a ship engaged long range sensor scans, ditto. The point is we may not be able to develop the technology even if can create a blueprint for a working model. Because an actual model could break casuality.

[Daniela1982]

And we know how fake Star Trek and Star Wars was. Uhura will now be turning in her grave.

[RolandCuthbert]

You don’t really bother with thinking before posting. Right?

Whatever comes out just comes out. It doesn’t have to be relevant, make sense or even be sane.

That’s amazing.

[Daniela1982]

I'm talking reality and you are talking fiction from what I am seeing. It took the New Horizons space craft 9.5 years to get to Pluto which is 3 Billion miles. The only way we are going to achieve even light speed is by some alien showing us how to. And you could only achieve that between galaxies. Going at the speed of light would not allow you to avoid any object that you might run into.

[findacure4wokeness]

@daniela1982 Roland is less smart and more of a smartass. There are theories like quantum entanglement That suggests that 2 partiicals can have an instant effect on each other regardless of the distance, so some communication device based on this would make two way communication possible. the other way i think you could send messages in via conventional radio waves that travel the speed of light. the sigal would catch up to you because you in the space craft would be traveling at sub light speeds but I'm not sure if incoming message would be affected by Doppler because the radio waves will still hit the space craft at the speed of light from the perspective of the space craft. this is possible because of the time dilation effect.

[RolandCuthbert]

@findacure4wokeness Wow, you actually are an idiot.

This take was a thought experiment. But leave it to you to come shit all over it.

The point, which of course is lost on you, is that FTL breaks casual connections. Meaning that effects can happen before their actual causes. I don't expect for you to understand science. You don't understand basic things like logic and rational thinking.

But back to my point. If you could communicate faster than light, then you could send information about events faster than they could be known otherwise. The maximum speed for information is the speed of light in a vacuum. And sending information instantly breaks that barrier.

Now, we have no idea how to send information instantly. We have looked at quantum entanglement because the theory in Quantum Mechanics says that entangled particles can communicate over any distance instantly. The problem, of course, is that there is no way to control that supposed communication. The effects of Quantum Entanglement are random.

That's why Einstein's speed limit still holds as it basically states;

NO USABLE INFORMATION CAN BE SENT FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Now I don't expect you to be able to actually opine on this, because well. . . again you are an idiot.

But Daniela was trying to make the argument that FTL communication does not break casuality. And of course, it does.

At this stage, we don't know what would be the effect of breaking casuality. Perhaps the universe finds a way to maintain it. We just do not know. I thought it was an interesting point that came up while all of this research was being published on faster than light travel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHusZ5QWFrQ&t=487s

[findacure4wokeness]

@RolandCuthbert That's incel behavior right there hating women because you can't get laid, You are one of the most disliked people on GaG. And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

[RolandCuthbert]

@findacure4wokeness Haha!!!

What you. . . fucking five?

I am a grown man. Do you think I give fuck about this playground where, I am not one of the popular kids?

Little incel, you are hilarious. I wear the most hated badge with pride.

[goaded]

I'm still trying to get my head around the argument, but I'd just like to mention a really good book called Timescape, from 1980. I think you might enjoy it.

[goaded]

Don't read the Wikipedia page, it's full of spoilers!

[goaded]

"If I move at 90% the speed of light. My clock will tick at a fraction of yours. And what may be six hours for you, will be two hours for me. If send me a message, I will receive it in your past. And when I reply, it will be in your past."
But isn't the Earth moving away at 90% the speed of light, from your point of view? If you looked back at the Earth, days would last 72 hours.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yep, the earth is moving away at 90% of the speed of light. But we are talking about how time clicks in our reference frame. If you had a transmission that showed you the passage of time on earth, you would wonder why everyone is moving so fast.

So let's get the correct time scale, first.

At 90% of the speed of light, 72 hours on earth, would mean about 32 hours on the ship.

If we could send a simple message instantaneously or faster than the speed of light, that message would be received by the ship in what the earth would consider to be the past.

You have to understand that for every tick of the clock on the ship, several ticks are pass on earth. So let's just say four hours passed on earth. . . well only two hours have passed on the ship. This transformation is a two way street.

