Moontanman

It's amazing how many people are aggressor nation apologists in this scenario. I wonder if it was their nation that was being invaded and taken over would they still be apologists for the aggressors? It's not like Putin or Hitler just wanted some breathing room to ride their horses. While I am not and would not be in favor of my country invading and taking over another nations territory I am in favor of my nation defending me against such actions. Yes I said "defending me" that is one big reason we live in nations. Our ancestors sought safety in numbers and i doubt they or we really think that aggression to take over someone else's territory is the same as defending their territory. Yes the world would (maybe) be a safer place if no nukes existed but I think it's arguable that nukes have prevented an all out WWIII type scenario from occurring since WWII, Yes I know small wars have occured and continue to occur but large scale conflicts have been avoided and I think it's arguable that nukes have played a big part in this avoidance. Constant large scale conflicts could be a game changer for civilization and prevent any real world order. There have been several potential world wide conflict triggers since WWII but the threat of nukes being used has helped mitigate the scale and ferocity of these conflicts and provided a real reason for the parties involved to sue for peace. Is it a perfect system... no of course not... but trusting aggressor nations to keep to their own "side" has never worked and appeasement has only ever resulted in the appeased wanting more and more. Putin apologists are no better now than Hitler apologists were in preventing aggression that leads to widespread warfare. IMHO Putin intended to use his nukes to intimidate the world into allowing him to retake all of the "lost" appendages of the USSR and with an almost certain intent to take much more of the world under his "wing" to protect them from the peace and prosperity of being free nations. Putin/Russia/China/DPRK and other nations have motives that are simply not part of allowing a world where nations exist to peacefully coexist on the world's stage. I know the "West" isn't exactly pure as the driven snow in it's motives but at least actively invading and taking over other countries via warfare is at least officially illegal. Large aggressor nations should be opposed by smaller nations combing their efforts to thwart the ambitions of larger aggressive nations. And yes i know my nation isn't innocent but we can be better and that can't happen if nations like russia can use the threat of nukes to straight up intimidate other nations into surrender.

Actually Putin has said this but it doesn't really matter, they had no reason to take back anything. The countries involved are sovereign states and did not ask russia to invade them and kill their citizens. So you are a russian apologist? They have claimed they have a right to take back alaska, claim they were cheated by the US. How do you think that is going to go over? Ukraine is kicking their asses so badly they have resorted to making nuclear threats, anyone who trusts Russia and Putin is foolish.

So we all just surrender to the Russians? Or the Chinese or whatever aggressive power decides to invade us and take over? The people of Finland didn't join NATO to prevent being vaporized they did it to prevent the Russians from invading them. There is safety in numbers, as for nukes... if everyone didn't have them I would be all about preventing anyone from getting them but at this time even minor players can get nukes, DPRK would seem to be a good example and if you believe Russia won't invade ask Ukraine. Russia has made it plain they intend to take back all of the Soviet former states and then some. And they are not shy about rattling around their nuclear capabilities. I'm not sure how you keep rogue states from using the threat of nukes to intimidate and even invade their neighbors but I am quite sure not having nukes to deter their use will not do it.

Thanks guys, I think i see where my mind went wrong, thanks again.

In the video it shows as it's first example that an instantaneous signal does not violate causality... I've watched it over and over, he does say this and shows it by moving through the diagram to show that from the stand point of all three, the supernova, earth and vega that causality is not violated. I'll watch it yet again. I can't understand why only I am seeing this. In the cool worlds video starting at 10:45 to 13:40 only after he puts a STL ship on the diagram does causality violations show up. To me it seems that the STL ship sending a FTL message back to Earth causes the problem. If the STL ship couldn't send the message then causality would not be violated except the STL ship would be confused by the message if it could receive it. But if the STL ship could nether send or receive the FTL signal the causality would be preserved from from everyone's point of view. Vega might receive the message before it could see the light but this info wouldn't be able to cause a time loop unless vega could send a signal to before the earth saw the nova. Am i making any sense here or am i just totally off the rails? The time paradox could be avoided by the moving ship not being able to send a FTL signal and would be totally avoided if the STL ship couldn't receive a FTL signal either. I see how this is contrived but the fact is can be contrived to not violate causality seems to indicate the FTL signal could be sent and received just not by small moving objects. All of a sudden I do see the problem and where I made my mistake but it doesn't seem completely impossible to send an FTL message and the size and maybe mass of the object sending the signal are at the crux of the issue. I guess i am too much of an optimist to think this is impossible but the circumstances do seem to need to be rather "special".

