Why do all sorts of FTL travel equal time travel?

It's a hard calculation. You need two super luminal frames to see it. There is a video online somewhere.

Something's fishy here.
B still learns of the event after it actually happened in A and can't do anything to prevent it which is the whole point of time travel.

The problem is that there's no universal "now", only local "nows". Local nows are constant to the local observer, but reference frames moving away from one another are skewed slower by momentum, relative to one another (so each observes the other's clock as running slow). If your target frame is moving away from you, their clock is going to be running slower from your view, and visa versa. Thus, if you could violate the speed of light, and instantly travel from one frame to the other, you'd effectively arrive in their past, as from their local perspective, their clock never slows.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at X, watching Y move away, and from my perspective, our clocks look like this at regular intervals:
1. X = t5.0 Y = t5.0
2. X = t6.0 Y = t5.5
3. X = t7.0 Y = t6.0
4. X = t8.0 Y = t6.5
5. X = t9.0 Y = t7.0
If, at my t7.0, I use my jump drive to teleport from X to Y, I am in their past (t6.0 instead of t7.0).

What's worse, is now that I'm at Y, X's clock is slower relative to mine, so...
3. X = t7.0 Y = t6.0
4. X = t7.5 Y = t7.0
5. X = t8.0 Y = t8.0
I can jump back to X at Y's t8, and tell them what's happening at Y's t8, even though they haven't observed it yet, as we can see from the previous set of numbers, from X's t8.0 perspective, Y is still at t6.5.

To top it all off, if I jump back to Y from here, I arrive before I left (I arrive at in Y at t6.5 when I left at Y t8.0)

Granted, it's less of causality problem if all these jumps are strictly one way, or the points are not moving away from one another.

Not all sorts of FTL travel lead to paradoxes. If you assume a special frame of reference for the purpose of FTL travel, it does not lead to any paradoxes. Cosmic microwave background is a natural choice for such frame.

physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#subsec:specialframe

You can't time travel. Light isn't time or any of that garbage.

this doesn't explain just why ALL FTL drives have to go into the past
this guy points it out
an FTL drive will not let you see events that have not happened yet, it will only let you move to a location faster than which light could travel to that location from where you once were
The only place where your example is valid is if you actually are traveling faster than light, instead of bending space to ignore it like all FTL methods do

>There's no Universal Now

If time is juts a measurement for motion against motion then everything has to be Now because you can't even measure it otherwise.

>instead of bending space to ignore it like all FTL methods do
bending space still allows you to create closed time curves

You cannot bend space. There is nothing in nature that bends in that respect.

How so?
You aren't traveling into the past, you can only see things that have happened, you're just seeing them faster than the light images have traveled to a location
You aren't in two places at the same time either, since you did travel, it's the static image that has not yet updated
Gravity is known for fucking with it, and something is expanding the universe faster than light
you got contraction and expansion right there, just not able to be harnessed at the moment

The problem is, as weird as it sounds, that when two frames of reference are moving away from each other, they both see the other clock as running slower (yes, AFTER accounting for the time it took for light to travel from one point to the other) and for ones that are approaching each other, the other one seems to move faster.

To go into more detail on what explained:
When X and Y are moving away, X is observing:
1. X = t5.0 Y = t5.0
2. X = t6.0 Y = t5.5
3. X = t7.0 Y = t6.0
4. X = t8.0 Y = t6.5
5. X = t9.0 Y = t7.0
Meanwhile, Y is observing:
1. Y = t5.0 X = t5.0
2. Y = t6.0 X = t5.5
3. Y = t7.0 X = t6.0
4. Y = t8.0 X = t6.5
5. Y = t9.0 X = t7.0

If one observer moves instantaneously to the position of the other, there are two theoretical possibilities:
>You move to the point at which you observe your target as
So, X teleports at his 9.0, and arrives at Ys 7.0.
At that time, Y is still observing Xs 6.0, and can send a message -using conventional subliminal speeds- to Xs past.
>You move to the same clock-time as your target
So, X teleports at his 9.0, and arrives at Ys 9.0
At that time, Y is still obvserving Xs 7.0. Same thing happens, and a message can still be sent -using conventional subliminal speeds- into Xs past, although a tad later.

youtube.com/watch?v=HUMGc8hEkpc

Gravity is not the bending of space time, it's polarization. It's an influence of a field against other fields. Like how magnets work.

