So say a star exploded today somewhere in the vicinity of where the hubble telescope would be able to observe this in the next 3 million years. What if you had the enterprise or something, and you witnessed the explosion first-hand, and then you went all hyper-speed and shit and came to earth in only 100 years to tell us that a star exploded eons from here...
Now take the same approach and say someone traveled normal space rocket speed we have now and took 108593958193589351813591358913581359891358913589358359835935893535 trillion years to get to us and tell us, effectively being LATE AS FUCK OMG! that it's exploded.
Well?
tnf, mq, you may lay on the smart commentary right about now.
let me see if i can summarize your question first.
A star undergoes a supernova explosion, lets say 3 million light years from Earth..meaning that we really won't know about this for 3 million years. But if some ship was nearby, maybe only a few light minutes from the explosion (ignoring the problems they'd face by being that close), and they turn around and use faster than light travel to get back to earth and tell us about it.
Compare that to the traditional idea of a ship of ours that had been that far away (ignoring how long it would have taken to get there) and then comes back and lets us know...but now its way, way, way after the fact because we have already detected the supernova as the 3 million years has gone by?
It isn't timetravel. Let's say a the wright brothers take of for a 20 mph hour flight in our direction from 200 miles away. Now schumi steps in his ferrari from the same spot and arrives at our position here in 1 hour to tell us they lifted off. Is that time travel?
I think his question is whether or not "hyper-space" travel is considered time travel. And no it is not. Time is not a universal constant. Time is relative to each every object and that object's observation of said 'time'.
Survivor wrote:It isn't timetravel. Let's say a the wright brothers take of for a 20 mph hour flight in our direction from 200 miles away. Now schumi steps in his ferrari from the same spot and arrives at our position here in 1 hour to tell us they lifted off. Is that time travel?
Well I suppose the effect wouldn't be the same because the vast stretch of space isn't being taken into account here.
Survivor wrote:It isn't timetravel. Let's say a the wright brothers take of for a 20 mph hour flight in our direction from 200 miles away. Now schumi steps in his ferrari from the same spot and arrives at our position here in 1 hour to tell us they lifted off. Is that time travel?
Well I suppose the effect wouldn't be the same because the vast stretch of space isn't being taken into account here.
Does it matter? The only relevant thing is the observer arriving ahead of the observation.
jeez man - you gotta learn to phrase your questions better. I'm still not sure what you're asking, since you haven't asked anything explicitly (were you possessed by a lobotimized rabbit while posting in this thread?).
are you asking whether traveling faster than light constitutes time travel?
dzjepp wrote:Yes... now I was trying to fanthom this as time travel. So um carry on. :icon31:
Well, its easy to travel forward in time (in theory), get up to near speed o light then come back. For you only a month has passed, but years will have gone by for the denizens of earth.
When I was little we used to have a fluorescent striplight in the bathroom which took about 2 seconds to switch on. I used to pull the cord and run to the other end of the bathroom and back before the light came on and i used to claim i could run faster than the speed of light.
phantasmagoria wrote:When I was little we used to have a fluorescent striplight in the bathroom which took about 2 seconds to switch on. I used to pull the cord and run to the other end of the bathroom and back before the light came on and i used to claim i could run faster than the speed of light.
If you slipped on a puddle of pee and fell in the dark would anyone hear your girly scream?
