I'm sorry. But did you just divide by 0 factorial? And besides. You would only be travelling faster than time from the perspective of those not travelling faster than time. To you time will actually stay the same. Another question I have is why you're okay with someone travelling faster than the speed of light but still believe that a Planck Second is the shortest time frame in the universe. If we are travelling faster than the speed of light then we are travelling faster than the photon that we would measure the Planck with. So theoretically we could get a more precise measurement thus making the Planck second no longer the shortest period of time in the universe.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

0 factorial is 1

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Which is why there was no point in it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your first comment is a bunch of tangential red-herrings, which are non-points. Take your own implied advice and make one. a/0 represents a division by zero in ordinary (real number) arithmetic. In mathematics it's a meaningless expression. On the Internet it communicates the idea of doing the impossible. I used "a/0" and "Planck second" in an idiomatic sense; it's obvious that they are not meant to be taken literally, but to emphasize the point that some events are difficult to describe using even the most approximate terms of science. If you actually have something constructive to add beyond pointless and pedantic nit-pickery, I'd like to read it. Otherwise, don't waste my time with transparent comments meant to conceal ill-conceived motivated skepticism towards anything you intuitively disbelieve. http://bit.ly/Motivated_Skepticism

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you say so...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your comment carries this built in assumption: "Only experts can propose legitimate thought experiments dealing with the concepts of time and space. If you're not an expert, then I have no reason to support the experiment, because I'm a skeptic without a clue". If you say so...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, the "built in assumption" was that I have no idea what any of that means, so I'm just going with it... But you can assume that it was an insult, if you "like" being insulted. Lol

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Could you please write that again, but in English? Thank you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It IS in English. Unfortunately, clarity is sometimes lost when statements are rendered in Plain English. The obfuscation of meaning in Latin to English translations is evidence of this fact. TBH my intent was to be as informal as possible. The post is so informal that it's almost vulgar and I suspect that most of the NW votes are from unimaginative quasi-pedantic semi-literates.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well it seems as though it would have been a better choice to either write it in plain English or fully scientific language. The middle ground doesn't seem like the best choice for this post.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh wow. To my chagrin I've supplied a false dichotomy that you're using as a spring-board for pedantry. Dictum sapienti sat est, "The said is enough for the wise" — understandable for a wise one without the need for explanations. You're criticizing the presentation of the post to compensate for something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Look up "tachyons"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Done. Looks like I've described what the Universe might look like from the non-point of view of a tachyon.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just got chills, like, mindfuck chills.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I get those when I read 'Neuromancer' by William Gibson, which has been affecting by writing style as of late ;-)

by Anonymous 11 years ago