And no one knows what the universe is doing or whether it's contracting or expanding.
That assumption that it's expanding is based on the faulty premise of red-shift from the stars and taking to light as a distance when it's been proven to be related to age, as taken from measurements of Tail-End galaxies being birthed from their parent ones.

And even with that information you still don't know anything, so maybe the Universe is still expanding regardless anyway.

They can't see any clock as going slower, that doesn't make any sense.
You don't need the algebra, that doesn't mean anything either.

Say you're looking at a clock, it's got gears and whatever inside.
The only way you can measure the speed of the hand moving is to just watch the hand move, right?
But you can't base the speed of the clock against the clock's own movement (60 ticks per revolution), that's silly.

So you measure it against the sun's movement or something.
In the 2 degrees the sun has moved, the hand has moved 300 ticks.

The only reference of time, is motion. So in essence time is just a measurement, it's an abstraction.
It's not a dimension that can be effected by anything other than the opposing movement that you're measuring off of.

Because that's all time is, right? Just measurement of motion.
By that idea, you can't perceive motion in different states, because it just is.

it happens if you make a return trip, not if you only make one-way trips.
exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Time/A E Everett - Warp drive and causality - prd950914.pdf
go to page three of the pdf, right column, for a description

Oh gawds, someone's been reading the electric universe tinfoil.

Tell us how Saturn used to be a brown dwarf that we orbited, followed by Jupiter, and how comments are actually balls of plasma, despite us having landed on one, and how GPS satellites are a conspiracy theory started by a Saturn cult.

Minkowski metric is [math] \mathrm{d}s^2 = c^2 \mathrm{d}t^2 - \mathrm{d}x^2 - \mathrm{d}y^2 - \mathrm{d}z^2 [/math]. Things can effectively travel through the 4D space-time at a fixed rate relative to an observer, which is ds. When you dx, dy and dz increase to such a level that it overtakes c^2 dt, you have the paradoxical result that ds^2 is negative, which is not possible

Imagine a particle that's been traveling near light speed since the beginning of the universe. In that frame, only a billion years (or w/e the math says) has passed in that frame. By traveling ftl, you could move in to that frame and the universe would be as it was 13 billion years ago. That is effectively time travel.

I don't really know much about all that, I'm just trying to keep people away from garbage theories that are upheld as the equivalent as religious dogma.

It's easy to just call people out.
Like if I call you stupid for not understanding that space travel in the way NASA presents it is a hoax.
It's easy and it's cheap.

Why not humor both your understandings and the understandings of others in scientific findings?

>Because that's all time is, right? Just measurement of motion.
All modern science indicates that it isn't. But let's say that it is. In that case
>When you are looking at a person moving away from you at near-to-light speeds, they appear to be acting slower. Their heart beats at half the rate, all chemical and physical reactions happen slower as well. Half lives of all the isotopes they are carrying are doubled.
meanwhile
>When a person is moving away from you at near-to-light speeds, they see you acting slower. Your heart beats at half the rate, all chemical and physical reactions happen slower as well. Half lives of all the isotopes you are carrying are doubled.
And
>When you are looking at a person moving towards you at a near-to-light speed, they appear to be acting faster. Their heart beats and double the rate, all chemical and physical reactions happen faster as well. Half lives of all the isotopes they are carrying are halved.
As well as
>When a person is moving towards you at near-to-light speeds, they see you acting faster. Your heart beats at double the rate, all chemical and physical reactions happen faster as well. Half lives of all the isotopes you are carrying are halved.
(Note: "halved" and "doubled" have been chosen arbitrarily, and are not correct with the actual formulas. Assuming both parties are experiencing the same same acceleration, then for both of them the total "time" should sync up by the time they next meet)

The problem comes in where the speed of light remains constant, and while atoms have mass, some of their components do not, and thus they have confined bits moving at the speed of light. (Which is kinda what gives us mass to begin with.)

