GreatWyrmGold

1. Who says precognition is available? Or that it doesn't come with the same problems? After all, precognition is just information travelling backwards in time... 2. Precognition is only (arguably) superior to time travel for situations when you're just using time travel precognitively. Theoretically, Mr. Burns could have that. Theoretically, Mr. Burns could have a machine that turns dirt into anything. In fact, this is a lot more likely, because it doesn't violate the Heisenburg Uncertainty Equation. Besides, that comes with its own problems... Which makes your oracle computer about as useful as a fortune cookie. Have you watched weather reports? You can make the same arguments for time travel. (Same with all other posts explaining that, actually.) Of course, with precognition, you can always just say you screwed up. Not exactly ground-breaking, but I'll look into it nonetheless. It may not be useless, but it's certainly use-impaired. There's a story with a...tertiary, I guess, character whose power is exactly that. Worm is said story. It's also a pretty good one, if long. It depends on the specificity of the predictions. You can safely say, for instance, "Christmas will be on December 25," with less certainty for "I will get presents on December 25th," even less for "I will get a sweater for Christmas," and less still for "I will get a red sweater for Christmas." The devil is in the details, but the redemption can be as well.

Of course, since the reaction would start when the astronaut's glove brushed the anti-ferrium, a whole gram might not react. Welcome to advanced science. Well, [abbr=In My Humble and Uninformed Opinion]IMHaUO[/abbr], it makes sense that antimatter would be repulsed from matter. If it was, that easily explains why all the matter and antimatter did not annihilate each other before either could form any kind of structure.

It's awesome, isn't it? Both the multiverse thing* and the fact that it came up. *Which is an idea that occurred to me at one point. I couldn't figure out what the black hole absorbing more energy or releasing Hawking radiation would be on the universal scale. Well, since the "core" is presumably inside the event horizon, and past the event horizon gravity is strong enough to draw even light to the black hole rather than letting it escape...five bucks says it doesn't look like anything.

Name one particle which has been accelerated to lightspeed. And that's all he requires for his initial argument to work. Exactly. No matter how we measure it, we're going to have those errors...and since we're never going to manage a perfect measurement, our ability to measure the velocity of a particle is even worse. ...No one in this thread ever said that.

Well, to answer your question, we need to understand what, exactly, a wavelength is for light in the physical sense. ... Sadly, I've got no clue what that would be. Does anyone else know?