My FTL Challenge

[SelfSim]

You sent a note detailing what you did, where you did it, when you did it, how you did it, why you did it, what order you did it in, how long it took you to do it, why it took you that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

And besides, it wouldn't matter if they knew about it or not.

If you were accused of being deceptive, your accusers would be wrong, wouldn't they?

Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), in the movie 'Contact', had this exact problem in overcoming accusations of deception. The matter was left open in the ending of the movie .. no one appeared as being 'wrong'.
Looked to me that more independent repetitions of the experiment were going to be needed to overcome the accusations.

 

[AV1611VET]

More context required. Does the evidence they have align with the claim in your note? I think they could reasonably accuse you of deception if the evidence contradicts what your note claims.

Fair enough.

The Timbuktus can stamp MORE CONTEXT REQUIRED on the note and send it back to us and hope we get it in a jillion years.

In the meantime, they can enjoy the object we sent them as evidence that we sent it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), in the movie 'Contact', had this exact problem in overcoming accusations of deception. The matter was left open in the ending of the movie .. no one appeared as being 'wrong'.
Looked to me that more independent repetitions of the experiment were going to be needed to overcome the accusations.

And until they realize they're wrong, they're wrong, aren't they?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Fair enough.

The Timbuktus can stamp MORE CONTEXT REQUIRED on the note and send it back to us and hope we get it in a jillion years.

In the meantime, they can enjoy the object we sent them as evidence that we sent it.

Whoosh. It's not the Timbuktus who need more context, it's your "challenge". You send a note saying "blah blah blah". The Timbuktus read the note (luckily they speak 21st century American English) and compare to the evidence they have.

So, does the evidence match the claim? Cos in the obvious comparison you're trying to make the evidence does not match the claim.

 

[SelfSim]

And until they realize they're wrong, they're wrong, aren't they?

Its a movie based on imaginary aliens, man!
Is that an appropriate basis for judging being 'right/wrong'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whoosh. It's not the Timbuktus who need more context, it's your "challenge".

That's a big NEGATIVE, chief.

There is no note in my OP.

If a note is confusing you, just forget it.

Here's my OP again:

A team of scientists learn to beam an object from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million lights years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

You'd either nominate them, or you wouldn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a movie based on imaginary aliens, man!
Is that an appropriate basis for judging being 'right/wrong'?

See why I called this a "challenge" now?

 

[SelfSim]

See why I called this a "challenge" now?

Now you're just being deceptive(?)

 

[SelfSim]

That's a big NEGATIVE, chief.

There is no note in my OP.

If a note is confusing you, just forget it.

Here's my OP again:

A team of scientists learn to beam an object from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million lights years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

You'd either nominate them, or you wouldn't.

The hypothetical is deceptive ... and so the award of the prize, (or not), is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

The hypothetical is deceptive ... and so the award of the prize, (or not), is irrelevant.

For the record, as of this writing, three people disagree.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's a big NEGATIVE, chief.

There is no note in my OP.

If a note is confusing you, just forget it.

Here's my OP again:

A team of scientists learn to beam an object from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million lights years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

You'd either nominate them, or you wouldn't.

Nice to see you ignoring your own post #16 which is what I replied to. That really sums up your challenge, doesn't it? Context can take a hike as long as you get to declare you've won a non-argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice to see you ignoring your own post #16 which is what I replied to.

You mean this part?

And besides, it wouldn't matter if they knew about it or not.

 

[SelfSim]

For the record, as of this writing, three people disagree.

More deceptions(?)
Even if what you say there was true, it would still be irrelevant to my response.

 

[AV1611VET]

More deceptions(?)
Even if what you say there was true, it would still be irrelevant to my response.

Feel free to vote.

 

[Kylie]

Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), in the movie 'Contact', had this exact problem in overcoming accusations of deception. The matter was left open in the ending of the movie .. no one appeared as being 'wrong'.
Looked to me that more independent repetitions of the experiment were going to be needed to overcome the accusations.

The fact that there was 18 hours of static was evidence to support Ellie's case.

 

[SelfSim]

The fact that there was 18 hours of static was evidence to support Ellie's case.

Ahh .. but was Hadden Industries involved in making the period of static so that it would appear to corroborate her claim of 18 hours? (Remember .. they were secretly (sneakily) contracted to build the second machine! ).
It was widely known that Hadden was a truly creepy and deceptive person, so this suggestion would be consistent with the deception conspiracy hypothesis ... and everyone saw the pod just drop, evidently unaffected by the machine.

The best way to sort it all out would be to send someone else again .. without the involvement of Hadden Industries, (or the 'scientifically warped' Ellie. )

 

[Kylie]

Ahh .. but was Hadden Industries involved in making the period of static so that it would appear to corroborate her claim of 18 hours? (Remember .. they were secretly (sneakily) contracted to build the second machine! ).
It was widely known that Hadden was a truly creepy and deceptive person, so this suggestion would be consistent with the deception conspiracy hypothesis ... and everyone saw the pod just drop, evidently unaffected by the machine.

The best way to sort it all out would be to send someone else again .. without the involvement of Hadden Industries, (or the 'scientifically warped' Ellie. )

Then analyze the static. It's quite easy to tell if it's a truly random, non-repeating pattern all the way through, or if it is the same clip of static repeated over and over and over again.

 

[Moral Orel]

If those on Planet Timbuktu accused you of being deceptive, would they be wrong?

If an object travelled that fast to that planet it would cause an explosion big enough to destroy that planet. So the inhabitants of Planet Timbuktu aren't part of the story. They're dead.

 

[AV1611VET]

If an object travelled that fast to that planet it would cause an explosion big enough to destroy that planet. So the inhabitants of Planet Timbuktu aren't part of the story. They're dead.

So no deception, then?

 

[sjastro]

A team of scientists learn to beam an object from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million lights years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

No it is a crime to be outside the lightcone when travelling faster than the speed of light as it violates causality and is the ultimate in rudeness for sending information which reaches its destination even before it has left Earth.
It's like turning up uninvited.

These dumb scientists should have realized being outside the lightcone is in the space-like ("Elsewhere") region of space-time where the future can occur before the past.