What about for those who have done neither?
Hmm technically you could get away with decent high school maths and nothing else, the other stuff just helps.
I'm not convinced by that. As I think my immediately prior message hinted at (without having read this first, sorry)...
...
edit: In a classic "message takes time to get somewhere" example, I think I've been replied to on a previous version of this point. I'll look at the link in a moment, but I'm entitled to make myself look like a fool for the courage of my convictions, so I'll post anyway and recant at leisure if need be.
That's perfectly fine, you shouldn't just believe something without working through it yourself
Messages that "travelled back in time" are only 'seen' from frames of reference in which there are further SoL delays. i.e. you can see a 'further away' destination receive a message before it should have done (by your frame of reference), but the time taken to be notified of that reception completely lags the message behind that which would have come directly from the initial sender.
And those sent from further to nearer could just have been sent straight to you, rather than stopping off at the nearer. Rotating frames add other complications, of course, but a similar lack of advantage in all the variations I'm contemplating.
Yeah, that's a big issue, which is why I made sure to mention at least two receiver/transmitters being sent off. You can use those to ensure the correct frames of reference are obtained. However, point of interest; once you have a signal sent back in time to the original point, there's nothing stopping you looping it through again, and sending it back still further
The faster we can go over c, the easier it is to get sufficient relativistic differences between multiple frames of refence.
(BTW: "neutron sources"->"neutrino sources", yes?)
Herp a derp >.< Cheers for catching that.
GAH TOO MANY NEENJAS
Starver, on your latest post, the pertinent points are used to construct an example;
- As observers O and Op pass by one another (as they are shown in Diagram 8-1 ) Op uses some method to send out an FTL bullet from his reference frame. The event "O and Op pass one another" will be called the "passing event" from here on.
- The bullet strikes and kills a victim who's death is the event marked "*" in Diagram 8-1 . This event occurs after the passing event in Op's frame of reference, but it occurs before the passing event in O's frame.
- A third observer is at the victim's side as he dies and thus he witnesses the death. This third observer is stationary in O's frame of reference (i.e. his frame is the same as O's), so the victims death ("*") occurs before the passing event (when the bullet was fired) in this third observer's frame. Thus, the third observer has witnessed a result which comes from an event in his future--he has information about a future event in his frame of reference.
- The third observer sends this information about the future to O using an FTL signal, and in the third observer's frame of reference, O can receive this information before the passing event occurs (and thus before the bullet is fired).
- O receives the message and learns of the victims death before the bullet is fired. He thus knows about the bullet being fired--an event in his own future which will occur at his very location.
- O uses this information to prevent Op from firing the bullet, thus causing a self-inconsistent situation--an unsolvable paradox.
OH GODDAMIT MORE NINJAS
Yeah, Bremen gave a good example.
*twitch* ninjas *twitch*