Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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'.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?
Fair enough.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.
And until they realize they're wrong, they're wrong, aren'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.
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.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.
Its a movie based on imaginary aliens, man!And until they realize they're wrong, they're wrong, aren't they?
That's a big NEGATIVE, chief.Whoosh. It's not the Timbuktus who need more context, it's your "challenge".
See why I called this a "challenge" now?Its a movie based on imaginary aliens, man!
Is that an appropriate basis for judging being 'right/wrong'?
The hypothetical is deceptive ... and so the award of the prize, (or not), is irrelevant.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.
For the record, as of this writing, three people disagree.The hypothetical is deceptive ... and so the award of the prize, (or not), is irrelevant.
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.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.
More deceptions(?)For the record, as of this writing, three people disagree.
Feel free to vote.More deceptions(?)
Even if what you say there was true, it would still be irrelevant to my response.
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.
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!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.)
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.If those on Planet Timbuktu accused you of being deceptive, would they be wrong?
So no deception, then?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.
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?