My FTL Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I am not sure how you could prove the device actually worked.

So your vote is: NO?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So your vote is: NO?

I guess it would have to be. If you had some device that caused them to disappear, allegedly to a planet sixteen million light years away.... all you would see was someone vanish. No telling where they went or what happened to them. They may have just disintegrated into nothing. It reminds me of the movie "The Prestige." The magician was allegedly transporting himself from a locked box to another location. In reality, he was transporting a double of himself into nowhere. No Nobel Peace Prize for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess it would have to be. If you had some device that caused them to disappear, allegedly to a planet sixteen million light years away.... all you would see was someone vanish. No telling where they went or what happened to them.

I think the OP makes it clear where this object originated, went to, and how long it took it to get there though.

 

[sjastro]

I think the OP makes it clear where this object originated, went to, and how long it took it to get there though.

This reminds me you never answered my question, "did I respond to your post before or after you wrote it" given exceeding the speed of light violates causality seems perfectly OK.

Better still going back to the OP the appropriate question should be;

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 before they even had the idea of beaming the object?

Here is an example of using a Minkowski diagram to illustrate shooting an apple with an arrow under three scenarios.
An explanation of how these diagrams work is explained here.
(1) The arrow is travelling at less the speed of light in the frame xt.
The arrow is launched before if hits the apple since ct(A) < ct(B)
(2) The arrow is travelling at the speed of light in the frame x't'.
Launching the arrow and hitting the apple occur simultaneously since ct'(A) = ct'(B)
(3) The arrow is travelling faster than the speed of light in the frame x''t''.
The arrow hits the apple before it was launched since ct''(B) < ct''(A).

​

If the arrow travels faster than the the speed light it will hit apple before it was launched because information cannot travel faster than light.
Your OP is therefore not clear at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the arrow travels faster than the the speed light it will hit apple before it was launched because information cannot travel faster than light.
Your OP is therefore not clear at all.

Your science is keeping you from understanding.

I'd tone it down some.

Then maybe the OP will become clear.

 

[sjastro]

Your science is keeping you from understanding.

I'd tone it down some.

Then maybe the OP will become clear.

Au contraire it's the science that is showing your challenge is complete nonsense.
You can carry on with this arrogant tone of intellectual superiority but in reality the science is beyond your capacity for comprehension.
It probably explains your hostility towards scientists and academics by trying to knock them down to your level.
When scientists get it right through talent and hard work you say it's a gift from God, when they get it wrong such as Thalidomide it's all the scientists fault.
This is the intellectual level you operate at.

 

[SelfSim]

Your science is keeping you from understanding.

I'd tone it down some.

Then maybe the OP will become clear.

The OP question asks for completely useless information. Understanding something is useful and so it requires useful information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Au contraire it's the science that is showing your challenge is complete nonsense.
You can carry on with this arrogant tone of intellectual superiority but in reality the science is beyond your capacity for comprehension.
It probably explains your hostility towards scientists and academics by trying to knock them down to your level.
When scientists get it right through talent and hard work you say it's a gift from God, when they get it wrong such as Thalidomide it's all the scientists fault.
This is the intellectual level you operate at.

Is it this misplaced anger that is what is keeping you from voting?

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP question asks for completely useless information. Understanding something is useful and so it requires useful information.

I supplied all the information you need to vote.

Ten voted.

What's your excuse not to?

 

[SelfSim]

I supplied all the information you need to vote.

Ten voted.

What's your excuse not to?

I only vote where the request is genuine and the vote 'count' is inconsequential.

 

[sjastro]

Is it this misplaced anger that is what is keeping you from voting?

Your response proves my point.
I use science to show why your challenge is useless to vote on which being beyond your capacity for comprehension results in using the psychological projection of anger as your response.

 

[AV1611VET]

I only vote where the request is genuine ...

I'd stay away from the IAU then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your response proves my point.
I use science to show why your challenge is useless to vote on which being beyond your capacity for comprehension results in using the psychological projection of anger as your response.

I can see that team of scientists in my OP shaking their heads in dismay.

 

[sjastro]

I can see that team of scientists in my OP shaking their heads in dismay.

And where did you see these scientists in a hallucination or crystal ball?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

1/10 of a second by which clock, the scientists', the object's, planet Timbuktu's, or some other?

They would probably be eligible for a Nobel prize if they presented a novel principle by which the transfer was possible, and it was demonstrated independently. The prize would likely be for the principle rather than the demonstration.

 

[AV1611VET]

1/10 of a second by which clock, the scientists', the object's, planet Timbuktu's, or some other?

They would probably be eligible for a Nobel prize if they presented a novel principle by which the transfer was possible, and it was demonstrated independently. The prize would likely be for the principle rather than the demonstration.

Would YOU nominate them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Would YOU nominate them?

Maybe, if the conditions I mentioned previously were satisfied and the Nobel committee asked me(!) and there was no other discovery I considered more deserving. But I'm not a great fan of such awards; they can be overly political, have unfair and/or inequitable rules, and open to judgement bias, and even corruption.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe, if the conditions I mentioned previously were satisfied and the Nobel committee asked me(!) and there was no other discovery I considered more deserving. But I'm not a great fan of such awards; they can be overly political, have unfair and/or inequitable rules, and open to judgement bias, and even corruption.

Do you think it's a popularity contest at times?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think it's a popularity contest at times?

I suppose you could see it that way - the committee asks for nominations and then decides the winners, so they're likely to select from the most popular nominations (by specific work or overall achievement). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it potentially has the issues I mentioned previously.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my clock question.

 

[MissRowy]

Do you think it's a popularity contest at times?

Yeah I do think it can turn into a popularity contest. Which could open a can of worms especially if the person who wins was nominated for creating something that shouldn't have even been voted for in the first place.