Re: [TML] Instant city babyduck1 (15 Feb 2016 12:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Greg Chalik (16 Feb 2016 10:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city tmr0195@xxxxxx (16 Feb 2016 14:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Thomas Jones-Low (16 Feb 2016 14:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Greg Chalik (16 Feb 2016 19:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Richard Aiken (16 Feb 2016 23:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Craig Berry (16 Feb 2016 23:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 01:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Greg Chalik (17 Feb 2016 01:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Richard Aiken (17 Feb 2016 04:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Greg Chalik (17 Feb 2016 07:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Richard Aiken (17 Feb 2016 12:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz (17 Feb 2016 14:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Craig Berry (17 Feb 2016 15:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 01:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 00:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz (17 Feb 2016 14:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Bruce Johnson (17 Feb 2016 16:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz (17 Feb 2016 17:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Craig Berry (17 Feb 2016 16:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz (17 Feb 2016 17:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Craig Berry (17 Feb 2016 17:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Bruce Johnson (17 Feb 2016 17:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz (18 Feb 2016 14:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Tim (19 Feb 2016 00:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city shadow@xxxxxx (21 Feb 2016 02:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Instant city Bruce Johnson (17 Feb 2016 17:04 UTC)

Re: [TML] Instant city Jeffrey Schwartz 17 Feb 2016 14:51 UTC

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding time: Basically, unless two events share a "light cone" -- that
> is, roughly speaking, the number of light-seconds separating them in
> distance is less than the number of seconds separating them in time -- those
> two events have no fixed ordering. Depending on relative speeds, different
> observers will see the two events happening in either order, or
> simultaneously. This makes it impossible to talk about "now" meaningfully
> for anywhere other than where you are.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
>

Would J-Space travel provide a "hyperlight cone" ?
Hear me out...

Einstein's original thought experiments that led to relativity were
imagining bouncing a ball while moving on a train that approaches
light speed. A person sitting in the train tosses the ball up, bounces
it off the ceiling, and catches it.
To him, the ball is going straight up and down.
The path the ball takes to outside observers gets weirder the more
difference between train speed and observer speed.

So...

Imagine Enri is sitting in a Type-A, bouncing a ball off the deckhead
of his stateroom.

From the point of view of the ball (grin), all of the events are in
the same light cone... it's just that for 168 hours or so, it's dark.

Or, for a better point of view, imagine a stray photon from the origin
system's star being in the jump bubble with the ship.