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.
Only for 1/10 of a second though ... right?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.
You have missed the point.Only for 1/10 of a second though ... right?
(And scientists aren't "dumb." Myopic and foolish, yes. But not dumb.)
It could either be attached to their birth certificates, or given to their previous of kin.Do you think the scientists should win the Nobel Prize when they may not have been born yet?
Once again you miss the point.It could either be attached to their birth certificates, or given to their previous of kin.
Either that, or you're the one missing the point by trying so hard to pwn it.Once again you miss the point.
Then let them demonstrate how it can be done on paper.sjastro said: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.
And I suggest you vote.I suggest you look at the video.
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?And I suggest you vote.
It is demonstrated on paper why FTL is impossible due to paradoxes by using Minkowski diagrams.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?
And I suggest you vote.
Sounds to me like you have faith in what's on paper.There is no "This is Rubbish" option for me to vote on.
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?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.
All of that is assumed (or should be assumed) to be taken care of in the hypothetical.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?
No, it cannot.All of that is assumed (or should be assumed) to be taken care of in the hypothetical.
These are obviously invalid claims on reality (or existence).AV1611VET said: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.
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 said: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.
Neither do I.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 ..
Did what?Yet you did.
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: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?
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".
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?AV1611VET said:Keep in mind that all obstacles that would prevent it from happening have been taken care of.
This being your claim on reality .. which has been revealed as being clearly nothing more than a pure deception.AV1611VET said:In other words, it did happen -- it's done and over with.
.. and now the finale to complete the Big Deception!AV1611VET said:Can you vote now?
So you can vote responsibly, assuming you ever do.Now why would I keep that nonsense 'in mind',
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.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.
After.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?
How could you have possibly predicted the response sooo accurately there?... Should you pour the cream before answering the phone or after the phone call has ended?
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?