What is the fastest imaginable speed one can travel between two points?

Answer: Instant travel. Zero time. (the speed of light is paltry in comparison.)

If one traveled from Earth to a point 200 million light years away at the speed of instant, how long would it take?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

If one returned at the speed of instant how long to get back?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

What is the elapsed time?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

How much older or younger would either the traveling party or the Earthbound party be?

Answer: They would be the same age.

How would traveling at any speed slower than "Instant" produce an outcome where one party aged any different than the other?

It would not, cannot, there is no way to produce any other outcome, logically. Sorry, boys.

Curt: What is the fastest imaginable speed one can travel between two points?

Answer: Instant travel. Zero time. (the speed of light is paltry in comparison.)

If one traveled from Earth to a point 200 million light years away at the speed of instant, how long would it take?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

If one returned at the speed of instant how long to get back?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

What is the elapsed time?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

How much older or younger would either the traveling party or the Earthbound party be?

Answer: They would be the same age.

How would traveling at any speed slower than "Instant" produce an outcome where one party aged any different than the other?

It would not, cannot, there is no way to produce any other outcome, logically. Sorry, boys.


cinci: I you could travel at c or let's say a smidgen less than c, you would be virtually be in suspended animation; that is, you wouldn't be aging very much. As far as someone on Earth would be concerned, it would tale you 200,000,000 years to make your trip. Earth would age 200,000,000 years while you aged not at all.
************************

ENNNNKKK!!! buzzer sounds

You just lost the 'Do you really understand the implications of Relativity?' game!

Thanks for playing.

Here's your consolation prize.


If you moved instantly between two points separated by a spacelike interval (I.E. you followed a spacelike path... this sort of concept exists in physics you know), you would arrive before your lightcone could have.

Thus: you would arrive at an earlier moment in time.

If you came back, following another spacelike path, you could arrive before you left.


The Universe could be said to "expect" things to happen after certain intervals.

If you're 1 lightsecond away from something else, the Universe expects any influences to take a second or more to pass between the two points.


You were almost on to something with your incessant babbling about lightfronts (which are actually known by the technical term Light Cones, I.E. the maximal timelike path which any object with mass can follow)... shame you don't know what you're talking about though.

You two exactly make my point. You cannot get out of your imaginary world long enough to get a logical understanding of a theoretical picture.

I stated right up front the condition that the instantaneous travel was imaginary. If it could be done, certain logical conclusions could be drawn from the proposition. But NOOOO, you can only sit back and spout your silly beliefs.

What I stated are the consequences of instantaneous travel. You can't fathom the logic of that proposition. You are too steeped in your arrogant, smug, supposed superior knowledge to try to even follow the logic, which, by the way, is bullet proof. Your sneering attitude keeps you from real understanding.

Curt: You two exactly make my point. You cannot get out of your imaginary world long enough to get a logical understanding of a theoretical picture.

I stated right up front the condition that the instantaneous travel was imaginary. If it could be done, certain logical conclusions could be drawn from the proposition. But NOOOO, you can only sit back and spout your silly beliefs.

What I stated are the consequences of instantaneous travel. You can't fathom the logic of that proposition. You are too steeped in your arrogant, smug, supposed superior knowledge to try to even follow the logic, which, by the way, is bullet proof. Your sneering attitude keeps you from real understanding.


cinci: Nobody questioned your conclusion about instanteous travel. I answered this question:

"How would traveling at any speed slower than "Instant" produce an outcome where one party aged any different than the other?"

The answer is that if you aren't travelling instantaneously, then you're travelling at some relative velocity where you don't get to the destination for millions of years. If you don't want to believe time dilation then make it part of your imaginary world where you can travel instantaneously.

Time Dilation is an observed phenomenon.

Ignorance is not an excuse in this day and age.


Find a better argument besides "I'm too stupid to comprehend Relativity."

Cincirob said: "The answer is that if you aren't travelling (sic) instantaneously, then you're travelling (sic) at some relative velocity where you don't get to the destination for millions of years. If you don't want to believe time dilation then make it part of your imaginary world where you can travel instantaneously."

Curt says: You've got it stuck in your brain that there is no such thing as superluminal motion for matter. You have no proof. Furthermore, you cannot understand the logic of working down from instantaneous travel rather than up from slower than light speed. You cannot admit that there is a contradiction in Special Relativity, regarding the equivalence of inertial frames. Your whole religion will bite the dust.

Max, We know your BFE rote answers to everything. You have zero logic. Your comment is clueless. Furthermore you have no concept as to the difference between a "light-cone diagram" and a "spherical wave front." One is imaginary, the other is a reality that can only be observed by sensors placed on a sphere. Neither have anything necessarily to do with relativistic motion.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Max said: "I'm too stupid to comprehend Relativity."

Curt says: Finally. You've been honest with yourself!