Since the speed of light is constant, when one atom moves away from another, their causal interactions are slower related to one another - the massless bits, moving at the speed of light, effectively has further to travel because the atoms are moving.

So yes, if you fly atomic clocks in opposite directions around the planet, they will indeed get out of sync. Ya gotta go pretty fast before the effect can be registered, but it's been done. repeatedly.

Similarly, you have to adjust for relativistic effects to communicate with geostationary satellites for similar reasons - they are moving faster than you are, and you are deeper in the gravity well than they are.

Some good simplified explanations:

youtube.com/watch?v=fHRqibyNMpw

youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Why do you think anything would change if you were moving faster?
Why is time seen as a dimension in and of itself?

Time is a measurement of motion, against motion.
The sun moves from east to west, I walk 15,000 steps in that period of measuring my motion against the Sun's.

That's all time is. It's just a measurement.
It can't be altered because if it's just motion, all you can measure is motion, in motion.

You aren't going to get very far if you assume the universe only works in a way you are "comfortable" with. There's very few theories that have been challenged as thoroughly as GR and SR. Like so many things in the universe, it's weird as fuck, unintuitive as fuck, but nonetheless true. It shouldn't be terribly surprising that a species that ever only deals with time from a single frame of reference would have trouble comprehending how time actually works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

And you may not realize it, but the magnetic gravity theory you are referencing *is* actually religion, birthed from the electric universe cultists, who seem to ignore we depend on SR every day. Specifically related to this:
i.4cdn.org/tg/1506530682776.pdf
...and, suffice to say, it raises a whole lot more problems than it resolves.

We know nothing about any of that.
No one knows what's happening inside an atom.
No one can really define mass.
No one bothers to ask why light travels at the rate it does on the planet.

And then we have satellites. I have zero evidence for satellites even existing in orbit.
Everyone cries GPS, but it's obviously just triangulation through phone towers and the internet otherwise I would have signal at every single point on the planet (barring the obvious).
And everyone wants to shut you down right away on that and call you stupid.

So where's all the data? Where are the thousands upon thousands of images and signal processing, videos, logs, programming details, crew logs, orbit details and concurrent sightings, sightings against the moon, camera specifics.

Anyway I don't really care about the satellites, I just want to get the point across that time isn't time. It's a measurement of motion.

Alcubierre drives don't violate causality because you aren't moving the ship

You're moving a bubble of space time, and space time already moves faster than light

>Why do you think anything would change if you were moving faster?
>Why is time seen as a dimension in and of itself?
Because we know for a fact that moving really really fast actually affects the speed at which events happen.
See the
>Assuming both parties are experiencing the same same acceleration, then for both of them the total "time" should sync up by the time they next meet
Note?
We actually know from experiments that if you have two synced up clocks (mechanical, digital, atomic, or just a guy saying "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississipi), leave one at rest, and have the other accelerate and de-celerate to and from near-light-speeds, then by the end of the experiment, their clocks will be de-synchronized.
All motions for the moving guy were slowed down. He effectively experienced less "time".
Whether we call it "time" or "rate at which events happen" is a mater of pure semantics.

nice popsci

No one challenges GR and SR because they get chewed up.
I don't care about this Electric Universe, I care about removing this idea of time as a dimension. It's a measurement. Same as meters, same as inches, that's all.

The fact that we have all these theories but no one has answers for magnetism, electricity and gravity concerns me more, but whatever.

>lol popsci likes it therefore I'm not allowed to understand how it works

I never said it works retard
It just doesn't violate causality

>9194480
nice shitpost
Do not respond to shitposters

So, basically, we cannot know nothing about nothing unless we directly experience it ourselves eh?

