> Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox.
Pretty much every explanation I've seen as to why this would ostensibly be so would - when applied consistently - consider the average thunderstorm to be full of causality violations because you can see the lightning before you can hear it.
It shouldn't matter how long it takes me to go from Point A to Point B. As long as I arrive at Point B after I departed from Point A, then causality should be preserved. Doesn't matter if n=1s or 100s or 10000s or 0.0000000000000000000000001s. As long as n is positive, then where, pray tell, was causality violated?
And it shouldn't matter if someone else sees me arrive before one sees me depart, for the same reason why it shouldn't matter if the light from a flash of lightning arrives before the sound does. That is: just because you perceive something out-of-order does not mean it was actually out-of-order.
Pretty much every explanation I've seen as to why this would ostensibly be so would - when applied consistently - consider the average thunderstorm to be full of causality violations because you can see the lightning before you can hear it.
It shouldn't matter how long it takes me to go from Point A to Point B. As long as I arrive at Point B after I departed from Point A, then causality should be preserved. Doesn't matter if n=1s or 100s or 10000s or 0.0000000000000000000000001s. As long as n is positive, then where, pray tell, was causality violated?
And it shouldn't matter if someone else sees me arrive before one sees me depart, for the same reason why it shouldn't matter if the light from a flash of lightning arrives before the sound does. That is: just because you perceive something out-of-order does not mean it was actually out-of-order.