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 Jeffrey Schwartz (17 Feb 2016 14:52 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 Bruce Johnson (17 Feb 2016 16:38 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 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 Jeffrey Schwartz 18 Feb 2016 14:10 UTC

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Bruce  Johnson
<xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:

>
> The critical bit is that all of this ONLY applies within the universe it’s happening in; jump occurs outside of it.
>
> Jeffrey’s example of the 300km spool of fiber is instructive here, by analogy.
>
> Jump is a shortcut bypassing the normal space ‘spool'; at no time is anything going faster than light*. Yes one pulse arrives much sooner than the other , but that’s because one pulse travelled 10 cm, the other 300km.
>
> If the ship itself is moving at a significant fraction of C observers might be able to see the kinds of things you’re talking about, but it’s NOT because the ship has moved through jump.
>
> Einstein-Rosen bridges are consistent with the equations of relativity; the question is can they exist? How do we make them? can information travel through them?
>
> *even the light isn’t going C, since it’s traveling through a non-vaccuum…a pulse sent through 300KM of fiber optic will arrive significantly AFTER a pulse sent through 300km of vacuum, by quite a bit; a cursory google search brings up a figure of .31 c through a typical cable.
>

Thank you, Bruce, for getting where I was trying to go with this.

Yes, what I was trying to say is that with Jump, there's never time
dilation due to relativistic speed.... so a lot of the causality
breaking stuff doesn't seem to break.

I haven't been able to find a scenario like Craig's Pole using Jump drives.
I haven't even been able to come up with a good "message into the
past" using it.