Think about geometry. Imagine a X-Y axis. The Y axis goes straight up. The X axis is horizontal, left to right. Now imagine drawing a line at a 45 degree angle from the starting point of the X-Y axis, point zero all the way out effectively diving the upper-right quadrant into two.



If I set a scale of for the Y-axis. . . and set some arbitrary increment for hours. Then marked off four hours at some point going up. . . I could draw a straight horizontal line going over to the line drawn at a 45 degree angle.

I think we can agree that if we measured from 0 to 4 on the Y axis. . . that would be shorter than where we intersected the line drawn at a 45 degree angle.

This is to illustrate that time passes more quickly on the Y-axis. And on the line drawn at 45 degree, time has passed more slowly.

cont'd

[RolandCuthbert]

Now imagine, Earth is the Y-axis. And the movement up the Y-axis is its movement through time. And a ship is the line drawn at the 45 degree angle. If we drew the diagram correctly using our time dilation calculator. Drawing a horizontal line straight across at 4 hours would intersect the "ship" or the line at a 45 degree angle at 2 hours into its journey.

Now let's consider this situation from the perspective of the ship. All we know is that two hours into our journey a message comes over. We respond immediately sending a message back telling them to turn off their transmitter.

Now, think about this. If two hours into our journey means four hours on earth, what do we perceive about the message? I mean it is pretty evident to us, the message appeared to travel backwards in time. Because four hours have elapsed on earth.

So we get the message. . . and we reply.

Remember all of this information is being transmitted, instantly. Not at the speed of light. I think that is where you are not getting it.

If I instantly send a message back, it is traveling faster than light. It arrives in earth's past. And I can tell earth to stop transmitting all messages. . . before they even send one.

We are talking about what would considered to be an objectively simultaneous moment.

[goaded]

The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible. :)

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha!!! It might be. But one thing is for certain FTL is time travel. We know through Einstein, that faster than light moves you backwards through time.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I remember being a kid and trying to imagine what it would be like to travel at the speed of light, or even faster. I had a really old set of encyclopedias that my grandmother gave me in the 1980s. I believe they were from the 1950s. There was a rudimentary section in one of them on the "prelude" to this. If I remember, it was written by a physicist and/or astronomer, from Iceland maybe? He described a person/people traveling away from Earth at the speed of light for 40 years, and then turning around and traveling back to Earth. He theorized that something like 10,000 or more years would've passed on Earth in those 80 years traveled by that person/those people. I grew up watching Star Trek (mostly The Next Generation) and Star Wars, and often wondered if his theory was correct, and if it really could be realized, would it be worth leaving everyone you know behind to "boldly go"? Almost like experiencing the "curse" of immortality. You're alive, you come back, and everyone you ever knew is gone. Sort of a similar premise to Futurama, I suppose.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, in Star Trek especially, they propose faster than light travel. Not just travel close to light speed. We know if you travel close to the speed of light, you will experience time dilation. We know this because you phone wouldn't work if time dilation didn't exist. The time devices on satellites have to take it into account when working with GPS systems.

But in Star Trek, a ship can travel from here to Alpha Centuri in a couple of hours.

And the fact that FTL can break the casual connections is the problem. As physicists explain, if you travel at light speed, your speed is 0. Basically, you experience no change in time.

But if you go faster than light, you will experience moving backwards in time.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I guess experiencing time minus at warp plus would cancel the perceived "accelerated" passage of time on Earth, if that theoretically really does happen? Eventually, only time will tell.

Teleportation is another important technological goal, and one I would argue we should be focusing on even more than warp travel. Along with the obvious applications in/for space, being able to teleport on Earth would eliminate commuting and atmospheric pollution. Of course you wouldn't want to accidentally teleport yourself to oblivion. The scene from Wrath Of Khan (the interaction between Kirk and McCoy) on the Regula One teleporter still makes me laugh:
https://youtu.be/Uy2yZ2HIOeI
Of course it's a great movie with many great lines. 40th anniversary also.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well that's the thing engineers are trying to address with warp travel. Because just traveling near light speed would kind of suck in terms of time passage on earth. You would go on a mission and by the time you got back, your children would have passed away from old age.