Cincirob said: "The answer is that if you aren't travelling (sic) instantaneously, then you're travelling (sic) at some relative velocity where you don't get to the destination for millions of years. If you don't want to believe time dilation then make it part of your imaginary world where you can travel instantaneously."

Curt says: You've got it stuck in your brain that there is no such thing as superluminal motion for matter. You have no proof. Furthermore, you cannot understand the logic of working down from instantaneous travel rather than up from slower than light speed. You cannot admit that there is a contradiction in Special Relativity, regarding the equivalence of inertial frames. Your whole religion will bite the dust.


cinci: Relativity is a theory based on numerous observations that the speed of light in a vacuum always measures the same. But you don't believe that theory.

Nobody has ever observed anything travelling faster than light but you believe things do.

(By the way, you can forget all the little sics after "travelling". It's a perfectly good spelling. It only change to one "l" back in the '60s and '70s when they couldn't teach your generation spelling.}

And here is one more potential Nobelist who knows there's a contradiction in SR but hasn't cashed in on it yet. I wonder why.
************************

Well, Cinci, that's probably because SR doesn't state the contradiction he claims it does.

Also: Curt, you stupid little boy, if I had intended that quote to be my own, I would have put single quotation marks > 'like so', instead of double quotation marks > "like this".

Double quotes indicates that I am quoting someone else, in this case the victim of my keyboard spankings, which would be you.

The concept of instant travel is about as useful as "if we could land on the surface of the sun, what kind of space suit would we need?"
Where did this ridiculous concept arise from, that the speed of light is c, and right away, we start to talk about traveling at the speed of light?
Here is a good question: what is the fastest speed that a space traveler can make? The answer, nobody knows. But more importantly, to think that it might be c is a complete waste of time.
Yes, a good imagination is necessary for good ideas in science, but there must be a practicality to all of this.
Seeing instant light is one theory, but, why is it that the first thing we do is to attach a time traveler to it. It makes the theory sound ridiculous and unworthy.
Yes, the theory might be proven false, but, let the theory be proven false on its' own merit and not by imagining by our old ways.
Cinncirob is right, there is no evidence to prove that anything can travel faster than light. But isn't this the origin of our confusion- to equate light phenomena and the speed of a traveling human being?

It is useful to imagine space travel. It is useful to imagine what it would take to put me safely in space and return me safely to my world. It is useful to imagine how I could profit from the endeavour.

I cannot imagine how useful instantanous travel would be. Even in imagination it its not possible. To me its imagination, if I need to remove one major variable. If I need to remove all variables and known rules, then it, to me is not even an imaginary model.

I would enjoy instant travel. I would love to have a million dollars. I would love to have women chase me as they do in commercials. I want Santa to be real again.

We use imagination to write code, build models, test probems, evaluate solutions. Untested imagination is fiction, tested imaginiation is either real or not.

a

Arrogant Max said: "Also: Curt, you stupid little boy, if I had intended that quote to be my own, I would have put single quotation marks > 'like so', instead of double quotation marks > "like this".

Double quotes indicates that I am quoting someone else, in this case the victim of my keyboard spankings, which would be you."

Curt says: Max, you stupid little boy, You didn't quote me because I didn't say "I'm too stupid to comprehend Relativity." You said it. You are clueless.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

I am in good company doubting "time travel." Nicoli Tesla, Dingle, Zapffe, Miller and plenty others have presented evidence and logic supporting my thoughts. You people cannot fathom that a radiation emitting object traveling at the speed of light or greater cannot be "seen" until its arrival. When it does arrive, it is accompanied by a blue-shifted flash. It is during that "flash" that the whole trip is revealed. It is during that flash that all of the "time" lost on the trip outward is made up on the trip homeward.

Suppose that it took a minute for light to traverse the 200 billion conventional "light years," the same logic that I propose for instant travel applies.

Yes, GogoJF, satellites are being designed right now to withstand a visit to the sun, so your proposal about spacesuits is not out of the question.

Imagination is quite valuable, provided it is accompanied by logic.

Imagination is good when your faulty logic applies, but it is bad when actual physical laws are invoked... silly child.

I admit I paraphrased you when I quoted you, but going back and quoting the entirety of your statements exposing your utter lack of knowledge regarding relativity would take far more time or energy than I felt like wasting on you.


I had hoped for a good discussion, but you are so completely clueless I cannot even expect to communicate with you properly.


You are a child when it comes to science, a petulant brat, unwilling to open your own eyes and accept the truth they give you.


I pity you.

Max, you didn't paraphrase me. I never said anything close to it. You are the child. The world might pity you, but you are such an arrogant child they spit you out and wash the thought from themselves.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

You say it every time you post about Special Relativity and it's "contradictions".

You're screaming to people, like me, who know the theory "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT" ~ Curt.

