Teleporting objects
-
I try to teleport something everyday. However, by the time they get to where they're going, they're all brown and smell bad. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John You possess an astounding aptitude to vocally render something in as nauseating and revolting a manner as is literally possible. But I must say, it’s a gift, and a very useful one when you are trying to insult someone. Next time I want to say something to my Project Manager, perhaps you can give me some pointers. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
What would creationist people say if I was to build a working teleportation machine and teleport myself from England to Austraylier and back? I would be ending my life and then creating another one and occuping it again. I'd *love* to see the arguments about that one. The only possible conclusion (if they truely believe in a creator) would be that I am god, hence I can claim my rightfull throne! Now, where did I put that copy of Physics for Dummies? :-D ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
David Wulff wrote: What would creationist people say if I was to build a working teleportation machine and teleport myself from England to Austraylier and back The christians would start calling you Jesus thinking he's come back. The muslims might call you Mohammed or Osama depending on where you are. The chinese buddhists might call you Gauthama and in india some people would call you the reincarnation of Krishna or Shiva. But a lot of others would call you a fake magician bastard trying to be the next Sai Baba. Overall, you'd be a big success in the god market. And CP would become famous and Bob too. If you are god, then Bob would be a god thing too. A bit like Moses. Maybe they'd start calling him Moses. That might upset him enough to return to Saturn :-) Which we dont want. So you better stop playing god David, before someone gets hurt. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
What would creationist people say if I was to build a working teleportation machine and teleport myself from England to Austraylier and back? I would be ending my life and then creating another one and occuping it again. I'd *love* to see the arguments about that one. The only possible conclusion (if they truely believe in a creator) would be that I am god, hence I can claim my rightfull throne! Now, where did I put that copy of Physics for Dummies? :-D ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
The only possible conclusion (if they truely believe in a creator) would be that I am god, hence I can claim my rightfull throne! How does that follow? :confused: You would be using the laws of physics to change the organization of atoms. Creating the laws of physics and the matter on which they operate is completely different from using those laws to move existing stuff around. Technically, organizing molecules into life is done everytime people concieve a child. We certainly don't assume that they are God because of that. ;P John
-
The only possible conclusion (if they truely believe in a creator) would be that I am god, hence I can claim my rightfull throne! How does that follow? :confused: You would be using the laws of physics to change the organization of atoms. Creating the laws of physics and the matter on which they operate is completely different from using those laws to move existing stuff around. Technically, organizing molecules into life is done everytime people concieve a child. We certainly don't assume that they are God because of that. ;P John
John Fisher wrote: How does that follow? Very easily actually... John Fisher wrote: Technically, organizing molecules into life is done everytime people concieve a child. We certainly don't assume that they are God because of that. The giving of life is something that is associated very heavily with god for religious people. God is responsible for giving life and for taking it. I would, in effect, be taking my life and then creating it again. But not only that, I would spiritually be alive between the two (there would always be a time difference, no matter how large or small), and as I was not in any one place and I cannot exist in nothingness, I would be everywhere at once. Like god is. Hence, I would be god. That and it would look so cool on my credit card. "Yeah, just charge this on the platinum one will you." "Please sign here, Mr., Oh God. Oh please forgive me my sins oh lord, here, take all my money and distribute it to the poor." How else could I afford the repayments on my new hunting grounds; America... Now I am just going over the top. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Roger Allen wrote: How do you beam somebody into a beam splitter? Not only that, but more philosophically, if you are teleported (as in Startrek) is it really *you* popping out on the other end, or just a copy of you, with the original being quite dead. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: Not only that, but more philosophically, if you are teleported (as in Startrek) is it really *you* popping out on the other end, or just a copy of you, with the original being quite dead. Or what if your hand or foot or something else is left behind eh? Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
And there has been theories proposed that man is only 10000 years old. Any one can propose a theory. Proving it however is another thing. To travel faster than light we would violate several important features of realitivity including the mass/energy relationship e=m(c*c)and the time dialation principle. Since space and time are bound together the idea of traving backwards in time ( or in other words reversing entrophy ) is by observation proven to lie in the same mathamatical area as the square root of a negative number. It is an abstract object or in terms of C++ a pure virtual function. In other words it does not exist. Richard PS: But hey if AE was wrong all bets are off If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
No, I'm not talking about wacko physics here, I'm talking about things published in refereed journals such as Nature (not that is prevents it from being less BS). As I remember, the jist was that there were potential ways to travel FTL from a relatistic standpoint, however other constraints made FTL travel impossible (so far as we know). BTW, it appears that light can sometimes be made to travel FTL (c). There was an experiment a year or two that recorded an electromagnetic pulse traveling significantly above c in a chamber filled with a metal in vapor state. This work was done at Princeton by reputable people, so it's unlikely to be flim-flam.