Teleportation is something viable. You could send the appropriate equipment to a distant system, then activate it. But it wouldn't like Star Trek's teleporters. They only transport limited distance and it appears to do it at the speed of light. Because they are turning your mass/body into energy, transporting the signal, the reintegrating you.

The teleportation I talked about is actually instantaneous. And it uses cloning. If we could create a machine to clone every single planck unit of your being, it should still be you when you materalize on the other end.

Brian Green explains it best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTe2PYwnEpc&t=319s

[NYCQuestions1976]

That's pretty wild technology. The only thing that would make me nervous about teleportation via cloning is the "copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etcetera" effect. Would our physical/biological/particle existence start to experience degradation after X number of teleportations, similar to the way photocopies fade? They mentioned that they've transported dozens of particles, but they didn't really cover transporting the same particle multiple times to study those results. Which to me, would also be super important. Of course a potential positive side effect could be being able to transport yourself to another pod if you're suffering from a terminal illness or cancer, and being cloned/reconstituted without that illness or cancer. If you're getting right down to particle level, I don't see why that wouldn't be a possibility. That'd be awesome also.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know if you saw this in the video, but Quantum Entanglement demands that the original always be destroyed. The issue I think, is that really you on the other end. That is a philosophical question.

Have you ever heard of the riddle of The Ship of Theseus?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldoh71uNZmk

The issue of cloning doesn't really exist, because there will never be an original. It is always destroyed. This process Quantum Entanglement is something we experience everyday, but we don't see it particles are constantly becoming entangled. These particles make up, you, me, and the entire universe.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Watching that video made me think of this:
https://youtu.be/LW8Njzh3_2U
I also saw this unfortunate news. Another original is gone:
apnews.com/.../nichelle-nichols-obit-79e23f4dfbc08afb02380ce442fc3302

[AviatorTom]

Interesting post, thank you.

My take on the whole travel faster than light (FTL) thing is that we humans don't really know.

Time is not a universal property, it's created by humans. Speed involves distance per unit time, and is therefore also a human created measurement, not a universal property. The speed of light as a constant is, therefore, something created by humans, and the human-created limitation that one can't travel faster than the speed of light is simply based on the fact that the equations (created by humans) don't support it.

Like you, I too am a Trekkie, and the concept of a warp bubble created by warp engines could simply be an expansion of human-created physics to what the universe actually supports.

Not that long ago, humans said travel faster than the speed of sound was impossible, then Chuck Yeager in his X-1 did it. Maybe 2063 will see Zefram Cochrane travel at warp speed and prove that FTL travel is possible.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I definitely agree, we don't know. We haven't scratched the surface yet. We created a microscopic wormhole. We have seen Quantum Entanglement. The rest is nothing but conjecture and theory. We need models to test the different types of drives that are just concepts now. There is so much to do. But we are getting more and more investment in the science because folks are seeing this as a business opportunity.

Of course, Time is a concept we created. But we did not create casual relationships. You see when I talk about the speed of light, I really mean the speed of information or. . . of casual relationships.

Casuality cannot more faster than the speed of light. The fastest speed, we can even know about an event, is the speed of light. To know something faster than that is to break casuality.

That is the concern.

Who knows? Maybe the universe steps in and does something to block knowledge or transmissions. Maybe something happens similar to the speed of light. Where before casuality is broken, a barrier is erected.

I dunno.

No one does. But we won't know until we start building actual models and testing this stuff.

[msmissydc]

So to your last part. No we can never arrive before we left. We moves slower true time yes, but still allways forward. We can travel into the future but dont have a way back.
About the message part: It would be a theoretical concept that is at first not related to the other parts. Because that would actually need FTL capabilities. Maybe not for particles but for information. At this point in time as far as I know there is no such thing as a theoretical concept, that this could be possible without disproving relativity.

[RolandCuthbert]

We move forward at different rates. You are not understanding this.

Time dilates when objects are in motion, with respect to objects that are at rest.

