My FTL Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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.

Only for 1/10 of a second though ... right?

(And scientists aren't "dumb." Myopic and foolish, yes. But not dumb.)

 

[sjastro]

Only for 1/10 of a second though ... right?

(And scientists aren't "dumb." Myopic and foolish, yes. But not dumb.)

You have missed the point.
Do you think the scientists should win the Nobel Prize when they may not have been born yet?
The consequences of travelling faster then the speed of light can be nasty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think the scientists should win the Nobel Prize when they may not have been born yet?

It could either be attached to their birth certificates, or given to their previous of kin.

 

[sjastro]

It could either be attached to their birth certificates, or given to their previous of kin.

Once again you miss the point.
They haven't been born yet to send the beam so how can they be nominated for let alone win the Nobel when the action hasn't occurred yet.
This is why it is a paradox.
The most famous is the grandfather paradox where you travel back into the past to kill your grandfather.
Killing your grandfather resulting in your father never having been born means you never existed so how could you kill your grandfather in the first place?

I suggest you look at the video.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again you miss the point.

Either that, or you're the one missing the point by trying so hard to pwn it.

They haven't been born yet to send the beam so how can they be nominated for let alone win the Nobel when the action hasn't occurred yet.

Then let them demonstrate how it can be done on paper.

Just don't try to send the object though, or you'll disappear backward in time ... right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suggest you look at the video.

And I suggest you vote.

 

[SelfSim]

And I suggest you vote.

So now, even though you've been shown why the OP hypothetical is fatally flawed, you attempt to steam-roller others by demanding that they vote?

Now how is that not a demonstration of collecting votes for the purpose of perpetrating a deception?

 

[sjastro]

Either that, or you're the one missing the point by trying so hard to pwn it.Then let them demonstrate how it can be done on paper.

Just don't try to send the object though, or you'll disappear backward in time ... right?

It is demonstrated on paper why FTL is impossible due to paradoxes by using Minkowski diagrams.

​

The video I presented explains from about the 7 minute mark onwards how to make sense of Minkowski diagrams and how it leads to time paradoxes when travelling faster than light.
Here it is again.

And I suggest you vote.

There is no "This is Rubbish" option for me to vote on.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no "This is Rubbish" option for me to vote on.

Sounds to me like you have faith in what's on paper.

Faith (in Minkowski?) that it will never be done (can't be done today must be a given, unless there's something science is overlooking).

Looks to me like, even if they gave you a special invitation to observe them do it, you'd still argue that they can't confirm its arrival on Planet Timbuktu.

Thus you would believe that it never happened and -- of course -- be wrong.

 

[sjastro]

Sounds to me like you have faith in what's on paper.

Faith (in Minkowski?) that it will never be done (can't be done today must be a given, unless there's something science is overlooking).

Looks to me like, even if they gave you a special invitation to observe them do it, you'd still argue that they can't confirm its arrival on Planet Timbuktu.

Thus you would believe that it never happened and -- of course -- be wrong.

Since the term faith has come into the discussion which one of us is arguing on the basis of faith and using the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy by trying to turn a speculation about the future into a statement of fact?
Unless you have a crystal ball or paradoxically a time machine exceeding the speed of light so you can travel into the future to see if exceeding the speed of light is possible.... well you can see time travel and logic don't mix very well.

Since in your OP you refer to beaming an "object" which we can assume has mass, exceeding the speed of light becomes irrelevant, the issue becomes how do you accelerate the object up to the speed the light in the first place?

The answer is based on science, technology and not on faith.
Special relativity tells us to accelerate the object up to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of KE (kinetic energy).
Classical physics on the other hand states otherwise which is shown to be wrong.

The supporting evidence comes from the technological advances made in particle accelerator performance over fifty odd years.

Notice something in the data?
What you see is the classical law of diminishing returns, the collision energy which depends on the speed of the colliding particles is levelling off as it requires massive amounts of energy to produce minor increases in speed as one gets closer to the speed of light.

The LHC can accelerate protons and antiprotons to up to 0.9999991 times the speed of light.
Do you think this a coincidence or the LHC cannot break the speed of light barrier?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since in your OP you refer to beaming an "object" which we can assume has mass, exceeding the speed of light becomes irrelevant, the issue becomes how do you accelerate the object up to the speed the light in the first place?

All of that is assumed (or should be assumed) to be taken care of in the hypothetical.

Anything that would prevent an object from getting to this Planet Timbuktu has been overcome, and the act is a done deal.

Even arguing against a planet named Timbuktu, as well as assuming there's life on it, etc and so on is assumed in the challenge itself.

