🚀 go-pugleaf

> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman)

> Since I didn't invent "Gathman channels", it is amusing to see my name
> attached.

You didn't say who did invent them, nor provide references to where we
could read about them.  Lacking that, I've been going by what you say
here, and what you have said here is dead wrong.

> The examples offered so far have assumed that the world lines of points
> 'connected' by channels are parallel.  This is not necessarily the case.

This certainly doesn't help your case any, since allowing one endpoint
to move with respect to the other one makes the situation worse,
not better, and all the time paradoxes remain.

> First, the "throop" diagram doesn't prove anything

I never said it did.  I try not to claim to "prove" things, since the
term has specific meaning in mathematics that I don't often intend.  So
what *does* the diagram do?  It is a construction of a paradox using the
starting rules of 1) special relativity and 2) Gathman channels.  This
is something Stuart said couldn't be done.  Nevertheless, it *was* done,
and Stuart has failed to point out any flaw in the construction.  While
not a proof in any formal sense, it is strong indication that either
1) SR is wrong after all, or 2) Gathman channels cannot work as Stuart
says they can, or 3) events can indeed "preceed" their causes.

I simply consider (2) most likely.

> What is missed is that nothing new is learned by sneaking a view of 'z'
> through B's frame of reference:  the observer will experience the event
> himself before the light arrives at 'y'!

Blatantly, obviously, trivially, clearly *WRONG*.  News of event z
reaches event x.  Event x preceeds event z on A's timeline.  This is a
time paradox.  The fact that Stuart thinks that light from some
unspecified event will reach y before some observer "experiences" z is
*COMPLETELY* *IRRELEVANT* to this paradox.  In fact, every point Stuart
has brought up is *IRRELEVANT* to the paradox.  Some of Stuart's points
are true, some are false, but all (so far) have been *IRRELEVANT*...
their truth or falsity doesn't have *ANY* *BEARING* *WHATSOEVER* on the
existance or nature of the paradox I diagrammed.

(And did I say Stuart's points were *IRRELEVANT*???  I did?  good! :-)

"The endpoints could accelerate."  Fine.  But they aren't accelerating
in the diagram, so it DOESN'T MATTER.  "A could see the message over C's
shoulder."  Fine.  But this is still transfer of information, so this
point DOESN'T MATTER.  "I didn't invent Gathman channels."  Fine.
Wonderful.  SO WHAT?  What does it matter what you call them?  They
*STILL* violate causality under special relativity.

(Gee, all this shouting takes it outa ya.  I'll try to do less... :-)

Please either admit you were wrong, or come up with some relevant point
that has something to do with the assertion you are claiming, that is,
that instant message channels do not violate causality under SR.  I have
shown a violation using IMCs and the assumptions of SR.  Show where I
went wrong, or please shut up.

> Clearly, 'simultaneous' needs to be redefined when Gathman channels are
> in use.

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!  (Calm, calm, I said I'd try to shout less.)
This is precisely what I've been claiming all along... have you now
changed your mind?  I said that either SR's notions of space and time
and "simultaneity" and "instantness" are wrong, or IMCs violate
causality.  Now you seem to agree with this, by saying that notions of
spacetime need to be reformed when IMCs are "in use".  What are you
claiming here?  Or are you claiming anything coherent at all?  Do you
even *know* what what you are saying means?  (Feh!)

> My first inclination is to define the first
> observation of an event to be the 'original'.

First with respect to what?  Please remember that SR claims that
there is no such thing as a unique "first observation" when two
observations are separated by a spacelike interval.

> I still maintain that causality is not violated

And you are still wrong.

> As you watch your friend through the channel, he appears to be in
> suspended animation.  As he watches you, you appear to be an indistinct
> blur of activity.  Does this situation violate causality?  What happens
> to light as it crosses over the channel?

Utter nonsense.  Stuart doesn't seem to know the first thing about how
time dilation occurs.

> NOTE: "Gathman channels" are *not* FTL travel.

Yet more utter nonsense.  With IMCs, a signal or object can move between
events separated by a a spacelike interval.  This is FTL travel.
Period.

--
...You got the most in you and use the least. Got a million in you and
spend pennies. Got a genius in you and think crazies.
                                --- Gully Foyle in The Stars My Destination
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw