According to Einstien's theory of relativity, FTL travel is the same a time travel...

According to Einstien's theory of relativity, FTL travel is the same a time travel, expressed with a Lorenzo transformation on a space-time diagram.

But if the universe if exponentially expanding, do those far off galaxies that move relative to us faster than light, travel through time somehow, breaking causality.

(btw i know they don't move through space ftl, but the space in between the MW and the example galaxy expands faster than light.)

Other urls found in this thread:

astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Causality is a meme

It's a Lorentz transformation, fucking idiot.

I could never get this: of all "cool" "modern" physics areas (SR, GR, QM, QFT) special relativity is the easiest to get into both in terms of physics and mathematics. I don't think it requires anything above what is taught in schools, well maybe some introductory tensor handwaving.
And if you put some effort, like, just a bit, you can read through pretty simple differential geometry stuff and understand some of the general relativity, too.

I get why there are so many popsci quantum retards, you have to know classical mechanics and EM and even statmechanics and diff equations and functional analysis and path integrals and group representations.. But "Lorenzo" transformation? Really?

Auto correct you nigger

Are those quotes accurate? No wonder Veeky Forums is rife with autism. You're all just walking calculators at this point. This is very unfortunate.

>Causality is the meme
there fixed it for ya.

>Lorenzo transformation

its Einstein you cunt. btw what is lorenzo supposed to mean in your shitty language? Learn German

why should they travel trough time? and there are no galaxies moving faster than light. galaxies are almost mounted in their position due to their mass. the red shift is an effect of the room expanding not of gelaxies flying away. its like a teadmill the light is traveling on.

I have a Samsung phone anons. Don't judge.

Bease they move relative to us. Same thing with a warp drive, perhaps the don't move through space, but they still have relative motion.

>Lorenzo transformation
stopped reading holy shit kek

yes to us. which makes it stupid to think they travel trough time? that makes them maybe unreachable for us but nothing more.

They don't break causality because they can't interact with us. You have to make a closed loop to break causality.

Before you go throwing stones at Krauss, what is the most recent philosopher of science you've read and can you give us a little summary of recent developments in philosophy of science?

There is a reason why its called THEORY of relativity. Its a hoax, and time is NOT the 4th dimension. Time lacks direction and ortogonality - how can it be a dimension? Relativity is a mathematical hoax. Tesla rules.

I'm so embarrased that you supposedly educated anons are mistaking OP's perfectly legitimate mention of Professor Einstien and his special assistant Dr. Lorenzo as some reference to that deluded idiot Einstein and his befuddled accomplice Lorentz.

>do those far off galaxies that move relative to us faster than light, travel through time somehow, breaking causality.
No, and the reason is that the distance in the denominator of the [math]\Delta[/math]distance/[math]\Delta[/math]time there is made up of different parts measured in different reference frames, and the [math]\Delta[/math]time elapsed is also being measured in different frames at different points. If you used the same reference frame (parallel translated along the path being measured) for the whole path, you would get a result less than the speed of light.

>(btw i know they don't move through space ftl, but the space in between the MW and the example galaxy expands faster than light.)
This is another explaining-to-children meme; there is no difference between the two because space has no rest frame.

>time lacks direction and orthogonality
god i love Veeky Forums sometimes

from astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z), where z is the redshift, which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by [math]v = 2c[1-(1+z)^{-0.5}][/math] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
For the concordance model based on CMB data and the acceleration of the expansion measured using supernovae, a flat Universe with [math]\Omega_M = 0.27[/math], the velocity is greater than c for z > 1.407.

Er, the actual, physical distance between galaxies farther apart than about 4,200 megaparsecs is increasing faster than c.

As a dimension i meant. Look, you can take the length and height dimensions and you can say they are perpendicular and they have a direction. But if you say time is a dimension then point to me which way time flows.

time flows in whatever way it does in a predictable way, otherwise we couldn't make predictions

>Relativity is a mathematical hoax.
That's a pretty clever hoax considering how he tricked GPS into only working correctly when it takes his mathematical lies into account.

>actual, physical distance
Distance is actually, physically different in different reference frames.

