Moontanman

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?

There is another video by on a science channel that explains why FTL equals backward in time and or a paradox every time but in the diagrams I see a flaw. It appears that instantaneous communication doesn't cause time travel unless it's from a spacecraft going slower than light. The diagram is part of the video and since a video causes such consternation here I haven't posted it. I've watched is many times and my conclusion appears to be valid.

Do you really expect a UFO to take a shit ie leave something behind so the chair can have all it's legs?

Does anyone have a personal Oxford Academic account? If you do you can access this paper on the antiphone disaster paradox. https://academic.oup.com/book/36741/chapter-abstract/321838499?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I disagree... I know big surprise... but for UFOs/UAPs or really anything that is intermittent and unpredictable do we simply not bother or do we try to think of ways to gather data? If it was anything but "aliens" I think we would be giving a lot more effort to trying to gather more data or even figuring out ways to gather data. Because it is "aliens" suddenly there seems to be no reason to even try in fact not trying seems to be the go to methodology. In any other phenomena would throwing up our hands and essentially saying I give up be the immediate go to? If we noticed a weird intermittent reading in radioactive decay would we just throw up our hands and say nothing to see here move along? I admit there was a time when I thought aliens were here and obviously so. Then I realized that human nature often resulted in lies for no reason other than wanting to be part of the group. I actually do test this somewhat regularly via the being out on the fishing pier and pointing and saying did you see that? A huge fish just jumped right there, people will look their asses off for a few minutes and then lose interest but another shout of look there did you see it will almost always result in some of the people present claiming to have seen "it" It's weird but true but the same thing will happen even if the first shout out is true. Fish do jump, weird things do happen and just because some people will intentionally lie doesn't mean others are not telling the truth. Sometimes it's not a fish, sometimes it's a whale, sometimes it's a bird, and sometimes a false shoutout will result in a second real sighting. Unless you look you will not see and UFO/UAP sightings occur often enough to make you wonder what is going on, fish, whale, bird, occasionally something unidentifiable breaks the surface of reality. I think we should be on the lookout instead of turning away sure that it cannot happen because it hasn't been confirmed yet. There be whales here! We might find aliens or we might find out nothing or we might even find out why humans lie about stuff that makes no real sense to lie about. New information is always new and can be important at some point. So I say look, and try to figure out how to look better instead of trying to discourage looking because we don't like what we might see. When you figure radar traces and multiple independent witnesses, physical effects, and simple wonder I think it might be more important to look than we think. Do our best to be prepared better next time by studying what happened last time. Even bullshit can be used as fertilizer.

In UFO studies by civilians it is often suggested that sightings that are easier to debunk are more likely to be debated than sightings that are not easily debunked... nah, can't be true... can it?