Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w..

"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 12, 2:34 pm, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 12, 4:49 am, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 11, 5:38 am, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:

>>
>> >How old it is varies with location. The further away you are, the
>> >younger it is. Relativity is wierd that way. Travelling faster than
>> >light towards something is going forward in time, faster than it
>> >elapses. Travelling away from something is travelling back in time.
>> >Missed Live Aid? Go to a location in space where it is about to
>> >happen and decode the broadcasts. Wish you could have seen the
>> >formation of the Crab Nebula? There are places where that star is
>> >about to go supernova. "Now" is a very location specific term.
>>
>> We're not defining "now" we're defining time. A pulsar at its surface
>> has a very fixed and non subjective age. The variable is how old it
>> appears to be, looking 1 year younger for every LY you move away from
>> it. 1000 LY away, it LOOKS 1000y younger, but the star isn't any
>> younger just because YOU are far away from it.
>
>Go to what passes for a surface on Jupiter, where spacetime is curved
>to about 2.5 times the acceleration of where you are likely to be as
>you read this. Clocks run slower. If pulsars go down in frequency as
>they age, they look younger when seen from Jupiter's surface, as there
>is less time between the pulses (as measured by local clocks), even
>though the difference in distance to the pulsars is practically zero.
>Now for the mind bending part. Because the clocks run slower, less
>time has elapsed, so the pulsars seen from the surface of Jupiter do
>not just look younger, they really are younger. You can argue all you
>like, it will not matter, as when you go to Jupiter and make the
>observations, the data will match the jovian claims.

>><SNIP>

There are no time machines. Something is not younger because it you
are seeing light from it that left a while ago. And there is absolute
age. Create some uranium in a supernova. Make star. A very very very
predictable and fixed amound of that uranium will decay to lead as
local time goes tick tick tick. The isotopic relationships of certain
atoms is an absolute determinant of age. Now. Assume there have been
10^27 decays since it was created, and you just happened to watch all
of them, but because youre a long way away, you've only seen 10^22 of
them. Just because you have seen fewer decays (and thus the thing
seems younger) doesnt mean IT is younger.

Theres no absolute clock but there is age. And if the uranium is at
the bottom of a deep gravity well, it will in fact age more slowly
because time passes more slowly in its local frame - but its AGE is
what it is.

Saying something is younger by viewpoint is absurd. How it looks to
you is not how it is. Look at a tree in your back yard. It's
actually about 10 nanoseconds older than it appears to you. Now move
away a bit. Now its about 20 nanoseconds older than it looks to you.
You are telling me because you moved a few yards away, the tree got
"younger"?

Gimme a break.
--
2+2!=5 even for extremely large values of 2
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 13, 4:57 am, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 12, 2:34 pm, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
> >> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 12, 4:49 am, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 11, 5:38 am, Spinner <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >How old it is varies with location. The further away you are, the
> >> >younger it is. Relativity is wierd that way. Travelling faster than
> >> >light towards something is going forward in time, faster than it
> >> >elapses. Travelling away from something is travelling back in time.
> >> >Missed Live Aid? Go to a location in space where it is about to
> >> >happen and decode the broadcasts. Wish you could have seen the
> >> >formation of the Crab Nebula? There are places where that star is
> >> >about to go supernova. "Now" is a very location specific term.
>
> >> We're not defining "now" we're defining time. A pulsar at its surface
> >> has a very fixed and non subjective age. The variable is how old it
> >> appears to be, looking 1 year younger for every LY you move away from
> >> it. 1000 LY away, it LOOKS 1000y younger, but the star isn't any
> >> younger just because YOU are far away from it.
>
> >Go to what passes for a surface on Jupiter, where spacetime is curved
> >to about 2.5 times the acceleration of where you are likely to be as
> >you read this. Clocks run slower. If pulsars go down in frequency as
> >they age, they look younger when seen from Jupiter's surface, as there
> >is less time between the pulses (as measured by local clocks), even
> >though the difference in distance to the pulsars is practically zero.
> >Now for the mind bending part. Because the clocks run slower, less
> >time has elapsed, so the pulsars seen from the surface of Jupiter do
> >not just look younger, they really are younger. You can argue all you
> >like, it will not matter, as when you go to Jupiter and make the
> >observations, the data will match the jovian claims.
> >><SNIP>
>
> There are no time machines.

Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.

>Something is not younger because it you
> are seeing light from it that left a while ago. And there is absolute
> age. Create some uranium in a supernova. Make star. A very very very
> predictable and fixed amound of that uranium will decay to lead as
> local time goes tick tick tick. The isotopic relationships of certain
> atoms is an absolute determinant of age. Now. Assume there have been
> 10^27 decays since it was created, and you just happened to watch all
> of them, but because youre a long way away, you've only seen 10^22 of
> them. Just because you have seen fewer decays (and thus the thing
> seems younger) doesnt mean IT is younger.

You go there and try to prove it. The local observations show only
10^22 have happened and you have already admitted that the observer
has not missed a single count. You explain that from where you
observed the star, there have been 10^27. You will be asked where you
made that measurement, and when you respond Elsewhere (some
combination of where and when that does not exist in their observable
space [like everything that happened anywhere on the sun two minutes
ago, we know nothing for about another six minutes]),they answer
something like "If you sent your observations of the number of decays
encoded by in a beam of light, it would have been right, when we
decoded it". They will go on to say that an event has not happened if
they cannot observe it, so the star cannot be less than 10^22 counts
old. Your observations are true for your vantage point, but if you go
travelling about faster than light, you cannot complain about leaving
your own observable space.

You cannot find any evidence at the distant star to back up your
claims, as Elsewhere is a reciprocal relationship (if the earth blew
up now, an observer by the sun would not notice for about eight
minutes). Except for the fact that you can travel between the
locations, they are arguably not in the same universe.

They do not see the 10^27 old star, in their observable space it does
not exist. In its place, they see a much younger star.

Going by decay counts is useful, as it does present something that is
universally observable, but it does not describe age.


>
> Theres no absolute clock but there is age.

This statement is self-contradictory; unless age is no more absolute
than the clock.

>And if the uranium is at
> the bottom of a deep gravity well, it will in fact age more slowly
> because time passes more slowly in its local frame - but its AGE is
> what it is.

But no truly independant observers can agree on what that age is. An
examination of isotopic ratios of uranium will be different for a
sample here on Earth and a sample that miraculously stayed on the
surface of Jupiter. Even though both samples had the same ultimate
source, so they were both formed at the same time in the same
supernova blast (their clocks started off in synch, with the same time
and same rate), they will not be the same age, because they did not
stay in the same place.

Age is relative. Age is a function of the passage of time, and time
is a property of space, so age is a location specific quality.
If you spend five years watching someone closely orbit a black hole,
but his watch only increments by twenty days, how much older is he
when he meets up with you? By his reckoning, how much older are you?
>
> Saying something is younger by viewpoint is absurd. How it looks to
> you is not how it is. Look at a tree in your back yard. It's
> actually about 10 nanoseconds older than it appears to you. Now move
> away a bit. Now its about 20 nanoseconds older than it looks to you.
> You are telling me because you moved a few yards away, the tree got
> "younger"?

How fast did I move away from the tree? If I am stuck to less than
the speed of light, I watch the tree grow older as I move away. At
the speed of light, I see the same tree fixed in time. If I can go
faster than light, the tree gets younger and younger.

Two people seperated by 10 meters are not looking at the same tree.
They are close enough together not to notice this, but it does not
change the fact that they are looking at different trees. Move one
observer several light years away, but keep the clock speed the same
The tree the distant observer sees is several years younger.

Suppose you plant a tree in your front yard. You wait several years
to make sure that it is an impressive-looking tree, before you hop
into your FTL-starship to visit me and brag about it, as you have
always envied the red maple that my father planted, that you have seen
with your ordinary telescope (it should be magic, but we all have
one). By some fortuitous quirk of fate, I not only got your letter
about your impressive tree, I even videotaped you planting it. I show
you the tape, and point my telescope to show you the sapling, and I
ask what all of the fuss is about. As you criss-cross my yard waving
your ams several times, you finally notice the conspicuous absence of
any tree, because it blew over in a rainstorm, years ago (by my
watch).

Your tree is still only a sapling to me, and my tree has yet to die
for you. I can let you peer through my telescope to watch a young man
tend a tree. While you might be thirty years older, the person
tending the tree is both you and much younger, but it is not the same
you, and it is not the same tree that you came to brag about.


>
> Gimme a break.

