• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Science is Not Magic


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 13 October 2010 - 02:04 PM


Okay, I have noticed a lot of transhumanists and technophiles, who are often science fiction fans, have absolutely silly ideas about what is possible under any plausible interpretation of the range of unexplored physical phenomena. This is really hampering the serious coherence of the arguments presented, since a lot of people seem to have garnered their knowledge of physics from Star Wars. For those of you who claim to have a love of science and technology, and want to promote a vision of an ascendent future, it would be helpful if you made any sense. In this vein I have decided to present you with something originally written for science fiction authors, but even more applicable to many of the space-travel/transhumanist cranks.: Atomic Rocket's Respecting Science and Discovery Magazine's Alternative Science Respectability Checklist.

Particularly Applicable Excerpts:

"It's Just A Theory"

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagogue trying to pull a fast one.

The colloquial meaning of the term "theory" is the opposite of "fact", it is a guess, or hunch (what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"). But in Science, the meaning of the term "theory" is totally different. Theory and fact can be the same.

So if Einstein's relativity theory is "just a theory" in the same way that atomic theory is "just a theory", then you shouldn't mind sitting on top of this thermonuclear warhead while I sit in a bunker a few kilometers away pushing the detonator button, hmmmmmmm?

"Well, Maybe In The Future There Will Be A Scientific Breakthrough That Will Let Me Have My Way"

This argument usually takes the form of "Well, they said that man would never break the sound barrier either, but they were wrong!".

That formation of the argument is doubly suspect, since if you do the research there does not appear to be any scientist on the record who actually stated that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. For one thing, bullets were breaking the sound barrier almost since the invention of gunpowder. Heck, whips have been doing it since the invention of whips. The "crack" of a whip is actually a the tip of the whip creating a tiny sonic boom (By the late 1940s, no competent engineer or test pilot thought that there was anything mysterious {beyond the mysteries of complex aeronautical design itself} about the sound barrier) .

But the core of the argument is that maybe some future scientific breakthrough will remove all those pesky scientific theories that are keeping the author from doing what they want.



First off, from the standpoint of probability, there is at least a 50% chance that any new scientific breakthrough will actually make it harder to do what you want. There was an amusing SF story by George R. R. Martin called "FTA" where scientists discovered how to enter hyperspace. They were initially jubilant, with visions of FTL starships and Nobel prizes dancing in their heads. Their hopes were quickly dashed when they found out that the speed of light in hyperspace was slower than in our universe.

But actually it is probably a better than 50% chance that a breakthrough will make matters worse. And this will still be a problem if you try to declare by authorial fiat that the breakthrough is indeed in your favor. Let me explain.

The general rule is what physicists call the correspondence principle or the Classical limit. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment).

Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 13 October 2010 - 02:12 PM.

  • like x 1

#2 Vindex

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 13 October 2010 - 09:00 PM

Some people believe in omnipotent beings, others in all-powerful "science", sort of a cool religion :cool:
Star wars is awesome though.

#3 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 13 October 2010 - 09:33 PM

Science may not be magic, but I like to think that our ignorance of the universe leaves many incredible opportunities for exciting advancements.




sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:56 PM

Science may not be magic, but I like to think that our ignorance of the universe leaves many incredible opportunities for exciting advancements.

Time travel is theoretically possible according to relativity, and the laws of physics so far as we can tell are time invariant. That being the case, there are some things we do know:
All experience and theory suggests that the scale it could likely be accomplished on would be very tiny, would require vast, vast amounts of energy as well as materials which are purely theoretical (like cosmic strings or strange matter) and we also have absolutely no reason to believe it would be survivable.
You will observe that there is no evidence of people from the future.
Frankly, if super technology and FTL travel were possible you're rather at a loss to explain why there are not time traveling aliens occupying all points in space right now. ;)

Just remember that. Any new physical law or formulation of laws requires that it be consistent with all previous experimental results. Which are quite extensive and, cosmologically, rather wide. Maybe we've gotten the math on this or that wrong, maybe it's possible under some circumstances to get 'free' Quark plasma. But this is not going to help you teleport across the galaxy or make computers that run on nonsensolium.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 14 October 2010 - 12:00 AM.


#5 Vons

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:BC

Posted 14 October 2010 - 02:43 AM

I think it is somewhat foolish to assume that any one person knows exactly what we can or cannot accomplish in the future.

