Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Franchise / Pokemon

Go To

[003] boldingd Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@{{Micah}}
\'\'The key point is that FTL travel implies the existence of closed timelike curves unless there\'s some way of distinguishing between different possible time coordinates. Special relativity doesn\'t prefer any particular timelike direction, so introducing FTL travel in a special-relativistic setting necessarily means introducing closed timelike curves for all the reasons you\'ve stated. On the other hand, a particular metric in GR certainly can have such a preference (and the Alcubierre metric as given does—the first step in constructing it is to pick out a preferred time coordinate). \'\'
to:
@{{Micah}}:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
to:
\\\'\\\'The key point is that FTL travel implies the existence of closed timelike curves unless there\\\'s some way of distinguishing between different possible time coordinates. Special relativity doesn\\\'t prefer any particular timelike direction, so introducing FTL travel in a special-relativistic setting necessarily means introducing closed timelike curves for all the reasons you\\\'ve stated. On the other hand, a particular metric in GR certainly can have such a preference (and the Alcubierre metric as given does—the first step in constructing it is to pick out a preferred time coordinate). \\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 8 from:
n
@201.68.124.86
You are correct, I have not had any training in G.R. I completed a physics minor for my undergrad degree, and took an S.R. course while doing that, for what it\'s worth.
to:
@201.68.124.86:
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
\
to:
You are correct, I have not had any training in G.R. I completed a physics minor for my undergrad degree, and took an S.R. course while doing that, for what it\\\'s worth.

\\\"\\\'\\\'but I would like to convince you that it is at least not false, and not fringe science.\\\'\\\'\\\"

Regardless of my own personal skepticism, I must, at this point, concede at least that much.
Changed line(s) 6 from:
n
But I\'m forced to admit that I\'m out of my depth -- by a lot -- in a deiscusion on General Relativity. As long as it\'s retained that S.R. clearly forbids causal superluminal travel, I\'m fine.. :)
to:
But I\\\'m forced to admit that I\\\'m out of my depth -- by a lot -- in a discussion on General Relativity, and I\\\'m probably just digging a whole a lot deeper here. As long as it\\\'s retained that S.R. clearly forbids causal superluminal travel, I\\\'m fine. :)
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"\\\'\\\'but I would like to convince you that it is at least not false, and not fringe science.\\\'\\\'\\\"
Regardless of my own personal skepticism, I must, at this point, concede at least that much.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
@Micah
to:
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
But I\'m forced to admit that I\'m out of my depth -- by a lot -- in a deiscusion on General Relativity. As long as it\'s retained that S.R. clearly forbids causal superluminal travel, I\'m fine: you can attribute whatever you want to G.R.. :)
to:
But I\\\'m forced to admit that I\\\'m out of my depth -- by a lot -- in a deiscusion on General Relativity. As long as it\\\'s retained that S.R. clearly forbids causal superluminal travel, I\\\'m fine.. :)
Changed line(s) 12 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"\\\'\\\'but I would like to convince you that it is at least not false, and not fringe science.\\\'\\\'\\\"
Regardless of my own personal skepticism, I must, at this point, concede at least that much.
Top