| 1 |
@Kingraptor
|
1 |
@Kingraptor
|
| 2 |
"Yes, it's not easy to understand. THAT' DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND IT TO SPEAK ABOUT IT AS IF THEY DO."
|
2 |
"Yes, it's not easy to understand. THAT' DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND IT TO SPEAK ABOUT IT AS IF THEY DO."
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
I completely agree. But that does not mean to threaten to ban or yell at people. Typing complete sentences in caps is generally considered yelling. Some things might be even more feasible or different than you first think.
|
4 |
I completely agree. But that does not mean to threaten to ban or yell at people. Typing complete sentences in caps is generally considered yelling. Some things might be even more feasible or different than you first think.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
"2) Spaceflight does not require a universe with gravity to function. Therefore spaceflight does not require gravity. THIS IS A TOTALLY PERTINENT DISTINCTION WITH RELEVANCE TO A DISCUSSION OF REAL WORLD SPACEFLIGHT YO"
|
7 |
"2) Spaceflight does not require a universe with gravity to function. Therefore spaceflight does not require gravity. THIS IS A TOTALLY PERTINENT DISTINCTION WITH RELEVANCE TO A DISCUSSION OF REAL WORLD SPACEFLIGHT YO"
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
That is not the misunderstanding at all. Nobody is refering to a real world without relativity. It is totally feasible MauranKilom is talking about the relativity theory and dabdabdab is talking about the real relativity as we notice in real life. Both of them are true. GPS do need the relativity theory to funtion but does not require the RL relativity.
|
9 |
That is not the misunderstanding at all. Nobody is refering to a real world without relativity. It is totally feasible MauranKilom is talking about the relativity theory and dabdabdab is talking about the real relativity as we notice in real life. Both of them are true. GPS do need the relativity theory to funtion but does not require the RL relativity.
|
| 10 |
It is as relativity itself. One can see someone else as slow and vice versa from their own persepctive and both are right.
|
10 |
It is as relativity itself. One can see someone else as slow and vice versa from their own persepctive and both are right.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
And the fact that some things can be easily misunderstood. For example "error" in science means a difference between a computed, estimated, or measured value and the accepted true, specified, or theoretically correct value. Not as the general 'mistake' from non-scientific people. Same holds for 'theory'. You can say you need to learn jargon first before reading stuff, but you can also say if you put something to the general public you have to be careful with this.
|
12 |
And the fact that some things can be easily misunderstood. For example "error" in science means a difference between a computed, estimated, or measured value and the accepted true, specified, or theoretically correct value. Not as the general 'mistake' from non-scientific people. Same holds for 'theory'. You can say you need to learn jargon first before reading stuff, but you can also say if you put something to the general public you have to be careful with this.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Or if someone spells a word wrong you can assume he probably meant something different (type-error). Not that he does not know how to write that word. People dont have to always pick the negative one out of many possiblilities.
|
14 |
Or if someone spells a word wrong you can assume he probably meant something different (type-error). Not that he does not know how to write that word. People dont have to always pick the negative one out of many possiblilities.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
“THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO ANY FTL INTERACTION
|
16 |
“THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO ANY FTL INTERACTION
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CALCULATIONS THEN DON'T ASSUME THINGS
|
18 |
IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CALCULATIONS THEN DON'T ASSUME THINGS
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
(Protip: No matter how much you displace point Q up along the time axis (representing transmission delay), there will be a velocity and position which Carol and Dave can take that will allow them to create the paradox, unless Q reaches Alice's light cone. Try it yourself.)”
|
20 |
(Protip: No matter how much you displace point Q up along the time axis (representing transmission delay), there will be a velocity and position which Carol and Dave can take that will allow them to create the paradox, unless Q reaches Alice's light cone. Try it yourself.)”
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
|
|
22 |
\n
|
| 22 |
I actually mean by calculations using real km/h and km distance. I can draw a figure in my head with time delay but still FTL (protip: just by going up the t and t’ with ever message and ending up in the future of Alice), try it.
|
23 |
I actually mean by calculations using real km/h and km distance. I can draw a figure in my head with time delay but still FTL (protip: just by going up the t and t’ with ever message and ending up in the future of Alice), try it.
|
| 23 |
So that is why I say “And why does this graphics not just mean that an ansible is not possible.” Cause I see a possiblilty to use relativity with FTL and not cause causation problems. (Neglecting the effect that relativity implies no FTL).
|
24 |
So that is why I say “And why does this graphics not just mean that an ansible is not possible.” Cause I see a possiblilty to use relativity with FTL and not cause causation problems. (Neglecting the effect that relativity implies no FTL).
|
|
|
25 |
\n
|
| 24 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 25 |
@MauranKilom
|
27 |
@MauranKilom
|
| 26 |
"And about the ansible: Congratulations! You just noticed the contradiction between ansibles and relativity! Relativity prohibits ansibles, the discussion revolves around the proof of how relativity combined with ansibles would violate causality."
|
28 |
"And about the ansible: Congratulations! You just noticed the contradiction between ansibles and relativity! Relativity prohibits ansibles, the discussion revolves around the proof of how relativity combined with ansibles would violate causality."