Show me the direction on an x y plane that z 'flows'. Likewise, the time dimension, being perpendicular to all 3 spatial dimensions, doesn't flow in any direction in 3D space, but in its own separate direction.

>time flows
Time doesn't flow if you're treating it as a dimension in 4D space-time. That wouldn't make any sense, like asking what the length of a length is. The whole point is objects in space-time are all just one static shape where different moments in time are modeled like different locations in a space. If that shape flowed / moved then that'd mean there was some additional second variety of time that regular time was moving through.

So you're saying that the universe isn't really expanding because relativity?

?

>universe isn't really expanding
No, what I said was that you would need to measure the speed of the expansion in a different way in order to make special relativity's speed limit rule apply.

Isn't the space inside a black hole stretching faster than c, making it impossible for light to escape? Didn't space expand faster than c during inflation? Won't we stop seeing new light from galaxies over 4,200 megaparsecs away because it can't keep up with the expansion of space? Don't all of these measurements behave the same compared to c, regardles of any other frame of reference considerations?

Its the gravity that doesn't let photons escape.

Came to post this.

...

You guys didn't even go to the moon and you're telling me the universe is expanding? According to what load of crap is the universe infinite? What you guys don't get is that antimatter should be in equal amount with matter from the big bang hoax. The space isn't infinite, no one knows what is with the edge. Seriously your Hubble telescope would melt instantly in the termosphere and everyone makes this assumptions about water on other planets about the components of stars - science has become a religion. What facts are for the infinity of space? When have you seen something non-living like that concentraded dot of matter before the big-bang become something living? Einstein tells about curved light - well when you curve something it means you accelerate it towards the center of the curve. That would exceed the speed of light! Every theoretical phisicist tell you shit and say its too complicated, like with Einstein - it was told only 6 people in the world could understand the mathematical calculus, and do you think they were asked their opinion? No, because it was mainstream. You think you know the truth, but you are just a guy on Veeky Forums that heard some shit or was taught blindly and now you're repeating what you've learned. Michelson-Morley experiment had 2 conclusions: Either aether does not exist (which is bull) OR... The earth is not moving. You can guess what I'm about to say. And I already know your reaction. Well sry but it's true. Research NASA's lies first, the you'll see something is not right. Also Tesla is the one you should look up to, not that puppet Einstein.

Consider this

ikr I agree with you Tesla was exposing all of these manipulators who are teaching and preaching wrong science. Relativity is a hoax that makes us believe that we cant travel to far off stars and shit but then again why does it even matter when there is literally nothing to discover in the distant stars and shit. Haha, light is the speed limit... How do people believe this? Tesla detected rays travelling 30 times the speed of light from a star but to suppress his voice they made it look like he was going cray-cray by putting them chemicals and toxins in his water and food fucking deforming his ascended human brain. Laser shooting pigeons were just crafted by the government to deceive Tesla and show the mainstream public sheep that Tesla was going mad. Fuck Einstein, that fucking kike has deceived the entire world except for us real thinkers. My water may be full of mind control molecules but I am too smart for that shit.

>Laser shooting pigeons were just crafted by the government to deceive Tesla and show the mainstream public sheep that Tesla was going mad. Fuck Einstein, that fucking kike has deceived the entire world except for us real thinkers

Fuck you CIA niggers.

There is something called "metric tensor" for that.

why are you faggots having any kind of trouble with this? one is just dumb, the other thinks he's smart by saying some bullshit to a retard.
has nothing to do with reference frames and you don't even have to bring up if speed limits apply to space. Nothing is even appearing to move faster than light. Space expands at all points, so if two are far enough away they will separate faster than light. But if two cars were moving at .6C each in opposite directions would you think relativity has been violated because the distance between them is increasing at 1.2C?

Would you kindly not reproduce and cease poisoning the gene pool of mankind? Thanks.

>But if two cars were moving at .6C each in opposite directions would you think relativity has been violated because the distance between them is increasing at 1.2C?
Are you taking 'you' to be a third person observer of the 2 cars? Because observing a distant point in the galaxy getting further away only involves 2 points.