Here is the problem, Max: You have an attitude problem. I don't mind you having the problem, however, Bob S. and I, among others, do not appreciate being slammed each time you post your snide additions to your messages. We would not return the uncompliment, except on really exasperating situations. If you insist on presenting your "theory" every time you post, so be it. Just because we take issue with it gives you no license to prattle on like a two year old. I will match you any day in an insult contest. I guarantee you I have been holding back. So if you wish the foot note to cease on every return post from me, just stop the B. S. Until then, yours truly:

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

I'll stop being insulting, when you stop talking out of your ass about things you don't understand.

Since it isn't likely that you will do that, we find ourselves at an impasse.

Max said: "I'll stop being insulting, when you stop talking out of your ass about things you don't understand. Since it isn't likely that you will do that, we find ourselves at an impasse."

Curt says: Since you don't understand what I'm talking about, you are the last person to hand out insults. I will admit that you are not an *******. You are the tiny spot in the middle, where there is nothing, except sometimes when there is.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Instantaneous is as fast as one can logically move, regardless of whether it can be done. To move faster, one would have to get back before one left. This would require a duplicate, so that you could be in two places at once. You cannot get to the future or the past by changing your position. You can only get somewhere else.

You troglodytes who insist that there is a speed limit on matter at the speed of light will ensure that it can't be done. Ages gone by, the common thought was that man will never fly. That is you in your present stagnant thinking.

As far as Cincirobs conjecture that motion at the speed of light or less produces virtual suspended animation, due to the equivalence of frames; from the view of the frame traveling at the "speed of light," the frame of reference would be in virtual suspended animation.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know what the equivalence of frames implies at all.

You keep using those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean... to quote Inigo Montoya.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Curt's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has no clue about Relativity, along with his childish level of intelligence. His inability to handle complex thought puts him at a disadvantage when dealing with people who are capable of higher thought. His only recourse is to attack with parroted insults. Go back to your security blanket of ignorance, Curt.

max, what an original idea: try to copy Curt's attempt to bring you to your senses, and add a little civility to your posts.

max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Curt's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has no clue about Relativity, along with his childish level of intelligence. His inability to handle complex thought puts him at a disadvantage when dealing with people who are capable of higher thought. His only recourse is to attack with parroted insults. Go back to your security blanket of ignorance, Curt.

You have totally lost your senses, minimax. You post a silly or demeaning vindictive, uncalled-for insult, every time you think you have something to add. That coupled with your inability to understand logic reinforces most others to avoid engaging you in any discussion. You are just an unmitigated pest.



Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

No, I've just stopped holding my tongue and letting you morons think you aren't morons.

Honesty may seem insulting to you, but that is only because you're in denial about your own ignorance.

minimax, the bastion of honesty! You must be the Pope's first born.

If only I had the patience of a saint, I would have been able to last longer than a few months without breaking down and looking like a jerk for telling you that you're so stupid you probably should avoid washing dishes in the sink.



...



You might find a way to drown if presented with more than 4 inches of water.

minimax, if you had anything to do with being a saint, the world would stop and turn the other direction.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

What is the fastest imaginable speed one can travel between two points?

Answer: Instant travel. Zero time. (the speed of light is paltry in comparison.)

If one traveled from Earth to a point 200 million light years away at the speed of instant, how long would it take?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

If one returned at the speed of instant how long to get back?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

What is the elapsed time?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

How much older or younger would either the traveling party or the Earthbound party be?

Answer: They would be the same age.

How would traveling at any speed slower than "Instant" produce an outcome where one party aged any different than the other?

It would not, cannot, there is no way to produce any other outcome, logically.

Traveling at the speed of light cannot take you into the future, it can only take you some where else.

(In your travels to somewhere else, your "present" existence is right there with you, and your "past" is done with. No amount of speed can take you into the past. No amount5 of speed can take you into the future, other than as your "present" responds to the universe around you.

Curt: What is the fastest imaginable speed one can travel between two points?

Answer: Instant travel. Zero time. (the speed of light is paltry in comparison.)

If one traveled from Earth to a point 200 million light years away at the speed of instant, how long would it take?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

If one returned at the speed of instant how long to get back?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

What is the elapsed time?

Answer: No time at all: Zero time.

How much older or younger would either the traveling party or the Earthbound party be?

Answer: They would be the same age.

How would traveling at any speed slower than "Instant" produce an outcome where one party aged any different than the other?

It would not, cannot, there is no way to produce any other outcome, logically.

Traveling at the speed of light cannot take you into the future, it can only take you some where else.


cinci: First, we don't know how to travel at the speed of light so let's work with c-, just a bit slower than c.

Your example of instantaneous travel doesn't allow any time for either party to age so I suppose your assertions hold up IF you could travel instantaneously. But if one party travels at c- and the other travels at v=0, then there is time for each party to age. Nothing in your example requires that they age at the same rate.

I agree that traveling at -c doesn't permit travel into the future but it mcould allow one to live longer into the future.
************************

Go for it Cincirob. You are in for a big suprise when you come back just as old as everybody else.