FTL travel. It would be instantaneous travel right? You'd

Faster than light refers to moving at more than 3*10^8 m/s. You would still have to wait distance divided by speed to get there.

>>8243065
But doesn't time stop at the speed of light?

>>8243065
>>8243075
As in photons don't experience time.

>>8243075
>>8243077
that's for the outside observer, you would still have to wait around inside the ship

>>8243075

It depends on the method of FTL travel but if it were some loophole like an alcubierre drive then you personally aren't travelling at light speed so won't really experience time dilation to the same degree

>>8243136
>>8243139
I'm not talking about bubble travel.

Entire ship moves at FPL

>>8243150

It can't, if it travelled at light speed somehow then it would be pretty much instant for you

>>8243155
That's the whole question of the thread.

>>8243056
>But everything else would still be thousand or millions of years older.

That's actually not really how it works.

The Twin Paradox only arises when the fast traveling person stops and accelerates back toward the person who stayed, let's say, back on Earth. There are a number of reasons for this, all of which you can read about online. Quite fascinating stuff.

The only way to travel faster than light would be through the technicality of instantaneous travel. That is to say, somehow bending space time so as to instantly transport from one place to another, across an obscenely large distance.

>>8243155
The light from the sun travels 8 minutes before it reaches earth. traveling at light speed is actually really slow. It's fast relative to our earth travel so we think of it as instantinuous here, but even on planetary scale it is quite slow, The closest star is 4.2 light-years away from us, that is the distance light travels in a year... which means even traveling to the closest star with a ship capable of light travel would take you 4,2 years... And even if you get FTL travel which has twice the speed of light, you would still wait 2 years to get there...

and on the question of time, it wouldn't make sense for you to travel faster and get there later (as in everyone gets old) that's not how that works.

> the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins

wait what
how is there no symmetry? idgi

>>8244061
At least as I understand it, that's exactly how it works. If you magically traveled at the speed of light from here to the sun and back, you wouldn't experience any passage of time, but everyone you knew would be (dun dun dunnn) 16 minutes older.

Granted, the amount of mass and energy you created in that journey probably also obliterated the Earth, so they'd also all be dead.

>>8244205
I think you might be right. This light speed time dilation thing is really difficult for me to grasp :D

>>8243056
Your first problem was trying to use SW for anything science related. SW science doesn't work, it's all fantasy.

FTL will be wormholes or something similar. Wormholes connect two spaces, either with next to no travel distance or a very, very small percentage of said distance that's being traveled.

Now go look up time dilation before you embarrass yourself.

>>8243056
Entire journey at once is flash

how would you even accelerate safely, wouldn't you die of old age before you got anywhere near up to speed?

>>8243056
You would die instantly, yeah.

>>8244205
Wrong.

If you could travel at c, from here to the sun, you would age 8 minutes. When you got to the sun, it would be the same time for everyone else as when you left.

This is all nonsense though because there is no frame of reference for moving at c.

No matter what frame you're in, time passes for you at 1s/s.