Well good luck with that. You can just believe anything you want then. All of history before you were born is a lie, anything that happened beyond your sight was made up, your CPU has a bunch of chinese goblins and unicorns doing math inside of it, the Earth is flat, there are no satellites, it's all a conspiracy to keep you in the dark, because only you know what's real in your little world of solipsism where you are god.

You know everything there is to know, and anything anyone else says to the contrary hogwash... Which begs the question, why come to Veeky Forums?

the proposed mechanism of the alcubierre drive does not itself violate causality, but that doesn't mean you can't use an alcubierre drive to create a causality violation

>And then we have satellites. I have zero evidence for satellites even existing in orbit.

please vacate this board

Alcubierre drives are a little funky, because you are actually taking your origin time frame with you, but there's still the potential for causal violations, if you can get back and forth between multiple points in motion.

Not debating whether they work or not - but if they did, that would be a potential problem.

Though as points out - the main reason we don't like causality violations is that it violates our sense of reason and our ability to predict things. In the end, the universe may not give as much of a shit as we do. Even under our own theories, the geometry of the universe allows for causal violations, we just don't think there's any combination of physical phenomena that could allow them to happen, and still interact with our observable universe.

>Because we know for a fact that moving really really fast actually affects the speed at which events happen

No you don't know.
If you turn on a flashlight, what do you think is going to happen based on your perception of the event?

The clocks are all just motion, they are ALWAYS in sync with each other because you can only ever look at them right as you are and as they are.

Who cares whether this atomic clock is off by 2 milliseconds, it's just a clock. It doesn't mean anything.

Nothing has changed around you, you can only measure both from one point, the now.
So then what is the point of such an experiment? There is none.

>I care about removing this idea of time as a dimension
The only definition of a "dimension" is "a thing we can measure (which we can't simplify further).
Whether you want to call it "time" or "rate at which events happen" is up to you. But there are instruments that, from our point of view, perform actions in constant, equal intervals, and we know that by subjecting them to certain forces we can make them perform such actions slower or faster. And the rate at which they slow down or speed up is identical, no matter what type of counting device we use.

Even if you believe that "time" is zero-dimensional (only "now" exists, while past is already erased and "future" is not yet determined) you still believe in the concept.

Alcubierre drive does violate causality

>Calculations by physicist Allen Everett show that warp bubbles could be used to create closed timelike curves in general relativity, meaning that the theory predicts that they could be used for backwards time travel.

>Miguel Alcubierre briefly discusses some of these issues in a series of lecture slides posted online,[31] where he writes: "beware: in relativity, any method to travel faster than light can in principle be used to travel back in time (a time machine)".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Causality_violation_and_semiclassical_instability

Any FTL drive can be used to violate causality, period. If you want to have FTL without causality violations, you need to modify relativity in some way. Such as assuming a special frame of reference. No way around that.

There is kind of an interesting point to explore there of where do we draw the line of trusting experts on things we could technically verify ourselves somehow.

I'm saying what I know, and what I know isn't much.
Why lie to myself and pretend I know 100% what's happening inside an atom?
Everyone wants to have an answer.

We just need to stop kidding ourselves.
People go around giving hour long presentations on black holes for years on end.
People have the audacity to make presentations about the birth of the universe.

That's perverse. That's what fucking insane people do.
Don't do that user, you're smarter than me, so be smart.

You think it's funny until you look into it. And not the conspiratorial side of it either.
Go ahead and look at the images the Japanese satellites are taking from behind the moon of the Earth.

You'll get four images, all different resolutions, no timestamps, common image formats, no raw image data, nothing.

>Who cares whether this atomic clock is off by 2 milliseconds, it's just a clock. It doesn't mean anything.
>Nothing has changed around you, you can only measure both from one point, the now.