If I move at 90% the speed of light. My clock will tick at a fraction of yours. And what may be six hours for you, will be two hours for me. If send me a message, I will receive it in your past. And when I reply, it will be in your past.

I didn't travel backwards in time from my perspective.

I traveled to your past.

And all you have to do to understand that is to use the Lorentz transformation to switch to my reference frame.

Start at 10:00. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTf4eqdQXpA&t=755s

[msmissydc]

This still implies that there is FTL Travel for information.

[RolandCuthbert]

It isn't implying that all.

Did you read mytake?

The point was we were always taught that if we only figured out the rules for FTL, we could live like Star Trek in the future.

But that may not be true. Because we would be breaking casuality. We only know of an universe where cause must proceed effect.

Now maybe that is the case or maybe it isn't. Or maybe casuality is preserved in some other way. We simply do not know. I was just giving an example of the possible consequences of FTL travel or FTL messaging.

It is basically the same thing. Because we are talking about the fastest possible speed of usable information.

[msmissydc]

"Now imagine if a person wanted to send us an instantaneous message using some FTL messaging system."

[RolandCuthbert]

Uhm, I don't understand.

I never said an FTL messaging system existed. I am just posting science using English.

FTL messaging does not exist. FTL travel does not exist. This take explains the problems that arise if we discover a way to travel faster than light or send a message..

So what is your question or concern? Because so far you have been wrong about time dilation, special relativity, and clock rates for different reference frames.

[msmissydc]

You are not understanding. I literally quoted you. Your concept implies that in this situation (theoretical). A FTL message system exists. This starts the paradox in the first place. Because otherwise the person could never receive a message as fast as this theoretical concept needs to create a paradox. I am not saying the travel time and time dilation is wrong that is all correct. Just your last part when you say if we travel FTL we arrive earlier than we took of is wrong. In short: you (the video) talk about not going faster than light and how this still produces paradoxes but imply a FTL message to create the paradox.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well yes, there are paradoxes for FTL messaging when you have ships that can travel near the speed near the speed of light. Because as I illustrated, you can break casuality.

Oh. . . and you are wrong about FTL.

FTL by definition is time travel.

Let's test this.

Tell me this, what do you perceive about the universe if you can travel at the speed of light? Not faster. . . just at the speed of light.

[RealMarek]

I think the way time dilation works, if you were able to send messages in a warp bubble (instantly) it would work like this:

Earth-based person sends message at four hours into the journey according to earth time, the person on the spacecraft receives it two hours into the journey according to spacecraft time. If the space-person replies two hours later (total of four hours according to the spacecraft’s time), the earth-based person receives it at eight hours after launch according to earth time. The message doesn’t go back in time, the gap in elapsed time between the spacecraft and earth widens the longer the journey continues. The perceived time between messages on earth is greater than the perceived time between messages on the spacecraft.

[RolandCuthbert]

You seem to be talking transmissions happening at the speed of light. We are talking about instantaneous communications. I ask this of everyone who questions this logic which is based on Einstein. If you send a message at the speed of light, from the perspective of the message, how much time elapses.

Or let’s make this even worse. Let’s say you go on a mission to Proxima Centuri, which is 4.5 light years away. When you engage your engines to travel at light speed how much time does it take you? And of course, from your perspective. Not anyone else’s.

[RACSKC0B]

I can't keep reading.
Why would time stop being just because you reached the speed of light?
All things being relative, you should still experience the passage of time, if you didn't then how would you travel any distance?
Time is required, even for light, to get from one place to another.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are kidding right? The fact that time stops at the speed of light isn’t a hypothesis. It is a proven fact. We only have to look at a photon. We only have to look at what happens in particle accelerators. And all of our physics in the classical realm is dependent upon Einstein’s discovery. Your speed through spacetime must always equal the 186000 miles per second. And if you are moving through space, your movement through time must be conserved.

