Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Beam Me Up Scotty
comes a step closer , no longer just a dream and seen in the science fiction films
http://
http://
Answers
TTT, I don't think we can make 3+2=6 - and I didn't say we could - but I'm sick of this constant stifling of debate by those who think they're intellectually superior and that other people’s opinions are worthless. I know there are people here who are curious enough to enjoy discussing the possibilities of science however remote, but are reluctant to join any discussion now for fear of being told they’re stupid. Not good.
// this team has managed to transmit a single piece of information about a single, tiny particle, trapped in incredibly finely controlled conditions, over a few metres. //
I bet you would have laughed off the possibility of that happening 5 years ago jim, it being obviously impossible and everything.
I bet you would have laughed off the possibility of that happening 5 years ago jim, it being obviously impossible and everything.
I don't think that I would have objected to this experiments five years ago, because I never claimed that this sort of thing was impossible. Or, at least, I would have recognised that it was a technological challenge rather than a theoretical impossibility. There are worlds of difference between the two. But it's all a moot point because we weren't having this dicussion five years ago.
I don't mean to stifle debate. Rather I'm desperately and apparently unsuccessfully trying to share some of what I know. But it's not exactly being received as I had hoped. But heck, if there is a factual error in the other person's point -- and here, there is -- then surely I should point it out. That isn't stifling debate. It's trying to move the discussion on. Why is this a problem?
On a final note, stop saying I think of your opinion or other people's as worthless, and that I think of myself as superior. I just think your opinion is wrong.
I don't mean to stifle debate. Rather I'm desperately and apparently unsuccessfully trying to share some of what I know. But it's not exactly being received as I had hoped. But heck, if there is a factual error in the other person's point -- and here, there is -- then surely I should point it out. That isn't stifling debate. It's trying to move the discussion on. Why is this a problem?
On a final note, stop saying I think of your opinion or other people's as worthless, and that I think of myself as superior. I just think your opinion is wrong.
Oh, and for clarification, I think your opinion is wrong after you have expressed it, not before. When you say that in the future this might be possible, that's an opinion that is wrong, as I have pointed out in numerous ways. There is no getting around that fact. Unless, of course, I have missed something -- but rather than just deflecting my points, perhaps you could address them.
Again, I don't assume you don't know what you are talking about. But, again, if you continue to say that something is possible when it isn't, what other conclusion is there? It's not my ego you are fighting against here, although that's what you seem to think is the problem here -- this is the very fabric of nature that you are rejecting. And it is that -- and not the person who is pointing it out -- that you really should be addressing.
Now, why is this different do you think from something like the fundamental laws of arithmetic?
Again, I don't assume you don't know what you are talking about. But, again, if you continue to say that something is possible when it isn't, what other conclusion is there? It's not my ego you are fighting against here, although that's what you seem to think is the problem here -- this is the very fabric of nature that you are rejecting. And it is that -- and not the person who is pointing it out -- that you really should be addressing.
Now, why is this different do you think from something like the fundamental laws of arithmetic?
Svejk, :o)
Jim, Which point would you like me to address first? The one you repeat constantly where you say you’re right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? The point I'm trying to make is that there is no discussion to be had here, but it seems you're too busy listening to yourself to take the time to listen to anyone else.
Jim, Which point would you like me to address first? The one you repeat constantly where you say you’re right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? The point I'm trying to make is that there is no discussion to be had here, but it seems you're too busy listening to yourself to take the time to listen to anyone else.
Jim, another thing …..
//Rather I'm desperately and apparently unsuccessfully trying to share some of what I know. But it's not exactly being received as I had hoped.//
That’s because the people you’re talking to are, in the main, reasonably educated adults, some equally as educated as you - and they aren’t asking for lessons – they’re here for a chat. If they ask a specific question and you know the answer, fair enough, tell them the answer, but this is not a lecture hall.
//Rather I'm desperately and apparently unsuccessfully trying to share some of what I know. But it's not exactly being received as I had hoped.//
That’s because the people you’re talking to are, in the main, reasonably educated adults, some equally as educated as you - and they aren’t asking for lessons – they’re here for a chat. If they ask a specific question and you know the answer, fair enough, tell them the answer, but this is not a lecture hall.
It seems bizarre to accuse me of not listening for two reasons. Firstly, I've not seen you say anything you'd not said before anyway, illusions of knowledge, can't see the future and all that. Secondly, at what point have you said anything that I can answer to? As I have explained human teleportation is impossible. Perhpas you could explain why you disagree. And by "why" really I mean why you think I am only "saying" I'm right, and why you think this is wrong.