I mean, I understand that you are only here to be contrary to the popular opinion. I get that, and I appreciate it. All science needs a skeptic so it doesn't get too confident in itself, and doesn't start accepting all ideas as true. I'm glad you're here, you're important.
But with arguments like that you affectively lose all "legitimacy" as skeptic, and start being perceived as a straight-up shitposter.
The only question that could be raised is:
Why are you here?
Disregarding the most accurate measurements we are able to perform and caring only about your own point of view are signs of being an ego-centrist philosopher, not a scientist. As strawmanny and slippery-slopy as this sounds, it's right up in there with "I'm the only conscious human on earth, everybody else is just an illusion".

There is no time. Don't you get it?
Nothing, it's just things moving.

I read, research and ask questions about this sort of stuff purely to satisfy my curiosity. I don't feel obligated to discover anything for the good of humanity, I learn for purely hedonistic reasons.
The fetish for learning has been implanted in me early on in life, and so I still get a level of satisfaction from it.
But if my dick gets hard in the middle of a black hole video, I will stop watching it in order to masturbate.

I can only get so much pleasure before my body shuts down and I die, and childhood programming has resulted in "learning about the mysteries of the universe" being one of the greater sources of satisfaction I have.

>there are no "computers", it's just a bunch of electronic parts sending signals to one another
>there are no "books", just a bunch of letters put on paper
>there is no "cooking", it's just a dude putting a bunch of edible things together
>there is no "running" there is just moving your legs back and forth to push yourself further

You are basically denying anyone but you can know anything, and anyone who says they know something you don't, is wrong.

I mean, you're already claiming that satellites are hogwash because you've never gone into orbit to see one (or simply used a telescope youtube.com/watch?v=9SSOCsJg48E, apparently), and drawing the conclusion that, since you've never seen a satalite, people who tell you that your GPS works via satellites which require a special relativity calculation, are lying.

You've had tons of links to experiments regarding all this stuff in this thread, but since you do it yourself, they are all lies to you.

That's a self-generated solipsism. A world in which only you are right, and everyone else is wrong. It's good for the ego, in the short term, but is pretty much a sure path to insanity in the long.

No one can prove anything to you so long as you have this mentality. People have done the math for so many things, and their models work, over and over again, but you don't believe them when it doesn't fit your worldview. Thus, there's no way to convince you of anything, and in the end, there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Eventually, that's going to be a lonely life.

How can it mean anything when you're viewing the clocks from the same point?

Look at where science has you by the balls.
Be fucking smart, forget about the fucking clocks.
You cannot perceive anything outside of your "now", because that's all that exists.
The clocks don't matter. Time is a measurement.

The clock, is based on motion.
I don't know why you're giving the clock, atomic or otherwise, precedence over how you think time works.

It's not that, the concept of time has been bastardized and fused into light speed and all this garbage.
Everyone takes it as a literal dimension, "Space and Time", "Space time".

that's because it IS a literal dimension you spacker

You just have to go with your gut sometimes.
I see shit all evidence for satellites for example.

You want to go on a tirade about ego and solipsism, go ahead.
You haven't got the guts to call shit as it is, barely anyone in these fields has.

You're scared that Veeky Forums might downvote you?
That's real fucking science, to look and something and say, "that's not right", and challenge it.
You fucking challenge that shit if you feel in your gut it isn't right, even if you're wrong, then at least 1 person, you or me did it.

And when your gut tells you 2+2=5?
>inb4 large values of 2
Because that's what you're doing here. You are assuming that you're right, and everyone who is telling you otherwise is brainwashed or lying to you in some grand conspiracy.

Has it ever occurred to you that the mountain of evidence against you is indeed constantly challenging itself, and that challenge is being made by folks with a hell of a lot more training in the subject you are challenging than you do?

I mean, I kinda get "going with your gut" on a moral decision, even if I don't really approve of it, but this is math here, experimentally verified math.

You're basically potentially denying all human knowledge, despite the fact that there's more knowledge available than you can possibly learn in a lifetime.

Reminds me of paranoid alzheimer's patients I've had to deal with - their gut tells them that their memory is correct, thus you can't reason with them when it's wrong. Next thing you know they are putting a knife to your throat because you're threatening their view of reality.