I have done my best.

> --
> 2+2!=5 even for extremely large values of 2
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.

I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.

I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 13, 6:16 pm, Dahak <Dahak....RemoveThis@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:32:38 -0700 (PDT), an orbiting mind-control
> laser made "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns....RemoveThis@gmail.com> write:
>
> Not that I want to insert myself into this discussion, but...
>
> >> There are no time machines.
>
> >Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>
> /Breathing/ is time travel as well. Once that's accepted, all
> we're arguing over, here, is rates and direction.
>
> But I've always wondered why so many people take it for granted
> that FTL travel is time travel.

Because Einstein said so, not directly, but it just rises out of the
page when you do the calculations, and no one has found any indication
that his model is sufficiently imprecise that the next new model will
prove him wrong. It is really important to mention that for most of
what we see, Newton's laws are perfectly accurate and slogging through
Einstein's laws require stupendous precision to show that Newton's
laws are incomplete. To prove that FTL travel is not time travel, you
have to present a model of the Universe where it is not and show that
your new model not only accurately explains everything that Einstein's
model explains, but either it explains things that do not fit
Einstein's model, or it is easier to understand and use than
Einstein's model (the copernican model of a sun centered universe was
not initially accepted because it was right, but because it produced
the same results as the ptolemaic earth centered universe with much
less work).


>
> Is it because people extrapolate that since time slows down as you
> approach c, that if you could only just break through past c that time
> flow rates would /continue/ decelerating to the point that it would
> then be 'flowing' backward?
>
> What's the justification for that?
>
> -JPB

What do you call it when you can get into a machine and travel to a
location where you can watch events from the past as if they were
happening right now, because, at the new location, they are happening
right now?

It is not that going faster than light moves you back in time, it is
that any faster than light journey involves arriving at your
destination before you left (as seen by an observer at your
destination), and it gets wierder.

Suppose that the observer at your desination is able to see your ship
as it travels, but has to wait for the light lag to make the
observation. Suppose also that you travelled fifty light-years. The
instant of your departure will have a fifty year lag before it is
observed. News of you covering the first ten light-years will arrive
in forty years. Observation of you reaching the half-way point will
be delayed by only tenty-five years. Observation of your completing
80% of the distance would be delayed by only ten years. If, for the
purposes of the thought experiment, you were going fast enough to pass
though all these points at the same time, the observer would
simultaneously see your ship arrive and see your ship leave his star
system at the speed of light, as he sees the entire flight in the
reverse order.

This happens even if we replace SQRT(1-v^2/c^2) everywhere it might
occur in any calculations with a 1.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:32:38 -0700 (PDT), an orbiting mind-control
laser made "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid DeleteThis @gmail.com> write:

Not that I want to insert myself into this discussion, but...

>> There are no time machines.
>
>Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.

/Breathing/ is time travel as well. Once that's accepted, all
we're arguing over, here, is rates and direction.


But I've always wondered why so many people take it for granted
that FTL travel is time travel.

Is it because people extrapolate that since time slows down as you
approach c, that if you could only just break through past c that time
flow rates would /continue/ decelerating to the point that it would
then be 'flowing' backward?

What's the justification for that?


-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 13, 9:31 pm, Offbreed <offbreed_... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>
> I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>
> I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
> would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
> Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.


The difference between true time travel and mere FTL is that FTL can
only change time by going to a different space. True time travel can
change time and stay in exactly the same space. FTL will not help in
your quest to change the past, but if all you need to do is observe
past astronomical events, it is just as real as true time travel, with
the added convenience of always returning to your home after you left.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 13, 10:30 pm, Don Sample <dsam....TakeThisOut@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <gI6dndqp5JGBTZ_VnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn....TakeThisOut@scnresearch.com>,
>
> Offbreed <offbreed_....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > rlbell.ns....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>
> > I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>
> > I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
> > would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
> > Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.
>
> And if I wanted to watch myself as a kid, I could just dig up some of my
> Dad's old home movies. Is that time travel too?
>