[RACSKC0B]

I'm not saying that it won't slow down significantly, relative to someone else, but it can not completely stop. If time stops for things traveling at TSL, they would be trapped, forever traveling at TSL.
Relative to someone on earth, yes, you would experience significantly less time. But it can not be 0.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course it completely stops. Again, are you kidding? Have you found the greatest scientific discovery since Einstein and are just hanging out on the internet instead of raking in billions? Time stops completely at the speed of light with respect to the passenger. From the outside we could look inside the vessel and see the clock stopped. To us everyone inside would be frozen.

And from their perspective they would not notice a thing. They would simply know that at light speed all their journeys happen instantaneously. Einstein is no joke. He said that momentum must be conserved. You are constantly moving forward with respect to time. If you move through space at the speed of light you cannot have any momentum through time. It is a fact of life. Where have you been for the last 120 years? You only have to watch the first two minutes.

https://youtu.be/au0QJYISe4c

[RACSKC0B]

OK so how far does light travel in, I don't know let's say 100 seconds (to keep the math simple), in whatever standard measure of distance you prefer? In a theoretical pure vacuum, of course.

[RACSKC0B]

Hint: When multiplying by a multiple of 10, you just move the decimal place to the right one time for each of the 0s in the multiple of 10.

[RolandCuthbert]

You ask the question so weird. If you are an observer you will see light travel at 186,000 miles per second. We are talking about what a photon experiences.

A photon does not experience time nor distance. It is emitted and absorbed in the same moment from its perspective.

I mean, I am talking to a brick wall. You keep basing your argument upon what you think is common sense.

Your common sense and scientific fact are not related.

Try starting at 1:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE&t=56s

[RACSKC0B]

No I'm asking how far light, in a theoretical pure vacuum, would travel in 100 seconds?
Your answer,186,000 miles, was wrong.
So I don't know how you're the one who feels like their talking to a brick wall.
I even have you a hint about multiplying by multiples of ten, and it didn't help.
So maybe you could tone down the "I'm smarter then everyone ever" attitude, and just do away with the insults, thanks.
So now, the question I asked is simple enough. It's obvious you know the answer, I'll accept that I worded it poorly, if we can continue.
Please and thank you.
186,000×100=18,600,000 miles
Correct?
Can we agree on this, without being unnecessarily condescending?

[RolandCuthbert]

The question depends upon perspective. If you are the photon you will never sense any change in distance or time. You stated your question without context. Again from your perspective you would see a photon traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Why you added the math of 100 seconds is beyond me. Do you think I lack access to a calculator?

I am trying to explain Einstein’s theories. What theory are you trying to explain?

[RACSKC0B]

No it really doesn't, it's pretty straight forward, how far light travels in a theoretical pure vacuum is a well established value at this point. As you stated is 186,000 miles per second.
If you simply use a standard formula namely:
V×T=D
You should find your answer really easily, or you could just read the answer I gave in my last post.
I'm not sure what part of this you're not getting, because you seem to have all of the information but refuse to just say "yes, it would be 18,600,000, I agree." When you know that's exactly what it is.
Instead you're trying to argue frame's of reference.
So fine here let's try this, if you and I are traveling towards each other, and you are traveling at the speed of light, and I'm traveling at half the speed of light, how fast will you appear to be going from my perspective?

[Adam1978]

No your wrong if I leave earth four hour before I get sent a message. I will have been traveling for over four hours when it reaches me. When I reply to this message it will take slightly longer to send it back. Since I have traveled further away. So the reply will arrive much later from the person on earth view point. Time is relative. No paradox on either end they both experience the same order just within different time frames.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! No dude. You didn't read the scenario.

If you travel at 87% of light speed, you will experience time dilation of one half. So if if one hour passes on earth, you will experience a time passage of 30 minutes.

Note; you will never know how quickly time passed on earth. You are in your own reference frame not noticing a thing.

Here is a time dilation calculator. 87% of the speed of light is 261,000 km/s. If you punch the numbers in you will see your relativistic time is twice that of earth time. And the most important part is, having an FTL messaging system. FTL means faster than light.

www.omnicalculator.com/physics/time-dilation

[Adam1978]

Doesn't matter if you have a ftl message system, it still arrives in the same order you put the message into them. You just reduces the message travel time. So you will never get a reply for a message before it's written. Independent of what direction the ship is traveling compared to the observer.