I'm not the same guy, dude.

Linked wrong guy... Meant Though, similar thing there.

The only way you have no evidence for satellites in orbit, is if you refuse to accept any evidence for satellites in orbit, and accept all evidence against it.

That's true of a lot of things that flat-earther, electric universe, and creationists folks harp about - they basically just deny the evidence that violates their contrarian world view, regardless of how mountainous it is, ignoring the fact that this mountain is constantly challenging itself, and that challenge is made up of folks a lot more versed on the subject than they are.

In the end, you can't verify everything experts tell you. I mean, even validating all of Newton's predictions would take more than a lifetime, as we've, collectively, spent several thousand life times verifying them all, as well as figuring out where they break down. The collective knowledge of mankind has become so wide, and requires such specialization, that there is simply no way you can verify each and every claim throughout all of history. You can verify, at best, a handful of them for yourself.

But, particularly when it comes to science, keep in mind that every other human is doing just that. Every scientific claim is eventually challenged. So, if you're going to decide the main stream is wrong, regardless of what others tell you, you'd better have damned good reason, as it is continually challenging itself, and those challenges are being made by folks who are actually specialized enough in that knowledge to make the challenge proper. If you don't have enough specialization in a given field to make that challenge, you can't simply assume those that do are wrong because you don't like what they are telling you, or you liked some fringe element said.

In short, delegate wisely. Simply being contrarian is not "being woke", it's in fact, deliberate ignorance.

Exactly as I said before, and the other guy is repeating:
If you claim that measurements and evidence are irrelevant in the face of your own beliefs, then you are not a scientist. You accept universal egocentrism, and there is nothing distinguishing you from a person who says "sun revolves around the earth and earth revolves around me".
If you don't trust clocks, you can just as well not trust measuring tapes, videos or books.
For how can clocks be real if our eyes aren't real?

It is actually in interesting idea, but some science is simply beyond one man's capacity. It's easier to list all the things one -can- figure out on his own. And even then you can't be sure that your discoveries will be universal and work the same everywhere you go.
Are we talking about the idea of re-discovering science from scratch, or merely verifying facts as provided by the experts? If so, do we follow their methods, or invent our own experiments to prove the same point? And do we have to verify every per-requisite assumption/fact of their experiment, or can do them "out of order"?

Keep in mind that 99% of what undergrad students do is re-verify and re-reproduce unintuitive theories and experiments. Every day, someone, at some university, somewhere, is reconfirming special relativity, evolution, the coriolis effect, microevolution, mutation, the double slit experiment, or some other shit.

I wasn't trying to say that what you're saying is stupid or impossible. All the questions I asked were legit.
You're correct, almost everybody with aspirations to be a scientist has to reproduce hundreds of experiments - both to learn how to partake in the scientific method and gain some personal experience to rely on.
(Unfortunately, most of them don't even realize why they are doing it, and only perform those experiments because without doing so, they won't get their passing mark)
However, when your standard undergrad uses a microscope, he doesn't necessarily understand how every part of it works. It's just his faith in his peers that they provided him with a tool that actually shows small things under it. He trusts the tools provided to him to give accurate measurements. If you want to be the ultimate skeptic - you shouldn't. You should study each and every tool before you believe in the measurements done with it. And if you go even further, into a full-tinfoil mode, you shouldn't even trust this tool at all - you must understand the principles and then build a tool of your own, just to be sure that you aren't being lied to and manipulated by others.

FTL is a mistake

that's honestly more than I would have assumed

hasn't it been debunked as a troll job

k get out of this thread if you are just going to bait

>But you can't base the speed of the clock against the clock's own movement

No, but say you were able to send a message from a space ship traveling .99c to earth instantly(yes this is impossible but this is to illustrate the point). That message contains the reading from the space ships clock, when compared to an identical clock on earth they tick at different speeds. Even more strange is that if you were to travel for a period of time where you observed a 360 degree rotation of earth and then sent an instantaneous message back to earth they would have observed several 360 degree rotations in the same time frame. This is where paradoxes come in and why FTL travel and communications are probably impossible. So lets say as soon as space ship gets the instantaneous message(1 day later his time, 3 weeks earth time) he decides to teleport back to earth via a conveniently placed wormhole. He travels home instantaneously to find that he has arrived before they sent the message. This is the physics equivalent of dividing by zero. Its not that we don’t understand what happened, its that it cant happen.