It's time to stop playing Junior Sci and vote now.

You've littered this thread with enough technobabble to last me for the rest of my life.

 

[SelfSim]

All of that is assumed (or should be assumed) to be taken care of in the hypothetical.

No, it cannot.
We don't have a clue as to what you mean when you use of terms like 'object and 'light years' out of the contexts in which we understand those terms .. (the same goes for the scientists referred to in it). You must therefore be using them to mean something else ... so what are those meanings? Only you can answer that question.

Anything that would prevent an object from getting to this Planet Timbuktu has been overcome, and the act is a done deal.

Even arguing against a planet named Timbuktu, as well as assuming there's life on it, etc and so on is assumed in the challenge itself.

These are obviously invalid claims on reality (or existence).

It's time to stop playing Junior Sci and vote now.

You've littered this thread with enough technobabble to last me for the rest of my life.

I disagree. In fact, its time for you to get out of your sci-fi fantasy and back into the real world/universe, I mean: given that the count of your votes is a reality we all end up with having to concur with, (unless you're a certain failed former President, I suppose)

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't have a clue as to what you mean when you use of terms like 'object and 'light years' out of the contexts in which we understand those terms ..

Neither do I.

 

[SelfSim]

Neither do I.

Yet you did.
Yet you persist ..

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet you did.

Did what?

Used "object" out of context?

You just said you don't have a clue as to how I'm using it.

Now you're telling me I'm using it out of context.

Let's simplify this:

Let's use a marble as the object ... okay?

Scientists beam a marble from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million light years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

Keep in mind that all obstacles that would prevent it from happening have been taken care of.

In other words, it did happen -- it's done and over with.

Can you vote now?

 

[SelfSim]

Let's use a marble as the object ... okay?

Scientists beam a marble from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen million light years away, in 1/10 of a second.

Would you nominate them for a Nobel prize?

You don't seem to get why scientists, in this case Physicists, are nominated for the Nobel. Its not just because they're professional Physicists .. its because of what their work in the field Physics produces, which benefits the study of Physics .. and not what you fantasize what might benefit your fantasy:

He, {Alfred Nobel}, stated that the Nobel Prizes in Physics should be given "to the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics".

Keep in mind that all obstacles that would prevent it from happening have been taken care of.

Now why would I keep that nonsense 'in mind', other than to benefit your fantasy, which you have now shown through your repeated claim on reality in your fantasy, which has now in fact, been revealed as being your deception?

In other words, it did happen -- it's done and over with.

This being your claim on reality .. which has been revealed as being clearly nothing more than a pure deception.

Can you vote now?

.. and now the finale to complete the Big Deception!

 

[AV1611VET]

Now why would I keep that nonsense 'in mind',

So you can vote responsibly, assuming you ever do.

 

[sjastro]

All of that is assumed (or should be assumed) to be taken care of in the hypothetical.

Anything that would prevent an object from getting to this Planet Timbuktu has been overcome, and the act is a done deal.

Even arguing against a planet named Timbuktu, as well as assuming there's life on it, etc and so on is assumed in the challenge itself.

It's time to stop playing Junior Sci and vote now.

You've littered this thread with enough technobabble to last me for the rest of my life.

In your silly little world of anti-intellectualism, anti-science and fantasy you may think these ridiculous challenges have some significance but in the real world the challenge is to make sense of these pointless exercises.

By dragging your fairytale into the real world by addressing the science at least forms the outline of a challenge.
A challenge should be designed to stimulate discussion with an exchange of ideas and not mired in your make believe world.

If you want a challenge which appears to be superficial but requires deep thinking here is one for you.
You have made a cup of hot coffee and is about to pour the cream which is at room temperature when the phone rings.
You wish to answer the phone and return to find your coffee as hot as possible.
Should you pour the cream before answering the phone or after the phone call has ended?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want a challenge which appears to be superficial but requires deep thinking here is one for you.
You have made a cup of hot coffee and is about to pour the cream which is at room temperature when the phone rings.
You wish to answer the phone and return to find your coffee as hot as possible.
Should you pour the cream before answering the phone or after the phone call has ended?

After.

As I understand it, heat is the total amount of kinetic and potential energy in an object, whereas temperature is the average amount of heat.

So pouring room-temperature cream into a cup of hot coffee, then leaving to answer the phone, will give the coffee time to reach thermal equilibrium between the coffee and the cream.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

... Should you pour the cream before answering the phone or after the phone call has ended?

How could you have possibly predicted the response sooo accurately there?
We need answers to that question!