swansont

One would need to apply some physics to the problem and do an analysis to come up with this kind of conclusion.

! Moderator Note May enforce ≠ must enforce. And you don't get to enforce (or ignore) the rules of this forum. Further hijacks will be removed.

! Moderator Note Since this just seems to be arguing semantics, going in circles, and is indistinguishable from trolling: closed

I've heard that lore. Probably as famous: the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper, where Bethe's name was added just so it would sound like the letters of the greek alphabet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher–Bethe–Gamow_paper

! Moderator Note I don't know what this means, but it just appears to be tables of information. What is the science you wish to discuss?

Locality is not violated. The information transfer happens no faster than c If e.g. an electron is spin up, you transmit the information that it's spin up and make an electron at the destination be spin up. But you can do this without knowing the state of the particle.

...despite the headline saying they did https://time.com/4854718/quantum-entanglement-teleport-space/? Some stories say they teleported an electron. This one says photon. Regardless, it was the state of the particle that was teleported, not the particle itself.

In addition to the excellent post by Janus, consider that if you want to simulate/test a longer flight (whether it's crew endurance or equipment longevity testing), you can do that in orbit around the earth (or perhaps the moon), where rescue/evacuation is much easier, and therefore safer.

The press release, unsurprisingly, is a little bit lax in rigor https://twitter.com/orzelc/status/1150014258744320001

! Moderator Note Since nobody had done this, including the OP, it seems disingenuous to call out Phi for such an omission, especially since some of the things he described in his first sentence reflect laws already on the books. Thus for those, how violators are treated is known. And it's the OP that generally sets the tone and scope of the discussion. If you want to start a thread where discussion of enforcement is a requirement, go right ahead.

Um, no. YOU were the one who pointed me to these figures. In your last post, you tell me to look at Fig 4-05. Earlier it had been 4-06 and 4-07.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Link removed. You may open a new thread on this if you comply with the rules - explain what's going on, rather than simply posting a video link.

There have been February 30ths. Just FYI https://www.timeanddate.com/date/february-30.html

As I've explained, it's not obvious, because you have intermixed the primed and unprimed. And in fig 4-05, you are describing things in the primed frame. So it is not at all obvious what you are describing.

You could also answer the question.

What do you learn in the trip to Venus that can't be learned in going to the moon or on the ISS? The part about increased distance is probably the part that's best understood, since it's basically Newton's first law of motion. You don't have to do anything to keep going in a straight line. We've sent probes to other planets, so the mechanics are known. If it's simply mission duration, you can investigate that without leaving the earth-moon gravity well. "Why not?" is not an answer. Why waste the trip and land on a tiny moon with almost no gravity? What supplies are going to be there that aren't on Mars? How much smaller a step is this? You're going to go at least 55 million km and and then stop 10,000 km from Mars?

! Moderator Note Owing to childish sniping I had to hide posts that also had some content in rebuttal to this post, so perhaps one could stipulate that there is disagreement here. To wit: 1. Humans have lived in the Sahara, Antarctica and the bottom of the ocean. 2. Most or all of the seven items are incorrect or irrelevant in one way or another.

It's a body. How does a body accelerate in more than one direction? John Conner has been given several chances to clarify if he means an explosion (which becomes multiple bodies) or an expanding body, and has tenaciously refused to confirm this, so I am answering under the default assumption of a rigid body.

Figs 4-06 and 4-07 are labeled with S' , implying that you are using the S' frame. This passage implies the distance is in the S frame. This a contradiction and calls into question your claim that you aren't mixing frames. And I already called your attention to this confusion. I have to say that when you quote passages instead of directly answering it gives the indication that you really don't know what you're talking about, and are hoping the quote addresses the question. Also, barging forward without addressing or correcting mistakes is not helpful. To echo what Strange said — why should we bother to answer if we will be ignored? Why should this thread stay open?

No, it’s not. It’s a contradiction of the concept of a vector. A vector points in one direction. This is not optional.

It can’t be exactly what you’re asking, since I just said you can only accelerate in one direction. What you are asking us to consider is impossible.

I don’t think it unreasonable to posit that an intelligence capable of interstellar travel would develop AI, and the former is a premise of the paradox

A body can only accelerate in one direction. It’s a vector.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts have been removed.

You didn’t answer my question. You say two things happen at the same time. I asked in what frame.