[Grumpy_Mel]

“Show me a method to detect that arriving light, and give firm proof that it can be done, and I will accept it. Otherwise, I will wait for real proof.”

---

Tommy,

I’m not arguing that the experiment proves that the speed of light was breached. I didn’t conduct the experiment ( not even a scientist) so I couldn’t.

I am just trying to illustrate that something traveling faster then the speed of light does NOT require arriving at a destination before it left the origin (a logical paradox and therefore impossible).

I don’t know of a method for detecting the light nor do I have a proof that it can be done. That doesn’t make it impossible...it just means that it can’t be proven, YET.

Go back in history 2,000 years. There was no method to proves that atoms exist, let alone sub-atomic particals. Does that mean that they were impossible....or just that they couldn’t be observed?

You are right to wait for real proof of something before accepting it. You are wrong to assume that because you don’t have it, that it is impossible or even improbable (IMO).

[RightWhale]

arriving at a destination before it left the origin (a logical paradox and therefore impossible).

Time travel is possible. Physics does not balk at a logical paradox.

[TommyDale]

I’m not arguing, I already said that my comments were to those who were already claiming time travel and other crap. My main
argument is the same as yours. There is currently no way to measure it accurately, and there is certainly no way to prove it with two prisms only 3 feet apart.

[From One - Many]

I am just trying to illustrate that something traveling faster then the speed of light does NOT require arriving at a destination before it left the origin (a logical paradox and therefore impossible).

What you suggest can be proved with pencil and paper, but where one happens to be in space and time (location, distance to and back, etc.), determines the necessary increases C times 9 (for earth to our sun and back) to C^infinity (and beyond). Each time and space location and distance is not equal to the speed necessary to travel to produce a time shift using paper and pencil.....

I'll shut up now, my head hurts....LOL

[r9etb]

I am just trying to illustrate that something traveling faster then the speed of light does NOT require arriving at a destination before it left the origin (a logical paradox and therefore impossible).

It's only a logical paradox IF (big if) your understanding of space-time is correct. But what if your understanding of space-time is not correct? It's possible to be formally logical correct under a certain set of assumptions, and still be wrong.

There are a lot of things in relativistic and quantum physics that "conventional" logic would deem impossible.