-
Two impossible ( unless Uncle Albert was wrong ) things. FTL ( faster than light ) travel is forbidden by special relativity ( and rightly so ) and worm holes require a black hole and probably the existance of another universe. Take a stroll thru a physics book and look what happens to objectc once they go past the event horizon of a black hole. Those little suckers are bad boys Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: Two impossible ( unless Uncle Albert was wrong ) I am constantly amazed that even intelligent people such as us do not learn from history. Specifically the age old saying of "never say never" or "nothing is impossible." Uncle Albert could be wrong. Or he may not be wrong but someone may find a way to work around his theory and produce FTL. There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. I can't stand it when people say "oh, that is impossible", no matter what proof they have. Rather say "currently, with our limited knowledge of the universe, we believe it cannot be done, but maybe sometime in the future, it will be found to be possible." People believed breaking the sound barrier was impossible at one point in time. Now John breaks the sound barrier each and every day, twice a day. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
-
John Fisher wrote: How does that follow? Very easily actually... John Fisher wrote: Technically, organizing molecules into life is done everytime people concieve a child. We certainly don't assume that they are God because of that. The giving of life is something that is associated very heavily with god for religious people. God is responsible for giving life and for taking it. I would, in effect, be taking my life and then creating it again. But not only that, I would spiritually be alive between the two (there would always be a time difference, no matter how large or small), and as I was not in any one place and I cannot exist in nothingness, I would be everywhere at once. Like god is. Hence, I would be god. That and it would look so cool on my credit card. "Yeah, just charge this on the platinum one will you." "Please sign here, Mr., Oh God. Oh please forgive me my sins oh lord, here, take all my money and distribute it to the poor." How else could I afford the repayments on my new hunting grounds; America... Now I am just going over the top. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
Continuing this fun and almost pointless debate... :) Destroying your body and making a copy in another location would make a lot of people have some interesting ethical problems to be sure. (Like, whether those cloning laws are solid enough because now we can just keep making all the copies we want -- instantly! ;) ) But, the whole soul-life issue is the same for people who are pronounced clinically dead then are revived. Were they really dead? If so, what happened to them in the mean time? Anyway, since the teleportation would just be a different mix of problems people already ponder, your "I must be God" conclusion is rather faulty... Enjoy your day! John P.S. If you suddenly had the power of God, the credit card would be pointless. You could just create what you want.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Two impossible ( unless Uncle Albert was wrong ) I am constantly amazed that even intelligent people such as us do not learn from history. Specifically the age old saying of "never say never" or "nothing is impossible." Uncle Albert could be wrong. Or he may not be wrong but someone may find a way to work around his theory and produce FTL. There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. I can't stand it when people say "oh, that is impossible", no matter what proof they have. Rather say "currently, with our limited knowledge of the universe, we believe it cannot be done, but maybe sometime in the future, it will be found to be possible." People believed breaking the sound barrier was impossible at one point in time. Now John breaks the sound barrier each and every day, twice a day. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
There are absolutes in nature just as there are absolutes for any object existing in our universe. If , for example, you are standing on a stilt in a gravity field equal to that of the earth with a velocity of zero in relationship to the gravity field and I cut the stilt I can assure you that you will fall ( actually not fall but thats another matter ) towards the center of the gravity field. This is an absolute in both the Newtonian and relativistic view of the universe. Philisophy will not change it. It will happen. Time and space are inseperable. This has been proven and is an absolute. We have shown that as an object travels faster is gains mass. This has been verified to within a very small fraction in particle accelerators. We have verified in those same experiments that as speed increases there is a decrease in time relative to the accererated object. So as something moves faster and faster it gets heavier and heavier and time for that object slows down as observed by someone else. As