[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 250 KB, 800x375, Mass_Effect_Normandy_SR2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3556421 No.3556421 [Reply] [Original]

In most science fiction media, humankind has found a way around the speed of light barrier, with explanations involving warp speed or manipulating dark energy to raise the speed of light (Mass Effect). Many people now likely think that though we do not know how to travel faster than the speed of light at the moment, we are likely to figure it out eventually.
But I think I have a proof that FTL travel is absolutely impossible, case closed. Tell me if I am correct.

Two people are sitting on a train, one facing the same direction the train is moving, and the other sitting backwards. Both are leaders of forwards and backwards land respectively, and want to sign a peace treaty. However, neither wants to be the first to sign. A lamp in the middle of a table between them will be turned on, and both will sign the moment the light hits them.
A person standing on the train will observe both men signing at the same time. However, a person on the platform will see Forwards Land's leader move closer to the light and sign first. So people with different velocities disagree on when events occur.
Now imagine the leader of Forwards Land doesn't understand relativity and believes he has been tricked into signing first. He decides that the moment the light hits him, he will shoot Backwards Land's leader with a bullet that travels faster than the speed of light.
The existence of such a bullet leads to an impossible outcome: people on the train observe the light hitting both at the same time, and the pen of Backwards' Leader making a mark before he is shot. People on the platform see Forwards' Leader being hit with light first, firing, and killing Backwards' Leader before his pen hits the paper.

Thank you if you read all that. Fuck proofreading. So is it true that this proves information cannot travel faster than light by any method as it could lead to such an impossibility?

>> No.3556462

You're 100 yeas behind. Greetings, Albert

>> No.3556482

It "proves" it in that you FINALLY understand in an anecdotal manner what everyone was talking about when they said "causality violations" would result from breaking the speed of light. So good for you now you can help educate others about the basics of special relativity.

>> No.3556500

You're right, OP, FTL travel violates causality and leads to paradoxes.

>> No.3557850

So, has anyone ever carried out any experiments at relativistic speeds to prove this hypothesis?

Or are we in a new form of science where mathematical extrapolation > observational evidence?


Oh, isn't a speed just a measure of distance over time?

So, the SPEED of light is constant.... but to make the math work, you have to alter another aspect of the equation, either distance, or time.....

Ya know... relatively speaking.

>> No.3557856

>absolute proof
>thought experiment

oops

>> No.3557864

your example makes no sense. but relativity shows FTL is impossible.

let us know when you invent the wheel.

>> No.3557876

>>3557864
>but relativity shows FTL is impossible.

Nope... relativity postulates that FTL travel is impossible.

And the mathematics of relativity only works if you already ASSUME that the speed of light is a constant, and Time is variable.

So, any "Proof" of relativity, FROM relativity, is basically bullshit.

Because it's all just mathematicians patting themselves on the back for being able to work out complex and abstract mathematical formulas that no-one else understands.... and claiming that it's Correct, without Evidence.

in b4 Einstein worshippers crying foul about the Absoluteness of Relativity, when they don't understand it either.

>> No.3557883
File: 38 KB, 394x479, carl's jacket.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3557883

Actually, it would be impossible to travel at the speed of light, you can be very close to the speed of light, but you can never travel 100%. Also, light travels uniform, at different point of views, it will travel the same. So let's say there is a dark room with two gentleman about to sign a treaty, but only when the light reaches them. The lamp is on the desk, the two men are facing each other. Light will reach them both at the same time. Case closed.

>> No.3557885
File: 37 KB, 480x360, Einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3557885

>>3557876
Sorry, I FORGOT THE FUCKING PICTURE!

>> No.3557902

I've said it before and I'll say it again, how will we protect our weasels from space debris? just hitting a grain of sand at FTL speeds will completely shatter any conventional craft, we need to find a way to shield ourselves

>> No.3557935

I remember reading the allegory of the train when reading The Elegant Universe.

I still don't understand it.

>> No.3557963

>>3557876
Yes but relativity has been verified by countless experiments.

>> No.3557971

>>3557935
Speed is a Function of Distance travelled Over the time it took to travel that distance.

If you already ASSUME that the speed is a constant, and never changes....

Then you have a very serious problem if you should ever run into a situation where Distance over Time doesn't actually equal your speed.

So, in order to make SURE that the speed is going to be a constant, and always the same... you have to change your "Time" variable, or your "Distance" variable.

Relativity is predicated upon this rather elementary mistake of mathematics.

And then you get people attempting to Defend relativity, despite the fact that they don't understand it themselves.

And then you get people who cite "Experimental Validation" of relativity, despite the fact that they don't actually know how those experiments were carried out, or WHY they validate Relativity.

It's like a knee jerk reaction, like THEY are being attacked or something.

It's not science at all, because science allows questions without throwing grade school level temper tantrums.

>> No.3558043
File: 11 KB, 150x150, reaction_(25).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3558043

Well OP, the leader of forward land wouldn't think that he'd signed first because he is travelling at the same velocity as the leader of backwards land, so he wouldn't shoot him.

>>3557971
>>So, in order to make SURE that the speed is going to be a constant, and always the same... you have to change your "Time" variable, or your "Distance" variable.

This is pants-on-the-head retarded. The speed constant is calculated based on the distance covered over time. I can't think of any occasion where velocity could not equal speed over time.

>> No.3558057

>>3558043
>This is pants-on-the-head retarded.

I'm glad you feel that way about relativity also... ;)

>The speed constant is calculated based on the distance covered over time. I can't think of any occasion where velocity could not equal speed over time.

When your frames of reference are in motion relative to each-other (light source and observer)

I mean... Duh.

>> No.3558087

>>3556421
>implying both outcomes couldn't be correct at the same time