[ 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: 45 KB, 1200x600, robin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16154482 No.16154482 [Reply] [Original]

Alright this is kind of weird, but what would make non-local FTL impossible? If everybody lived really deep in a gravity well, then had explorers flying around at relativistic speeds to get time dilated and returning, from their perspective they could explore N light years away in way less than N "home years". I get that we don't live in an insanely time dilated situation like the time dilated bros, so you can say FTL like this is impossible for civilizations at "a normal amount of time dilation" - but then you kind of need to define what a "normal amount" which contradicts reference frames never being privileged

Am i just schizoing out?

>> No.16154609

>>16154482
wtf does "privileged" mean? like one reference frame dominates the other?
>from their perspective they could explore N light years away in way less than N "home years"
error in logic

>> No.16154616

>>16154609
yeah, reference frames are supposed to be completely equal in importance, its one of relativities most important assumptions. And how is that an error in logic? Moving at 0.9 to a star 2 light years away gets you there in about 2 years, but with time dilation an observer on the ship feels 1 year pass. Similarly, the people living in the gravity well will see 1 year pass if they have the same level of time dilation, so to everybody from that civilization 1 year passed while they waited for their astronauts to go 2 light years.

>> No.16154626

>>16154616
>Moving at 0.9 to a star 2 light years away gets you there in about 2 years, but with time dilation an observer on the ship feels 1 year pass.
What? At 0.99999c travelling 2 billion lightyears would take 2 days from your perspective

>> No.16154629

>>16154626
0.9 C, 90%. Isn't that close to 2x time dilation?

>> No.16154641
File: 31 KB, 694x968, 1690436047793430.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16154641

>>16154482

>> No.16154899

>>16154629
Depends on your mass, I quess, but at c relativity assumes that length contraction effectively becomes 0

>> No.16154948

>>16154482
The people flying around in a rocket with large accelerations would age more slowly compared to those staying behind, yes. You might call it "time travel to the future" if you stretch the definition, but not really FTL.