Seeing into the past

>>8372994
i don't see any reason why this wouldn't work, although clouds would fuck up your day

>>8372994
I don't think it'll ever be possible to see enough detail from lightyears to get any meaningful information (e.g. seeing Hitler or something).

>>8372994
Well according to relativity, FTL travel is equivalent to time travel, so there would be no need for the telescope.

>>8372994
Well according to relativity, FTL travel is equivalent to time travel, so there would be no need for the telescope.

>>8373158
This, no matter how large a telescope you make, there is a minimum resolution possible (its based on the wavelength of light used for observation). There is no way you could resolve anything useful from that distance.

>>8372994
>>faster than light travel becomes a realit

There's your first problem

>Wouldn't we be able to see what was taking place on earth at that time n years ago?

What do you think we see when we look up into the sky at night? We see the past every time we open our eyes.

>>8373180
>>8373158
>>8372994

In addition to this problem, if you're travelling faster than light away from the Earth, you won't be able to see it at all because the light from it will never catch up to you.

>>8373158
Yup, attenuation is a real bitch in space.

>>8373195
Is this bait? Nobody can be this retarded.

>>8373194

If you instantly travel to somewhere what you'll see is the light that IS ARRIVING from earth at that moment, meaning if you travel 30 light minutes instantly you'll see the light that came from earth 30 minutes ago, thus the past.

Not that hard to understand.

>>8373195
The idea is that you travel some distance n in light years then STOP and observe the light that is coming at your presently from earth which would be light that left earth n years ago.

>>8372994
Special relativity would not apply in the event that faster than light travel existed, so you can't apply it. Nothing about special relativity describes things faster than light, and you are attempting to use it to do so.

>>8373370
FTL travel includes ideas such as warp drives and wormholes that would allow you to cross a distance in a time shorter than light would take to travel it without necessarily breaking the laws of relativity.

>>8373406
>wormholes

Fuck you Hollywood, you CANNOT use a wormhole to travel, it's a fucking black hole, even if you did jump into it and end up at the "other" singularity, you still can't get out of the gravity well at the other end.

>>8373414
>>you CANNOT use a wormhole to travel
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Traversable_wormholes

>>you still can't get out of the gravity well at the other end.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_wormhole
"The Ellis wormhole is the special case of the Ellis drainhole in which the 'ether' is not flowing and there is no gravity. What remains is a pure traversable wormhole comprising a pair of identical twin, nonflat, three-dimensional regions joined at a two-sphere, the 'throat' of the wormhole. As seen in the image shown, two-dimensional equatorial cross sections of the wormhole are catenoidal 'collars' that are asymptotically flat far from the throat. There being no gravity in force, an inertial observer (test particle) can sit forever at rest at any point in space, but if set in motion by some disturbance will follow a geodesic of an equatorial cross section at constant speed, as would also a photon"

More details here:
http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/refael/league/thorne-morris.pdf

Of course, wormholes are as of today purely hypothetical objects which may turn out to be impossible when we get a theory of quantum gravity. Classically they are allowed, but this introduces some very strange effects like permitting time travel.

>>8373414
Wormholes and black holes aren't the same thing just because they both say "hole"