[RolandCuthbert]

This is hilarious. . . you are stating your error without realizing it. Let's say you have a sub-space messaging system just like on Star Trek. If you notice, Star Trek has instant communications. The problem is that the reference frames are never reflected on television.

If a person is stationary sending a message, then that message will arrive in their past with respect to the person traveling at relativistic speeds.

This isn't my theory. The was created and proven over 100 years ago by a guy named Einstein. And the theory again, is called "The Special Theory of Relativity".

You are not getting time dilation.

But if you don't understand physics, it is kind of hard to grasp.

[Adam1978]

Well it's certainly hard to grasp but it's still not possible to send a message into someone elses time frames past. You can only stretch or compress the time frames. They still remain linear. PBS space time on youtube have many topics like this. And it always breaks down when you take each reference into account. You need a third observers view point to experience some odd behaviors like that. That person can see one party respond to a message before they see the other party send it.

[RolandCuthbert]

It isn't possible because we haven't built an FTL messaging system. We haven't built a FTL travel system.

Do you understand what the take is about?

I state it pretty plainly. "The real reason why we may not be able to travel faster than light."

You are telling me what you can or can't do without citing my premise. Of course you can't send a message to someone's past without an FTL messaging system or without building a ship that can travel at relativistic speeds.

And PBS Spacetime details this.

Cool World details this.

There are several scientific papers that detail this.

What in the world are you reading?

PBS Space Time deconstructs Time Paradoxes for FTL. And this physicists simply says all FTL is invalidated because of the Paradox. Its like you don't understand physics at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUMGc8hEkpc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUMGc8hEkpc

[Adam1978]

I never said that you couldn't build one, I just told you what would happen if you had one. And the video confirm that timetravel isn't possible even with faster than light speed just like I said. The assumption that light is the fastest speed you can reach. Is just that an assumption. Maybe light has a mass, it's just so small we haven't been able to measure it. Almost all formulas assume lightspeed and a mass of zero.

[RolandCuthbert]

Uhm. . . exactly five seconds into the video Matt says, "traveling faster than light and traveling backwards in time are the same thing".

So why would you pretend that you watched the video? Then pretend the video supports your assertion. . . which you don't even seem to be sure of.

As for the rest of your post, you are challenging Einstein's Special Relativity.

Matt would never do that. Because Einstein has been tested again and again. . . and he has only been proven right. Only massless objects can move at the speed of light in this theory. Why you are even challenging that is beyond reason and sanity.

Everything Matt talks about respects Einstein's theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo&t=613s

[Adam1978]

Only from your own view points, not from your destinations view point. You are always moving forward in time. You can get illusions like the ship traveling backwards but it doesn't make the ship travel backwards. If we set a course towards a starsystem 10 lightyears away we are viewing it's past so, if we travel there faster than light, we will appear in their future because we will always catch up. So we will see 10 year go by faster than 10 years. They will see nothing until your ship slows down and you will appear from thin air and create the double ship affect, if we look back at earth we can view the past but we aren't in the past. If we go back to earth we will arrive after we left. We will just be younger than we would if we had stayed. Ie people on earth will have aged and experienced more time than anyone on the ship.

[RolandCuthbert]

Let's take this apart. Clearly you are not watching the videos or you have no idea of what Matt is saying.

1. You are always moving forward in time from your own perspective. If you are traveling at the speed of light, you are frozen from other perspectives. And if you are moving faster than light, your clock would appear to move backwards from other perspectives. In your own reference frame, you wouldn't notice a thing. Read the theory of Special Relativity for goodness sakes.

www.space.com/36273-theory-special-relativity.html

2. Do you agree that if you traveled at the speed of light, you would get to that star system instantaneously, from your perspective?

3. Absolutely not. If you moved faster than the speed of light, other perspectives would see your clock move backwards. Likewise if you moved at the speed of light, we would see your clock come to a complete and total stop.

https://usm.maine.edu/planet/how-does-time-stop

"I heard that Einstein's Relativity said it is possible to stop time. Is that true and, if it is, how do you do it and what do you experience when time stops?"