|
|
|
29 |
\n
|
| 27 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 28 |
Thanks :D. But even after reading the article I cant see the goal of the article. Cause you have to know about relativity, which implies you cant go faster than light and then he conclude that if you use relativity and FTL you get not plausible results. Which is kind of obvious.
|
31 |
Thanks :D. But even after reading the article I cant see the goal of the article. Cause you have to know about relativity, which implies you cant go faster than light and then he conclude that if you use relativity and FTL you get not plausible results. Which is kind of obvious.
|
| 29 |
say:
|
32 |
say:
|
| 30 |
I have 8 apples, box of 5x4 apples and 10 half apples. So if you count apples and dont apple the rules you get 8+5*4+10/2 = 31 apples. So made 2 apples dissapearing into nothingness.
|
33 |
I have 8 apples, box of 5x4 apples and 10 half apples. So if you count apples and dont apple the rules you get 8+5*4+10/2 = 31 apples. So made 2 apples dissapearing into nothingness.
|
|
|
34 |
\n
|
| 31 |
\n
|
35 |
\n
|
| 32 |
Quote swappan:
|
36 |
Quote swappan:
|
| 33 |
And why does this graphics not just mean that an ansible is not possible. because even with the slightest delay (still FTL) you get time diferrences and it can possible come out in the future. (I cant do the calculations).
|
37 |
And why does this graphics not just mean that an ansible is not possible. because even with the slightest delay (still FTL) you get time diferrences and it can possible come out in the future. (I cant do the calculations).
|
| 34 |
\n
|
38 |
\n
|
| 35 |
“Essentially you are arguing (yes, another analogy, they help explain stuff) "there is no negative numbers resulting from subtraction, because 4-2=2 which is not negative": You're trying to refute our counterexample (like 1-3 = -2) to ansibles and relativity working together by providing an example where they work. Which changes nothing.”
|
39 |
“Essentially you are arguing (yes, another analogy, they help explain stuff) "there is no negative numbers resulting from subtraction, because 4-2=2 which is not negative": You're trying to refute our counterexample (like 1-3 = -2) to ansibles and relativity working together by providing an example where they work. Which changes nothing.”
|
|
|
40 |
\n
|
| 36 |
\n
|
41 |
\n
|
| 37 |
No, your analogy is wrong. I don’t say that.
|
42 |
No, your analogy is wrong. I don’t say that.
|
| 38 |
He says “there is no negative numbers resulting from subtraction “ (no causality with FTL). This means that there are NONE negative numbers resulting fron substration.
|
43 |
He says “there is no negative numbers resulting from subtraction “ (no causality with FTL). This means that there are NONE negative numbers resulting fron substration.
|
| 39 |
He proves that 1-3=-2 (not possible with ansibles)
|
44 |
He proves that 1-3=-2 (not possible with ansibles)
|
| 40 |
He says it is the same for all values in between (does not provide proof)
|
45 |
He says it is the same for all values in between (does not provide proof)
|
| 41 |
I say 4-2=2 (Some values might not give negative results, so FTL might not give causality problems). I don’t argue that there are values that give causality problems (so values that give negative results from substracting), I only say some might not do it.
|
46 |
I say 4-2=2 (Some values might not give negative results, so FTL might not give causality problems). I don’t argue that there are values that give causality problems (so values that give negative results from substracting), I only say some might not do it.
|
| 42 |
I say that he proves ansible (instant communication, so only the far end of the speed between lightspeed and instant speed)
|
47 |
I say that he proves ansible (instant communication, so only the far end of the speed between lightspeed and instant speed)
|
| 43 |
Neither he nor I are giving evidence of that. But if some might not give causality problems his statement is wrong.
|
48 |
Neither he nor I are giving evidence of that. But if some might not give causality problems his statement is wrong.
|
| 44 |
I just would like to see an example with just above lightspeed communication.
|
49 |
I just would like to see an example with just above lightspeed communication.
|
| 45 |
\n
|
50 |
\n
|
|
|
51 |
\n
|
| 46 |
@GoogleFrog
|
52 |
@GoogleFrog
|
| 47 |
“If instead human knowledge changed to omit the model known as relativity then it would initially be impossible to make GPS satellites. I say initially because as soon as we made one and observed the time drift a theory of relativity should follow fairly quickly.”
|
53 |
“If instead human knowledge changed to omit the model known as relativity then it would initially be impossible to make GPS satellites. I say initially because as soon as we made one and observed the time drift a theory of relativity should follow fairly quickly.”
|
|
|
54 |
\n
|
|
|
55 |
\n
|
| 48 |
Although it is highly likely this is the way it goes, but you can still correct machines for unkown errors. Say if the relativity theory was still unknown, it was still possible to make correct GPS by just correcting the unknown errors. That are the values that bring theory and practice at the same result. They are very common in formulas.
|
56 |
Although it is highly likely this is the way it goes, but you can still correct machines for unkown errors. Say if the relativity theory was still unknown, it was still possible to make correct GPS by just correcting the unknown errors. That are the values that bring theory and practice at the same result. They are very common in formulas.
|
| 49 |
You can argue that the same goes for trigonometrics, but I doubt GPS would then be invented in the first place.
|
57 |
You can argue that the same goes for trigonometrics, but I doubt GPS would then be invented in the first place.
|
Lore: How do I interstellar traveled?