It's actually a lot less than that, due to ye dreaded law of inverse square.

Granted, I'm sure someone will tell us we can't know that, cuz we ain't got a satellite 200 years out to verify it for us, and the fact that we know how radio waves behave on Earth and in space means nothing. (Oh yeah, and satellites don't exist.)

Radio waves don't exist. Have you ever seen one? Radio stations operate via sympathetic psychic vibrations from spiritually attuned DJ's. Stay woke!

This example doesnt break causality though, they would be returning before they would receive the message in earths reference frame not before they received it in theirs

>If you want to be the ultimate skeptic - you shouldn't. You should study each and every tool before you believe in the measurements done with it. And if you go even further, into a full-tinfoil mode, you shouldn't even trust this tool at all - you must understand the principles and then build a tool of your own, just to be sure that you aren't being lied to and manipulated by others.
You could just put a ruler under the microscope (assuming it doesn't have one built in).

Granted, you shouldn't sit in the chair next to the microscope until you've studied all the structural physics that make it safe to, as well as the metallurgy, chemistry, and atomic functions involved. Or use the desk for that matter - I mean your hand might go right through it without a proper understanding of electromagnetism. Oh... And did you use an electric clock to make sure you got to class on time? Did you arrive by car?

Suffice to say, this gets real retarded real fast. Just daily functioning as a human being means taking tons of shit for granted, and you ain't got enough years in you to figure out how it all works. If yer gonna learn anything new, you're going to have to stand on the shoulders of giants and the mountain of corpses that came before you from time to time.

Granted, even then, I guess verifying every little last bit of minutia for yourself is still better than assuming everyone else is wrong and you're right, just cuz you "feel right", which is what's really going on with Veeky Forums trolls like that other guy.

breaking causality in any reference frame is a problem

I've always wondered, WHY is it a bad thing
Were it possible to break causality, What issues would even come from it, would it obliterate the universe?

Well, we literally have no idea. Maybe our universe is capable of supporting closed time loops. Maybe they would eventually balance themselves out, and everything would work fine. There is literally no way to tell at this time.
But as far as we can reason out, violating causality can lead to paradoxes good ol' grandpaparadox is not just a silly idea - it's a simplification of a scenario where the event of time travel disrupts the events that directly resulted in performing time travel, therefore stopping time travel from happening, therefore saving the events from being disrupted, therefore allowing time travel to happen, therefore disrupting the events that led to it, therefore stopping it from happening, therefore...

sharebrained.com/2011/09/06/signals-from-space-part-1/

>you think it's funny until you look into it

And then it's still funny. Look I get being skeptical and all, and that everyone can't possibly know everything and that not everybody has the time to look into it extensively enough to definitively prove something beyond all possible doubt.

But you have some serious trust issues. It is extremely reasonable to take this stuff on good faith, because there is a ton of information available to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Sure maybe you can really stretch and call it a global conspiracy that hundreds of millions are in on, but even then you can still go do like what the guy in the link did and go pick up satellite signals for your self. Most space equipment is so small it can't really get a laser beam like signal arc, you can pick up this stuff from your house and anything that is not encrypted to can get meaningful data out of if you are clever enough.

But again maybe there is a back door in every CPU to detect when someone is trying to pick up a satellite signal that fakes the data to trick you into complacency, only gotta add a few 10s of millions more people into the conspiracy for that

Because space and time are like the X and Y of the 4th dimension. That's why its called space-time.

Nope.

Time is how we measure change, but its also a dimensional axis.

In 4D, the big bang exist at the same "time" (to the "left") as the end of the universe (to the "right").