The simple answer is, "Yes, it is possible to stop time. All you need to do is travel at light speed."

[Adam1978]

1) If I am moving forward in light speed, I would not be frozen in time. Only light emitted would ever been seen and that would be red shifted. Because no light would catch up to me and reflect back. So you would see anything else. From the side I would move to fast to actually be seen, and anyone at the destination will not see me until I arrive. From a experience point of view. I would experience the flight time. Because I am in my own reference frame and it is moving at lightspeed too and so is everything in my vessel.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. At this point you are not even talking physics or science. No one is pretending that we could see into the ship. We are talking about comparing clocks.

Find me any scientific paper, respected physicist, or magazine supporting your view. You claimed that PBS Spacetime supported your assertions. I proved that Matt does not. No respected physicists does. Not Veratasium, not Sabine, Kaku, Dyson, none them reject Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. And it isn't sane to pretend that any major movement in physics does.

www.wtamu.edu/.../

[Wade12345]

The real reason you can't travel faster than light through space is the debris you will hit from space dust and gas in space. The kinetic energy from hitting a piece of dust the size of a grain of sand is like a gallon of gasoline exploding ideally, which would destroy your ship.

[RolandCuthbert]

There are FTL alternatives that address that. I posted about wormholes and teleportation.

The problem is with causal connections. We live in a universe of cause and effect. With FTL, you can have effects before causes.

[captain_voidwalker]

This is also why black holes break causality. Anything beyond the event horizon is traveling faster than light. Dpace is so irrevocably twisted past the event horizon that ll directions even the one you enter into the back hole at, now point directly at the singularity. Even if you could travel faster than light you can never escape a balck hole since all of space and time are now unidirectional.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wow, you posted some stuff right there. I want to do a take on black holes. But I want cover neutron stars first.

It is still an amazing point that once you past the event horizon, spacetime (as you said) is flowing into the black hole faster than the speed of light.

The thing I have problems visualizing is that in the black hole space and time swap roles. Do you know of a diagram or a visualization that explain that?

[collie22]

Even at light speed everything's to far away

[RolandCuthbert]

Not from the perspective of the traveler. At the speed of light, you wouldn't even age.

[collie22]

So let me think hmmmm. Okay even if you don't age ( a large problem) . so many practical problems. where do you put all the sandwiches you would need for a few million years of space traveling? Oh and I guess you would drink your pee so that fixes that problem.

[Adaeva]

It is all impossible. It is impossible for humans to travel at even a tenth of the speed of light. Perhaps in time, that will not be impossible but it is now.

[exitseven]

yes, it is true that from a space traveler's perspective time moves more slowly but externally it does not This only effects the traveler and not the whole rest of the universe.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not understanding how this disproves anything.

1. The universe is filled with an infinite amount of reference frames.
2. Each one of those reference frames has its own clock, ticking at its own rate.
3. The point is that time is not universal. The speed of light is. So the universe is bending and stretching in all of these different areas to keep the speed of light constant.
4. That's why when you travel close to the speed of light, then someone sends you a message faster than the speed of light, it breaks casuality.

Now we can really wreck this, by talking about actual FTL travel.

Tell me @exitseven. . . if I move at the speed of light, what do I perceive about my speed?

Let's begin there.

[1stupidrobot]

Realistically, the reason we (humans) will never achieve faster-than-light-speed travel is that we are going to cause our own mass-extinction event in the very near future.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, yeah. . . that's probably a good bet. . .

[kao118]

Also because c is the ultimate speed. It exist but we can’t achieve it. I appreciate this post as a physics lover, although im curious as to why you posted it on this site.

[RolandCuthbert]

You could pm me. But if you look at my history you will see I have a habit of posting about physics. The funny thing is I doubt you confront the folks who constantly post about politics. Which have nothing to do with relationships or dating.

[kao118]

I stay away from politics by principle. But I think there’s a section for politics. Either way, I glad you’ve posted about it, nothing like physics to brighten up my day and surprise me, especially on such an intriguing topic,

[RolandCuthbert]

There is also a section for science and technology. So look out for my takes on neutron stars and black holes.

