Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lalaithion42 t1_jat9vmk wrote

An object traveling faster than the speed of light is going backwards in time in some frames, so there's not actually any disagreement between "going back in time" and "it would require the velocity to exceed the speed of light".

3

Quizznor t1_jav779k wrote

>An object traveling faster than the speed of light is going backwards in time in some frames

Where are you taking this information from? This "follows" from special relativity, where massive objects travel at strictly less than c.

Such statement don't have any physical meaning. You're braking the assumptions that were used to derive the equations you're relying on.

0