So an instant transmission directly to vega from sol would not violate causality as is explained in the video but a instant transmission from a spacecraft would?

I have been told that the story was going to say the human brains were being used as part of the matrix AI's artificial brain then the changed it to being a battery. It is after all science fiction and in this case not particularly good science fiction... or at least not a very good premise.

How does instantaneous transmission of a signal show up?

Sadly I guess this is just one more thing I'll have to accept on faith or at least my trust in others who know more than me... ok, no other choice I guess. I but I do have to ask is this final or could some other breakthrough in science like solving the connection between the quantum mechanics, relativity, and gravity bring about an understanding that makes this diagram obsolete? Is there any work in that direction at all?

I do understand that and I understand Special Relativity came from Einstein but why or how does that result in this diagram?

I have a question, where does the space diagram come from and how do we know it is an accurate representation of reality? The diagram seems to be the fly in the ointment, I know it is assumed to be accurate by the youtube poster and by everyone here but why?

I'm sorry I thought I was quoting Genedy, my bad, and my bad for not understanding what the video is saying. It's been bothering me since I first watched it, I know what everyone says about FTL being time travel but for some reason I see something different in the diagram as explained by the guy in the video. I know what I am supposed to see but it looks quite different to me for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on. The problem is my misperception, for some reason the diagram is tripping me up.

I was not answering you when I mentioned the space ship train. I am trying to reply to everyone, not just you. It's must be my wishful thinking that is clouding my tiny brain... I'll continue to take your word for it, I must be missing something. I knew I shouldn't have posted this video, only served to make me look stupid for asking the question.

I don't get it, the space time diagram specifically says there is no causality violation under those circumstances. No, he specifically says the transmission doesn't violate causality unless the ship signals back to the earth to shut off it's transmitter. You are not looking at the diagram at the beginning. He specifically says the instantaneous transmission by itself would not violate causality. The train of ships that Genedy talked about.

So the train of ships is not moving? The diagram says differently.

That situation seems more than a bit contrived, how about a FTL transmission isn't possible from a small moving object? Maybe only a planet sized object can be used to house or mount an FTL transmitter? No less contrived at least?

So instantaneous is ok as long as it doesn't come from a moving ship? That is what I thought.

do tell?

As it will always be as long as the subject is assumed to be false due to no good evidence. Good evidence cannot be collected by definition.

It's because I don't know how to post a screenshot but it's also because I am sure it's a misunderstanding on my part. I am well aware of the "fact" of ftl always implies causality violations. I'll post it so I won't be wrong anymore, that is always as important if not more so than being right. https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A The space time diagram starts at 06:52 the causality violation diagram starts at 12:52 the paradox explanation starts at 17:02. It seems (to me at least) to be saying that a causality violation only occurs if a FTL transmission goes from the STL ship to Earth. He also seems to be conflating FTL transmissions with FTL travel when in fact travel maybe impossible due to hawking radiation but transmissions would not be affected so.

There are people that disagree with you, do i need to post the video so you can ignore it?

I have linked them to UFO threads many times, the "chain of evidence" is never good enough because the first people on the scene are never scientists. These things never occur in a laboratory setting and are seldom investigated at all by scientists until well after the fact. A significant number of UFO sightings are never "resolved" and not necessarily from a lack of data. No matter how good the data is the bar is always lifted higher as the data becomes less easily dismissed.

No, it was an instantaneous signal from a STL craft that caused a causality problem.

Yes but such things have been detected, trace evidence is quite common in sightings that include landings. I agree, but we do not have to posit the laws are different xomehow, who did in which sighting?