[Sarahplus2]

No making a Jump to light speed to evade Imperial warships?

[RolandCuthbert]

Star War dudes are always hurt when we tell them that warp speed is way faster than light speed.

:D

[Sarahplus2]

Hypothetically, how would aliens be getting here if they were visiting? Interdimension?

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I wouldn't know. I just wanted to post about something that is rarely discussed when talking about faster than light.

[monkeynutts]

You should watch Red dwarf if you have not already, it's loaded with pop culture references, and comedic scientific conundrums. Very funny.

[RolandCuthbert]

Red Dwarf is a series?

Where?

[monkeynutts]

It's British, from the 90's if you look up the content for sale on the BBC online, you should be able to purchase it from England, you have to check the zoning requirements for European DVD's maybe there is an American distribution but I'm not sure. Always check second hand stores for old DVD's something like Red dwarf is pure cult comedy. It's in my top ten list of best ever television. So it could be difficult you guys to get a hold of. If you check the search option for red dwarf on this site you may find other Americans talk about it, probably ask them where they got their collection from. There is an American actor, I'm quite sure you guys have fans, but it's old.

[RolandCuthbert]

Okay. I thought it was something like Dr. Who, etc. But I will check it out.

[monkeynutts]

No science fiction comedy. If you like Monty python's, it might be for you, but if you are more of a Sinfield fan, probably not, many episodes deal with time travel, causality, and alternate universes. And obviously space.

[msc545]

Actually, if you reach the speed of light, time *stops* - with unknown but probably unpleasant consequences.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, that is another issue altogether. Could human beings even survive being in a ship that could come close to the speed of light? The answers are all over the place.

[msc545]

Maybe not. The gravitational issues and changes in mass would probably kill us.

[RolandCuthbert]

There was a prediction that said at around 80% of “c”, the change in mass would kill us. But there are other methods for faster than light travel.

So that question about casuality is still an issue.

[msc545]

what other methods?

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, teleportation is another possible alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mumfEob6se8

A wormhole is yet another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldVDM-v5uz0

[msc545]

Well yes, but then again even quantum entanglement obeys the light speed limit - I think. It might not.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is really weird. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics even as he is one of its most significant contributors.

So get this. It was Einstein who discovered that Entanglement happens faster than light. As he explained Quantum Entanglement requires "non-local" communication.

This of course, infuriated him, even as he discovered this. But it has been verified again and again. He tried to postulate hidden variables, but on that suggestion, he was wrong.

The point is that while we can prove the communication happen instantaneously, we have not been able to send any usable information using entanglement. That's why they say it isn't faster than the speed of light.

Now isn't it interesting? The universe doesn't care that you can communicate instantly, it may just care if the communication is sending usable information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tlSkdzIi_c

[Luopio27]

I recomend Evacuate Earth documentary.

[Anonymous]

Wow you're so smart op

[RolandCuthbert]

I just wanted to see about having a conversation just using rational thinking, science and logic, to see how folks here respond.

It ain't going so good.

[Opinion Owner]

I think it's because you're such an asshole in your usual posts that anyone smart enough to care warp drive has either blocked you or is going anon.

Reflect on that you sanctimonious twat..

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, you don't have me blocked.

So that must mean you are stupid as fuck.

haha!

[Opinion Owner]

Obtuse and socially inept as ever.

[RolandCuthbert]

Socially inept.

Dude, you rule in cyberspace. Your idea of socializing is going to a fucking forum.

I am going still going to Germany, Friday. I am going to drink myself silly. Me and my lady are going to try out as many different restaurants as possible. We are taking all the kids to the Zoo and Aquarium.

All of this while you whack off to pornhub.

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense of "socially inept".

[Opinion Owner]

Ha, solid burn but I'm only on here when I need a break from having too much fun.

The zoo is a good place for you though.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, dude. You and you incel trolls all rule in cyberspace.

You guys are gods up here.

That's why you go with anonymity.

[Opinion Owner]

Yep that's me huge incel

[Opinion Owner]

Anyways as catch la later cuntbert