one approaches the speed of light the mass is approaching maximum as time is approaching mimimum. You do the math. At almost the speed of light ( say 99.95% ) you would need almost all the available energy in the universe to make the object accelerate any faster and would have to apply this energy over a very very large impulse span. It ain't gonna happen. Uncle Albert may well be proven wrong somewhere along the way but if so it will be only in trivial areas. Almost all of his predictions have been proven by experiment to be true so far. And while he was not God he at least had a pretty good idea of what God was thinking about when he put things together. Richard ( who would love to see the universe but is sure that he will have to be content to live in his local section) If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
There are absolutes in nature just as there are absolutes for any object existing in our universe. If , for example, you are standing on a stilt in a gravity field equal to that of the earth with a velocity of zero in relationship to the gravity field and I cut the stilt I can assure you that you will fall ( actually not fall but thats another matter ) towards the center of the gravity field. This is an absolute in both the Newtonian and relativistic view of the universe. Philisophy will not change it. It will happen. Time and space are inseperable. This has been proven and is an absolute. We have shown that as an object travels faster is gains mass. This has been verified to within a very small fraction in particle accelerators. We have verified in those same experiments that as speed increases there is a decrease in time relative to the accererated object. So as something moves faster and faster it gets heavier and heavier and time for that object slows down as observed by someone else. As one approaches the speed of light the mass is approaching maximum as time is approaching mimimum. You do the math. At almost the speed of light ( say 99.95% ) you would need almost all the available energy in the universe to make the object accelerate any faster and would have to apply this energy over a very very large impulse span. It ain't gonna happen. Uncle Albert may well be proven wrong somewhere along the way but if so it will be only in trivial areas. Almost all of his predictions have been proven by experiment to be true so far. And while he was not God he at least had a pretty good idea of what God was thinking about when he put things together. Richard ( who would love to see the universe but is sure that he will have to be content to live in his local section) If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Oh god I cannot believe I am getting dragged into this... but anyway, tally ho! Richard Stringer wrote: It ain't gonna happen. It is not going to happen, or it is not possible. Which one? "It ain't goinna happen" does not mean it is impossible and IMHO if it is impossible does not mean it is not going to happen. Someone once said "it ain't gonna happen" when some or other president said that by the end of the decade man would be on the moon. It happened. It was possible. People did think breaking the sound barrier was impossible. They had theories up to your ying yan on how it was impossible. Then someone figured out how to do it, and did it. What I am trying to say is that we are all very arrogant and very naive to believe that our little theories and the far from perfect proofs are the be all and end all of the particular subject. Someone will find a way to travel faster than light, wether they prove Albert wrong or find a way to keep his theory and proof but still go FTL, it does not matter, because they will. We as the human race will butt our heads against that "impossibility" until we find a way. It is a hallmark of our species. It sounds naive and simple, but it is true (though not an absolute of course, because they don't exist.) I have heard the explanation of why we cannot travel FTL. Everyone says "At almost the speed of light ( say 99.95% ) you would need almost all the available energy in the universe to make the object accelerate any faster and would have to apply this energy over a very very large impulse span". Now, tell me if I am wrong, but that is not saying it is impossible. It is saying that it will be bloody difficult, bordering on the impossible, but not impossible. Right? Hence why I say it can be done (if nothing more I keep saying it can be done because if we all start saying it can't be done, it won't be done or attempted to be done.) Just accept the fact that no matter what anybody says to me I will continue to believe that there are no absolutes or impossibilities in our or another universe. I believe it is arrogant to say we know all there is to know about something (e.g. FTL travel) and very short sighted because as history has proven countless times, what we think we know is normally either wrong or just 1% of the real thing. It is impossible to convince me otherwise. There, have an absolute :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa
