Is a FTL Drive with a Preferred Frame Enough to Resolve Temporal Paradoxes?

[Blasp]

Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame (technobabble probably something about inflation/dark energy). So drive speed would vary depending on whether the ship is moving along CMB peculiar velocity (371 km/s towards constellation Leo), or against it. Would that be enough to get rid of temporal paradoxes? How would such a drive work in practice, for various directions of movement, round trips..?

 

[phinds]

Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame ...

Once you posit a situation that amounts to "if the laws of physics did not apply, what would the laws of physics say about <insert nonsense of your choice>" followup questions based on that are not going to be particularly meaningful.

 

[GTOM]

Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame (technobabble probably something about inflation/dark energy). So drive speed would vary depending on whether the ship is moving along CMB peculiar velocity (371 km/s towards constellation Leo), or against it. Would that be enough to get rid of temporal paradoxes? How would such a drive work in practice, for various directions of movement, round trips..?

In an alternate timeline, it were maybe possible to view CMB as a preferred frame, when we talk about speeds (like on Earth, surface is considered a preferred frame when we talk about speed).
But it change nothing, Lorentz transformations, observations led to SR remains the same.
Of course in usual SF and many debates around the net, FTL is only the illusion of time travel, it don't let really alter the past.

 

[Blasp]

Upon further googling, I found what I was looking for:

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#subsec:specialframe

Seems like an interesting way to have FTL without paradoxes while keeping as much as possible of relativity intact (except for the existence of the preferred FTL frame). Is it correct?

 

[phinds]

Is it correct?

"Correct" is not really a term that should be applied to something that does not describe reality. I think you more likely mean "is it internally consistent?" I spent very little time looking at the site but he seems to have given it a lot of thought so it may well be internally consistent.