The difference is that the movie is result of long gone photons
impinging a detector and the movie is as old as the event, but the
telescope captures photons that bounced off of you at that past point
in time that you are watching. By the internal clock of the photon,
no time has passed since scattering off of you and entering the
telescope. As no time has elapsed for the photons, if you are
watching it now, it must be happening now. That is why "now" is as
worthless a term as "simultaneous", in the great wide universe. When
something happens is inextricably linked with where the hypothetical
observer is located (events with no observer happen anyway, but
unobserved events generate no arguments about when they occurred).
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 13, 10:52 pm, Don Sample <dsam... DeleteThis @synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <6842f37c-b14d-45a3-9df8-fe0391f0f... DeleteThis @q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > What do you call it when you can get into a machine and travel to a
> > location where you can watch events from the past as if they were
> > happening right now, because, at the new location, they are happening
> > right now?
>
> They aren't happening now. For them to be happening now, you have to
> believe that light travels instantaneously, which it clearly doesn't.
> Travelling faster than light lets you see things that happened in your
> past, but it doesn't move you into the past. Travelling faster than
> sound will let you hear things that happened in the past too, but I've
> never heard anyone claiming that supersonic jets were time travel
> machines. (Though when flying west, you can land at an earlier time
> than your takeoff, according to the local clocks.)
>

If you check the photon's clock, it really does travel at
instantaneous speeds. Time is relative and all observers are equally
valid. This is why faster than light travel is about as hard as time
travel-- for much of causality, it is exactly the same thing.
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

In article <gI6dndqp5JGBTZ_VnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d.DeleteThis@scnresearch.com>,
Offbreed <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> rlbell.nsuid.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>
> I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>
> I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
> would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
> Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.

And if I wanted to watch myself as a kid, I could just dig up some of my
Dad's old home movies. Is that time travel too?

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

In article
<6842f37c-b14d-45a3-9df8-fe0391f0ff86.TakeThisOut@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 6:16 pm, Dahak <Dahak....TakeThisOut@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:32:38 -0700 (PDT), an orbiting mind-control
> > laser made "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> write:
> >
> > Not that I want to insert myself into this discussion, but...
> >
> > >> There are no time machines.
> >
> > >Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
> >
> > /Breathing/ is time travel as well. Once that's accepted, all
> > we're arguing over, here, is rates and direction.
> >
> > But I've always wondered why so many people take it for granted
> > that FTL travel is time travel.
>
> Because Einstein said so, not directly, but it just rises out of the
> page when you do the calculations,

No, when you do the calculations, you end up taking the square root of a
negative number when you try to go faster than light, so time doesn't go
backwards, it becomes imaginary.



> >
> > Is it because people extrapolate that since time slows down as you
> > approach c, that if you could only just break through past c that time
> > flow rates would /continue/ decelerating to the point that it would
> > then be 'flowing' backward?
> >
> > What's the justification for that?
> >
> > -JPB
>
> What do you call it when you can get into a machine and travel to a
> location where you can watch events from the past as if they were
> happening right now, because, at the new location, they are happening
> right now?

They aren't happening now. For them to be happening now, you have to
believe that light travels instantaneously, which it clearly doesn't.
Travelling faster than light lets you see things that happened in your
past, but it doesn't move you into the past. Travelling faster than
sound will let you hear things that happened in the past too, but I've
never heard anyone claiming that supersonic jets were time travel
machines. (Though when flying west, you can land at an earlier time
than your takeoff, according to the local clocks.)

>
> It is not that going faster than light moves you back in time, it is
> that any faster than light journey involves arriving at your
> destination before you left (as seen by an observer at your
> destination), and it gets wierder.
>
> Suppose that the observer at your desination is able to see your ship
> as it travels, but has to wait for the light lag to make the
> observation. Suppose also that you travelled fifty light-years. The
> instant of your departure will have a fifty year lag before it is
> observed. News of you covering the first ten light-years will arrive
> in forty years. Observation of you reaching the half-way point will
> be delayed by only tenty-five years. Observation of your completing
> 80% of the distance would be delayed by only ten years. If, for the
> purposes of the thought experiment, you were going fast enough to pass
> though all these points at the same time, the observer would
> simultaneously see your ship arrive and see your ship leave his star
> system at the speed of light, as he sees the entire flight in the
> reverse order.

So? That is a simple consequence of light having a finite speed.
Seeing it happen backwards doesn't mean that it happened backwards.

Let's switch your super-telescope for a super microphone in New York,
and listen to a Concorde flying there from London. The microphone will
hear the plane landing in New York, before it hears the engines start up
in London. A really good mic will pick up conversations that took place
during the flight, but you'd have to run the tape backwards to
understand them. Does that mean that the people in the plane have
travelled back through time?

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

rlbell.nsuid DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 13, 9:31 pm, Offbreed <offbreed_... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>> Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>> I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>>
>> I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
>> would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
>> Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.
>
>
> The difference between true time travel and mere FTL is that FTL can
> only change time by going to a different space. True time travel can
> change time and stay in exactly the same space. FTL will not help in
> your quest to change the past, but if all you need to do is observe
> past astronomical events, it is just as real as true time travel, with
> the added convenience of always returning to your home after you left.

We can travel faster than sound and reach some place before the sound of
an event happening reaches the new location. Is that "FTS" time travel?
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 10:30 pm, Don Sample <dsam....RemoveThis@synapse.net> wrote:
>> In article <gI6dndqp5JGBTZ_VnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn....RemoveThis@scnresearch.com>,
>>
>> Offbreed <offbreed_....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > rlbell.ns....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
>>
>> > I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>>
>> > I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
>> > would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
>> > Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.
>>
>> And if I wanted to watch myself as a kid, I could just dig up some of my
>> Dad's old home movies. Is that time travel too?
>>
>
>The difference is that the movie is result of long gone photons
>impinging a detector and the movie is as old as the event, but the
>telescope captures photons that bounced off of you at that past point
>in time that you are watching. By the internal clock of the photon,
>no time has passed since scattering off of you and entering the
>telescope. As no time has elapsed for the photons, if you are
>watching it now, it must be happening now. That is why "now" is as
>worthless a term as "simultaneous", in the great wide universe. When
>something happens is inextricably linked with where the hypothetical
>observer is located (events with no observer happen anyway, but
>unobserved events generate no arguments about when they occurred).

Once again we're confusing relative time with absolute age. Any atom
has ONE maximum age - essentially its time since birth at its local
electron shell. NO observer can see it as being any older than this
(since no future photons have been emitted). Hence, every object has
a maximum possible age (otherwise this requires time travel to the
future).

ALL objects have an apparent age that is by definition less by some
arbitrary amount than its actual local age. I'l ltry one more time.
You are 10 meters from a tree. I am 11 meters from a tree. A miracle
occurs and by accident the tree is exactly 1.000000000 year old at the
time we decide to look at it.
To me, it looks 1yr minus about 11 nanoseconds old. To you, it looks
1 year minus about 10 nanoseconds old. To you it looks about a
nanosecond younger than it does to me, because you are intercepting
photons 1ns before I do. However, regardless of the fact that you see
it at one age and I see another, the tree is not remotely confused as
it knows precisely what its local age is. That does not change by
observation.

Since when is a thing REALLY younger when it looks that way? Other
than maybe hollywood. Like it or not, there really are absolutes and
every atom in the unverse knows how old it is, no matter what any
other observer thinks. And it gets older pretty much the same as any
other atom, correcting for local velocity and gravity wells.

--
2+2!=5 even for extremely large values of 2
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w.. 

On Apr 14, 8:35 am, Offbreed <offbreed_....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> rlbell.ns....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 9:31 pm, Offbreed <offbreed_....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> rlbell.ns....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Faster-than-light travel IS time travel.
> >> I may be using different criteria, but I regard that as bullshit.
>
> >> I could use FTL and a telescope to watch myself in the past, but FTL
> >> would not allow me to go back in time and shake myself by the hand.
> >> Therefore time travel by FTL is an illusion.
>
> > The difference between true time travel and mere FTL is that FTL can
> > only change time by going to a different space. True time travel can
> > change time and stay in exactly the same space. FTL will not help in
> > your quest to change the past, but if all you need to do is observe
> > past astronomical events, it is just as real as true time travel, with
> > the added convenience of always returning to your home after you left.
>
> We can travel faster than sound and reach some place before the sound of
> an event happening reaches the new location. Is that "FTS" time travel?

No. There are no funny temporal effects of travelling faster than
sound. General Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics are in perfect
accord. Time travels much faster than sound, but not faster than
light.

An interesting conundrum is what happens when an oblique path that you
traverse at STL allows you to get somewhere before a photon on a
direct path-- I believe the story is titled "Slow Glass".
 >> Stay informed about: Setting the Clock: the Planet way, the navy way, and the w..