Moontanman

So the train of ships is not moving? The diagram says differently.

That situation seems more than a bit contrived, how about a FTL transmission isn't possible from a small moving object? Maybe only a planet sized object can be used to house or mount an FTL transmitter? No less contrived at least?

So instantaneous is ok as long as it doesn't come from a moving ship? That is what I thought.

do tell?

As it will always be as long as the subject is assumed to be false due to no good evidence. Good evidence cannot be collected by definition.

It's because I don't know how to post a screenshot but it's also because I am sure it's a misunderstanding on my part. I am well aware of the "fact" of ftl always implies causality violations. I'll post it so I won't be wrong anymore, that is always as important if not more so than being right. https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A The space time diagram starts at 06:52 the causality violation diagram starts at 12:52 the paradox explanation starts at 17:02. It seems (to me at least) to be saying that a causality violation only occurs if a FTL transmission goes from the STL ship to Earth. He also seems to be conflating FTL transmissions with FTL travel when in fact travel maybe impossible due to hawking radiation but transmissions would not be affected so.

There are people that disagree with you, do i need to post the video so you can ignore it?

I have linked them to UFO threads many times, the "chain of evidence" is never good enough because the first people on the scene are never scientists. These things never occur in a laboratory setting and are seldom investigated at all by scientists until well after the fact. A significant number of UFO sightings are never "resolved" and not necessarily from a lack of data. No matter how good the data is the bar is always lifted higher as the data becomes less easily dismissed.

No, it was an instantaneous signal from a STL craft that caused a causality problem.

Yes but such things have been detected, trace evidence is quite common in sightings that include landings. I agree, but we do not have to posit the laws are different xomehow, who did in which sighting?

There is another video by on a science channel that explains why FTL equals backward in time and or a paradox every time but in the diagrams I see a flaw. It appears that instantaneous communication doesn't cause time travel unless it's from a spacecraft going slower than light. The diagram is part of the video and since a video causes such consternation here I haven't posted it. I've watched is many times and my conclusion appears to be valid.

Do you really expect a UFO to take a shit ie leave something behind so the chair can have all it's legs?

Does anyone have a personal Oxford Academic account? If you do you can access this paper on the antiphone disaster paradox. https://academic.oup.com/book/36741/chapter-abstract/321838499?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I disagree... I know big surprise... but for UFOs/UAPs or really anything that is intermittent and unpredictable do we simply not bother or do we try to think of ways to gather data? If it was anything but "aliens" I think we would be giving a lot more effort to trying to gather more data or even figuring out ways to gather data. Because it is "aliens" suddenly there seems to be no reason to even try in fact not trying seems to be the go to methodology. In any other phenomena would throwing up our hands and essentially saying I give up be the immediate go to? If we noticed a weird intermittent reading in radioactive decay would we just throw up our hands and say nothing to see here move along? I admit there was a time when I thought aliens were here and obviously so. Then I realized that human nature often resulted in lies for no reason other than wanting to be part of the group. I actually do test this somewhat regularly via the being out on the fishing pier and pointing and saying did you see that? A huge fish just jumped right there, people will look their asses off for a few minutes and then lose interest but another shout of look there did you see it will almost always result in some of the people present claiming to have seen "it" It's weird but true but the same thing will happen even if the first shout out is true. Fish do jump, weird things do happen and just because some people will intentionally lie doesn't mean others are not telling the truth. Sometimes it's not a fish, sometimes it's a whale, sometimes it's a bird, and sometimes a false shoutout will result in a second real sighting. Unless you look you will not see and UFO/UAP sightings occur often enough to make you wonder what is going on, fish, whale, bird, occasionally something unidentifiable breaks the surface of reality. I think we should be on the lookout instead of turning away sure that it cannot happen because it hasn't been confirmed yet. There be whales here! We might find aliens or we might find out nothing or we might even find out why humans lie about stuff that makes no real sense to lie about. New information is always new and can be important at some point. So I say look, and try to figure out how to look better instead of trying to discourage looking because we don't like what we might see. When you figure radar traces and multiple independent witnesses, physical effects, and simple wonder I think it might be more important to look than we think. Do our best to be prepared better next time by studying what happened last time. Even bullshit can be used as fertilizer.

In UFO studies by civilians it is often suggested that sightings that are easier to debunk are more likely to be debated than sightings that are not easily debunked... nah, can't be true... can it?

I can't argue with the point of causality being violated but how is it any different than someone detecting the asteroid in advance with a telescope and getting the area evacuated before impact? In both cases the deaths are prevented, in both cases the terrorists survive that wouldn't have. In one case the antiphone is used and the other a telescope is used. Methods are different, results are the same.

There exists a time phone, it was created in 2020. In 2025 an asteroid hits in the atlantic ocean off the eastern seaboard of north america, millions die, Trillions of dollars in property damage occur. After the strike the phones is used to call 2024 and the extent of the damage is conveyed to the people of 2024, they evacuate the east coast and millions of lives are saved. The property damage still occurs but the lives are saved when the asteroid strikes. The phone call still occurs so the people can be saved from the threat that still happens. The Phone can only be used to call the time period that it exists in, no phone calls to before the phone exists.

Thank you, that was what I was looking for, I've been told that the scenario I proposed wouldn't break causality and therefore might be possible under some conditions as though breaking causality was the key that prevented communication through time not that the act itself was the problem and that breaking causality was the result not the problem. And rightly so. How so?

Which sighting are we discussing? The Minot air base sighting did have radar data and the crews were of air force B-52 bomber. Not just a light in the sky.

The scenario I proposed wouldn't or at least shouldn't cause a time loop. Thank you but I do understand that, what I am asking is would such a possibility require the retooling of all our science or would it just require a slight rethinking of certain concepts? I remember when neutrinos had supposedly been found to be traveling FTL. The uproar was from a mild, things might need to be changed to running in circles like their hair was on fire, of course it turned out to be a mistake but it still left the question of what needed to be different for it to have been real unanswered.

If I understand correctly you are saying that the only consequence is breaking a law. Does this mean all of physics is wrong or that just a small subset of physics is wrong? I am not trolling, I am looking for physical consequences apart from just some subset of physics being wrong. Would a time "phone" just be something to be explained or would all of physics be wrong... I often get the impression that if just one thing was discovered that broke a law of physics then all of physics would be wiped clean instead of just needing to amend one thing.

I understand that, the lit is actually the speed of causality (as we know it) what I am asking is how would that cause problems in the real universe. The scenario I set up would not seem to bring about any paradoxes or cause any harm to the universe.

A signal from the future is not a physical cause? Even if this is true how does it do any harm? Even if the signal to the past have no apparent physical cause how does this break physics any more than a an electron traveling FTL through water causing a glow that a man can see but not understand a break in physics?