What's the answer? There is a very large number in the US that are dumb and don't know it, and a bunch that think that being dumb means you have "common sense" and so it's better. One of our major parties panders to these groups.

Yep, you are misusing it. "Theoretically" means that you have a theory. You don't. You don't even have the shade of an idea - you have an observation that you are misusing as well.

What edge of the universe? And you're misusing the term "theoretically possible".

The beam spot is whipping across something. It is not an optical illusion, I can detect and measure it at the other end. The time it takes to get there is irrelevant, just as the time it takes the light from other galaxies to get to us is irrelevant. What is important is what is measured once it does. A photocell…

Thanks. I was actually starting to feel sorry for him. He's ignorant and doesn't know it - a sadly typical American these days if he is one (which I can say because I'm American as well.)

I know what the beam spot is and isn't. The refection back is kind irrelevant. Someone setting up a large reflector at that distance would see a spot beam whip across it at FTL velocities which could actually be detected by photocells for example. However a beam spot isn't a "thing", it's a concept, as you say…

I can take a laser, point it at Sirius, and swing it over to point at Betelgeuse. Some years hence, a beam spot (assuming little divergence) will move FTL from Sirius to Betelgeuse. An example of FTL but actually irrelevant, as a "beam spot" isn't really a thing and no information can be sent FTL that way. The…

The only point you've made is that you're a scientifically illiterate crackpot.

This is truly one of the dumber rants ever posted on Jezebel.

Poor crackpot, digs that hole deeper with every post, and thinks calling others "troll" is a response.

It's isn't terminology. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being observed. How are you defining location for one. On the balloon every point is still locally connected to every point it was before the expansion. From the perspective of every single point on the balloon, it hasn't moved at all - every other…

Science assumes exactly that, crackpot.

Just for my own amusement, what conditions do you think could exist other places that we can't replicate?

Well, it is nice to be scientifically trained in a battle with a witless crackpot, yes.

Considering the crackpot source, I can live with your silliness.

Too funny, crackpot. You keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.

No, I get it. You haven't taken any science classes at all, much less chemistry.

"and which (Physics) is highly comprised of THEORIES as opposed to LAWS."

He can test it, silly child. It has been. It's called "replicating the conditions". You are so scientifically ignorant it's humorous. Atoms are atoms the universe over. There is no indication anywhere of anything else. There are whole tables of chemical reactions devoted to these things.

You go tell a chemist that their chemistry doesn't work on other planets, and they don't know what it will do. They'll laugh you back to the kindergarten you so recently graduated. The conditions apply EVERYWHERE, silly child. Chemistry is the result of the electronic configuration of the atoms involved, and that is…