Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
Hot damn. Hopefully their calculations are correct.
Simpsons did it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Some are pooping themselves over information transmission into the past.So much is wrong with that such as "where are the transmissions of stuff from the future?"
I heard the suggestion of "we already observed the maximum variance in information transmission into the past" and the collection and retransmission of that information takes longer than the net "gain" into the past that that information travels. Meaning, it will be impossible to chain up some transmissions to get a significant net gain to send stuff into the past.
For one, you'd have to have a machine already built to collect that information. If you send it into the past far enough...the machine never gets built. Someone has to be listening to get the information. So **** you time travel hopefuls. 😄
That's only if time is linear (which is isn't) and if there's only one time-line(which there isn't) and if the multiple time-streams aren't allowed to cross each other at points (they are).
There's a box; it's time you stepped outside of it, sir.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's only if time is linear (which is isn't) and if there's only one time-line(which there isn't) and if the multiple time-streams aren't allowed to cross each other at points (they are).There's a box; it's time you stepped outside of it, sir.
There's so much wrong with what you said.
Time is linear.
There is only one time line.
And there is only one time stream.
Welcome to Quantum Physics because we are both right. 😐
It depends on the lense you are using.
Based on this study, time would be linear...very much so. They setup the process assuming as such (because they did not expect information to travel back in time (or did they?))
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's so much wrong with what you said.Time is linear.
There is only one time line.
And there is only one time stream.
Welcome to Quantum Physics because we are both right. 😐
It depends on the lense you are using.
Based on this study, time would be linear...very much so. They setup the process assuming as such (because they did not expect information to travel back in time (or did they?))
Considering you took 4 days to respond, I am right; you are wrong on that merit along, but I'll indulge you nonetheless.
Time could not be linear.
There could be multiple time-lines.
There could be multiple time-streams.
But I am more right.
The multi-time dimensions don't care about your lenses.
This study needs to step outside the box too, cos Einstein just got smacked.
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering you took 4 days to respond, I am right; you are wrong on that merit along, but I'll indulge you nonetheless.[QUOTE=13575821]Originally posted by Robtard
[B]Time could not be linear.
It is because their expirement resulted in a linear time transfer.
NEXT!
Originally posted by Robtard
There could be multiple time-lines.
Work with what is observed, not with what you theorize.
Originally posted by Robtard
There could be multiple time-streams.
Work with what is observed, not with what you theorize.
Originally posted by Robtard
But I am more right.
Actually, you would be less right. Yours requires additional information that does not exist or can presently be verified.
Two particles in two different places at once is not necessarily a time problem.
Originally posted by Robtard
The multi-time dimensions don't care about your lenses.
Except, of course, when it comes to real science.
Originally posted by Robtard
This study needs to step outside the box too, cos Einstein just got smacked.
Not really. By your own faith based theory (yes, you have faith in something that is not seen, but you hope is true...you jesus freak), Einstein could still be correct and light speed is still not violated.
You just got your ass thoroughly handed to you, btw. You probably will not realize how severely it got handed to you until about a year from now.
It will sink in. 😄
Originally posted by Robtard
There's a box; it's time your stepped out of it. Time doesn't care about your narrow and limited view.Next year, we'll work on you stepping out of the closet.
You just got your ass handed to you again; you know this but are too stubborn to admit.
I guess you didn't realize that all measures we do will be anthropic...so much so that even our measures of multi-temporal interactions will be reduced to something in our conscious plane of reference?
🙂
Shit, I gave away too much. You were supposed to figure some of that out on your own.
But I didn't give it all away.
There's also another theory that the multiple timelines is complete and utter bull-shit.
You do realize that I have both supported and not supported what you are saying, right?
And, I already came out of the closet: I do every day after getting dressed for work. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you didn't realize that all measures we do will be anthropic...so much so that even our measures of multi-temporal interactions will be reduced to something in our conscious plane of reference?🙂
Shit, I gave away too much. You were supposed to figure some of that out on your own.
But I didn't give it all away.
There's also another theory that the multiple timelines is complete and utter bull-shit.
You do realize that I have both supported and not supported what you are saying, right?
And, I already came out of the closet: I do every day after getting dressed for work. 🙂
That's a funny way of saying "Yeah, you spanked me, I should think outside the box more."
/)-
I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.
Exactly, more theories, but you're the one saying "this is right; this is wrong" as fact.
And I supported you supporting what I support.
Does the wife know?
Originally posted by Robtard
That's a funny way of saying "Yeah, you spanked me, I should think outside the box more."
Not really. Well, not at all.
Originally posted by Robtard
I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.
If I died when I was 5, that could very well be true.
🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, more theories, but you're the one saying "this is right; this is wrong" as fact.
Am I, or are you? Go back and re-read our conversation. It will dawn on you...maybe.
Originally posted by Robtard
And I supported you supporting what I support.
You did not. You took my comments as being linear and single-pointed.
Originally posted by Robtard
Does the wife know?
Yes, that was the main reason she wanted to buy the house: the walk in closets. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. Well, not at all.If I died when I was 5, that could very well be true.
🙂
Am I, or are you? Go back and re-read our conversation. It will dawn on you...maybe.
You did not. You took my comments as being linear and single-pointed.
Yes, that was the main reason she wanted to buy the house: the walk in closets. 😐
Incorrect.
Incorrect and self-applauding.
^)>
Correct, you are.
Incorrect, I did.
Ghey.
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect.Incorrect and self-applauding.
^)>
Correct, you are.
Incorrect, I did.
Ghey.
It's correct.
Is it, or am I calling you weeeeeeeeeeaaaaak? Guess which one (You'll choose incorrectly, so I'll tell you: I was calling you weeeeaaaaak)
Nuh uhhhh!
I did not care where we moved: as long as I could repair stuff. I have before and after pictures of that stuff I have already done. You'll see. 😄
i love star trek
all the talk about subspace, wormholes, time travel is all good fun
but in reality, it is all science FICTION
modern scientists of today hold on to pseudo holy grails of science, which limits their understanding of prevents true progression
take the big bang as an example, here is a "scientific" theory proposed by a catholic priest no less
most scientists blindly accept this theory as gospel, despite the fact that, when you actually think about it and use common sense, it is NONSENSE theory and no different than a creationist view of the cosmos
but people believe the theory because, well, everyone else does
why stray from the flock?
people coming up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses and trying to explain how this experiment might be wrong
maybe the simple truth is that.... einstein was wrong
are people scared of acknowledging this?
Originally posted by GRIMNIR
most scientists blindly accept this theory as gospel
No scientists said it was silly. Then someone made a prediction how the echo would look, cosmic microwave background radiation. It turned out to be the most mathematically perfect prediction in the history of physics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg
See the error bars on that graph? No you don't they're too small to be seen. You need to make them about a thousand times actual size in order to be visible.
