Re: [TML] Instant city
babyduck1
(15 Feb 2016 12:19 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Greg Chalik
(16 Feb 2016 10:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
tmr0195@xxxxxx
(16 Feb 2016 14:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Thomas Jones-Low
(16 Feb 2016 14:07 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Greg Chalik
(16 Feb 2016 19:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Richard Aiken
(16 Feb 2016 23:36 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Craig Berry
(16 Feb 2016 23:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 01:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Greg Chalik
(17 Feb 2016 01:20 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Richard Aiken
(17 Feb 2016 04:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Greg Chalik
(17 Feb 2016 07:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Richard Aiken
(17 Feb 2016 12:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Jeffrey Schwartz
(17 Feb 2016 14:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Craig Berry
(17 Feb 2016 15:38 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 01:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 00:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Jeffrey Schwartz
(17 Feb 2016 14:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Bruce Johnson
(17 Feb 2016 16:38 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Jeffrey Schwartz
(17 Feb 2016 17:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Craig Berry
(17 Feb 2016 16:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Jeffrey Schwartz
(17 Feb 2016 17:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Craig Berry
(17 Feb 2016 17:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city Bruce Johnson (17 Feb 2016 17:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Jeffrey Schwartz
(18 Feb 2016 14:11 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Tim
(19 Feb 2016 00:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Instant city
Bruce Johnson
(17 Feb 2016 17:04 UTC)
|
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > > This isn't about light propagation delay; its a real causal sequencing failure. Read the Wikipedia article I linked upthread. It will make your brain hurt. > > Relativity does amazing things. Here's a related example a physics prof of mine gave me. Imagine a man running with a 10-foot-long pole, held in the middle, aligned with his path of travel. He's running at a high fraction of c; high enough that the Lorentz factor is 2. So he sees everything in his path of travel squished by a factor of 2 along his axis of travel. > > He's running toward a shed with an open door, that's 10 feet long in the rest frame. In the runner's frame, that means it's five feet long. So when he reaches it, the end of his pole reaches the back wall at the same moment he's in the doorway. His pole knocks out the back wall, and he's where it was as the back end of his pole reaches the doorway; the front end of the pole is now five feet past the former back wall of the shed. The critical bit is that all of this ONLY applies within the universe it’s happening in; jump occurs outside of it. Jeffrey’s example of the 300km spool of fiber is instructive here, by analogy. Jump is a shortcut bypassing the normal space ‘spool'; at no time is anything going faster than light*. Yes one pulse arrives much sooner than the other , but that’s because one pulse travelled 10 cm, the other 300km. If the ship itself is moving at a significant fraction of C observers might be able to see the kinds of things you’re talking about, but it’s NOT because the ship has moved through jump. Einstein-Rosen bridges are consistent with the equations of relativity; the question is can they exist? How do we make them? can information travel through them? *even the light isn’t going C, since it’s traveling through a non-vaccuum…a pulse sent through 300KM of fiber optic will arrive significantly AFTER a pulse sent through 300km of vacuum, by quite a bit; a cursory google search brings up a figure of .31 c through a typical cable. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs