On 17 Feb 2016 at 12:03, Jeffrey Schwartz wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Which is why Jump as written is inconsistent with reality as we understand
> > it; since the jump entry and jump exit are separated further in space than
> > in time, there will be observers who see them in either order. Hilarity
> > ensues. :>
>
> Unsure where the hilarity comes in.
> Not trying to be impolite, just .. missing something.
>
> Entry observer sees ship leave. 3+ years later, telescope shows ship
> exiting jump.
> But they know it's propagation delay, and know when the exit really was.
>
> Exit observer sees ship arrive, then 3+ years later, telescope shows
> ship entering jump.
> But they know it's propagation delay, and know when the entry really was.
>
> Both observers can do math, come up with date/times that match for
> entry and exit.

That's only if they are stationary relative to each other. If one
observer is moving at the right speed in the right direction, he'll
see the ship come out of jump before it entered jump (and yes, that's
*with* adjusting for speed of light lag for the distance from him to
the entry ^& exit points)

Remember. If you are moving at 60% of c relative to me, as far as I'm
concerned all you distance measurememnts in the direction of motion
are reduced by 80%, and time is running at 80% of normal speed for
you.

To you, *I* am the one with the shrunken rulers and slow clocks.

And both of us are right. Because there is no way to *directly*
compare our clocks and rulers. All we can do is make
observations/send info using light, radio, whatever. and since the
speed of light is the same in *all* frames, you get the "contraction"
effects.

To compare directly one or both of us would have to accelerate so as
to match velocity. and the acceleration destroys the equivalence of
the frames.

We can actually *measure* this sort of thing now. Heck, GPS
satellites have to correct for it!

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com