The thing is that I'm not "saying" anything, really. I'm just the messenger. What is doing the saying is mathematics. you ought to address that. And it will repeat what it's saying, over and over, because once something is laid down in maths as proven, or as true by definition, it is true forever.
It's a shame that we've got distracted in a battle of egos, because this had the potential to be a lovely discussion about what this discovery is really leading to, namely breakthroughs in Quantum Computing. Instead I've had to explain why an idea first touted in a sci-fi show for budgetary reasons is not remotely realistic, had to respond to criticism yet again about my perceived lack of imagination and ambition, and most bizarre of all had my financial status questioned and a comparison with a mad old buffoon from the 16th/17th Century.
Your educational status isn't the issue. On the other hand, you and everyone else who's disagreeing with me and TTT are persisting in ignoring a factual error in your position. As far as I can see, I can't do much more than continue to point that out until you start to recognise this error. Only after you do that -- or, at least, explain precisely why you think there is no error -- can we move on.
So if I had a question, it is this: why do you not believe that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to matter transportation?
The thing is that I'm not "saying" anything, really. I'm just the messenger. What is doing the saying is mathematics. you ought to address that. And it will repeat what it's saying, over and over, because once something is laid down in maths as proven, or as true by definition, it is true forever.
It's a shame that we've got distracted in a battle of egos, because this had the potential to be a lovely discussion about what this discovery is really leading to, namely breakthroughs in Quantum Computing. Instead I've had to explain why an idea first touted in a sci-fi show for budgetary reasons is not remotely realistic, had to respond to criticism yet again about my perceived lack of imagination and ambition, and most bizarre of all had my financial status questioned and a comparison with a mad old buffoon from the 16th/17th Century.
Your educational status isn't the issue. On the other hand, you and everyone else who's disagreeing with me and TTT are persisting in ignoring a factual error in your position. As far as I can see, I can't do much more than continue to point that out until you start to recognise this error. Only after you do that -- or, at least, explain precisely why you think there is no error -- can we move on.
So if I had a question, it is this: why do you not believe that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to matter transportation?
jim instead of thinking i am silly and ignorant and having a go at naomi and other members why not grow some and complain to the newspaper
> Professor Ronald Hanson, said that it was possible that Star Trek-style
“beaming up” would become a reality in the future. <
http://
> Professor Ronald Hanson, said that it was possible that Star Trek-style
“beaming up” would become a reality in the future. <
http://
Jim, //I've not seen you say anything you'd not said before….//
Precisely – and the negative criticisms you’ve listed aren’t my work either. Furthermore, I don’t perceive this discussion to be the ‘battle of egos’ – although from your point of view that’s clearly exactly what it is. Finally something you really have missed – no one here has said you are wrong – but they’ve not said you’re right either – and there’s the rub. They, like the eminently qualified Professor Hanson, are simply acknowledging that there may be more to life than any of us – including you and TTT – know – and as unpalatable as that may be to you, it’s the truth. Sorry to disappoint.
Precisely – and the negative criticisms you’ve listed aren’t my work either. Furthermore, I don’t perceive this discussion to be the ‘battle of egos’ – although from your point of view that’s clearly exactly what it is. Finally something you really have missed – no one here has said you are wrong – but they’ve not said you’re right either – and there’s the rub. They, like the eminently qualified Professor Hanson, are simply acknowledging that there may be more to life than any of us – including you and TTT – know – and as unpalatable as that may be to you, it’s the truth. Sorry to disappoint.
I see were going over the same old ground. It's not about intelligence, education or even who's right or wrong. It's about having a defeatist attitude. Many of mans achievements have been made against all the probable odds and contrary to the beliefs of the naysayers. Imagine telling even the most intelligent of our African ancestors that one day we'd know what the stars were made of.
I love the idea of teleportation, it's a great and wonderful thing, BUT, and it's a big but, it's not possible. Ever. Not because anyone lacks imagination or anything else, it's just not possible. Sometimes things just aren't no matter how hard we try to make them so and this is an example. Take humans flying unaided as another one. I can imagine I can fly, I can wear a wing suit and maybe even give the impression, but the truth of it is if I stand here and flap 'til the end of eternity it's never going to happen because it defies physics. I think that's all TTT and Jim are trying to point out. Peace folks :)
Latest Posts
Sport58 mins ago
Crosswords79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
ChatterBank109 mins ago