#6 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:20 AM

Time travel is theoretically possible according to relativity, and the laws of physics so far as we can tell are time invariant. That being the case, there are some things we do know:
All experience and theory suggests that the scale it could likely be accomplished on would be very tiny, would require vast, vast amounts of energy as well as materials which are purely theoretical (like cosmic strings or strange matter) and we also have absolutely no reason to believe it would be survivable.
You will observe that there is no evidence of people from the future.
Frankly, if super technology and FTL travel were possible you're rather at a loss to explain why there are not time traveling aliens occupying all points in space right now. ;)

Just remember that. Any new physical law or formulation of laws requires that it be consistent with all previous experimental results. Which are quite extensive and, cosmologically, rather wide. Maybe we've gotten the math on this or that wrong, maybe it's possible under some circumstances to get 'free' Quark plasma. But this is not going to help you teleport across the galaxy or make computers that run on nonsensolium.


You make a good point. What if we developed time travel only back to the point where we invented it in the first place, and from that point on we could time travel O_o.

But yeah, whether or not it's possible may have sidetracked the topic. I agree that science isn't magic, and I think that we should think critically and logically while at the same time keeping a mind open to the possibilities.




#7 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:20 AM

I think it is somewhat foolish to assume that any one person knows exactly what we can or cannot accomplish in the future.

That's beside the point, it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence and against which vast theoretical and empirical data can be marshalled. Faster-than-light travel or Dyson spheres are two examples of something that people seem to believe in arbitrarily, on faith. It's not better than religion.

#8 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:30 AM

I usually think that the multiverse and string theories and how people act as if they are all true for sure is faith too and a bit annoying, wonder what's your take on this.

#9 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:38 AM

I usually think that the multiverse and string theories and how people act as if they are all true for sure is faith too and a bit annoying, wonder what's your take on this.

The multiverse thing is super annoying because it's based on idle conjecture about the meaning of Quantum Mechanics, using interpretational schemes that are more or less philosophically inane. It's also always used to emphasize lots of science fiction nonsense, where Spock is evil and has a beard; instead of looking at the vastly greater number of possible worlds where the entire cosmos is an uninhabitable sea of nuclear radiation and supermassive black holes.

As far as String Theory goes, it's a fancy bunch of math that is largely untestable with a bunch of interpretations that imply nothing.

#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 October 2010 - 04:10 AM

Time travel is theoretically possible according to relativity, and the laws of physics so far as we can tell are time invariant. That being the case, there are some things we do know:
All experience and theory suggests that the scale it could likely be accomplished on would be very tiny, would require vast, vast amounts of energy as well as materials which are purely theoretical (like cosmic strings or strange matter) and we also have absolutely no reason to believe it would be survivable.
You will observe that there is no evidence of people from the future.
Frankly, if super technology and FTL travel were possible you're rather at a loss to explain why there are not time traveling aliens occupying all points in space right now. ;)

Just remember that. Any new physical law or formulation of laws requires that it be consistent with all previous experimental results. Which are quite extensive and, cosmologically, rather wide. Maybe we've gotten the math on this or that wrong, maybe it's possible under some circumstances to get 'free' Quark plasma. But this is not going to help you teleport across the galaxy or make computers that run on nonsensolium.

You make a good point. What if we developed time travel only back to the point where we invented it in the first place, and from that point on we could time travel O_o.

But yeah, whether or not it's possible may have sidetracked the topic. I agree that science isn't magic, and I think that we should think critically and logically while at the same time keeping a mind open to the possibilities.

IIRC, time travel is only possible into the future, not into the past. The argument for this is based on the well-known paradoxes, like causing yourself not to be born, in which case you wouldn't have been there to travel into the past, in which case you would have been born, and would have traveled into the past... The part about time traveling aliens occupying all points in space is known as the Fermi paradox. IMO it rests on bogus assumptions that truly advanced life forms behave like microbes or rodents, and that physical travel even has any meaning at all to advanced intelligences. I don't buy it.

#11 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 14 October 2010 - 04:24 AM

What I do not think is consistent about time travel, is how are the laws of motion conserved? If I travel 6 months into the future, will I be on the wrong side of the sun, in the vacuum of space? Or will I maintain the same frame of spacial reference? And where will teh energy come from to put me there?

#12 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 14 October 2010 - 04:35 AM

What I do not think is consistent about time travel, is how are the laws of motion conserved? If I travel 6 months into the future, will I be on the wrong side of the sun, in the vacuum of space?

Well, time travel that's possible wouldn't magically pop you around; so you'd keep your same inertial frame of reference. That being so, you might be in some inconvenient place like that.

#13 aLurker

  • Guest
  • 715 posts
  • 402
  • Location:Scandinavia

Posted 14 October 2010 - 12:31 PM

The title of this thread made me think of Clarke's third law, such a classic:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



#14 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 14 October 2010 - 08:54 PM

"Any technology, distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced."
These 'laws' are, of course, wrong. Everything seems like magic to the ignorant. But the key feature of magic is that it does not behave according to natural law.

#15 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 October 2010 - 04:02 PM

Personally I don't think time travel is possible because I don't think time exists as a dimension, but only as a measure of change...

#16 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 15 October 2010 - 06:23 PM

"Any technology, distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced."
These 'laws' are, of course, wrong. Everything seems like magic to the ignorant. But the key feature of magic is that it does not behave according to natural law.


No, you twisted the original sentence. In its original form it is correct. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This means that an advanced technology, which we humans cannot comprehend, cannot be told apart from magic. And it's true: if I saw an alien make a planet appear by snapping his fingers (tentacles?), and I didn't know it was an alien, it'd be like magic to me.

The wise alien would, of course, know better Posted Image.






#17 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 15 October 2010 - 06:29 PM

Personally I don't think time travel is possible because I don't think time exists as a dimension, but only as a measure of change...


Einstein, and the majority of physicists around the world believe in space-time because the mathematics supports it. I'm not saying your thoughts aren't true, but rather that you should probably trust the physicists until you know more :P.

Might want to examine the following too:

Ever look through that periscope on top of the empire state building? (Let's assume you have, this is an example)


So have I. The only reasonable way that you and I (or anyone else) can occupy the same space is because time exists. You occupied the same relative location as I did, separated only because we occupied different locations in time.



Not a physics definition, but definitely something to ponder.

#18 aLurker

  • Guest
  • 715 posts
  • 402
  • Location:Scandinavia

Posted 15 October 2010 - 11:03 PM

"Any technology, distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced."
These 'laws' are, of course, wrong. Everything seems like magic to the ignorant. But the key feature of magic is that it does not behave according to natural law.


No, you twisted the original sentence. In its original form it is correct. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This means that an advanced technology, which we humans cannot comprehend, cannot be told apart from magic. And it's true: if I saw an alien make a planet appear by snapping his fingers (tentacles?), and I didn't know it was an alien, it'd be like magic to me.

The wise alien would, of course, know better Posted Image.



That "twisted" sentence is just Dr. Barry Gehm's corollary to Clarke's third law.

Edited by aLurker, 15 October 2010 - 11:08 PM.


#19 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 15 October 2010 - 11:12 PM

Okay, I have noticed a lot of transhumanists and technophiles, who are often science fiction fans, have absolutely silly ideas about what is possible under any plausible interpretation of the range of unexplored physical phenomena. This is really hampering the serious coherence of the arguments presented, since a lot of people seem to have garnered their knowledge of physics from Star Wars. For those of you who claim to have a love of science and technology, and want to promote a vision of an ascendent future, it would be helpful if you made any sense. In this vein I have decided to present you with something originally written for science fiction authors, but even more applicable to many of the space-travel/transhumanist cranks.: Atomic Rocket's Respecting Science and Discovery Magazine's Alternative Science Respectability Checklist.

Particularly Applicable Excerpts:

"It's Just A Theory"

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagogue trying to pull a fast one.

The colloquial meaning of the term "theory" is the opposite of "fact", it is a guess, or hunch (what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"). But in Science, the meaning of the term "theory" is totally different. Theory and fact can be the same.

So if Einstein's relativity theory is "just a theory" in the same way that atomic theory is "just a theory", then you shouldn't mind sitting on top of this thermonuclear warhead while I sit in a bunker a few kilometers away pushing the detonator button, hmmmmmmm?

"Well, Maybe In The Future There Will Be A Scientific Breakthrough That Will Let Me Have My Way"

This argument usually takes the form of "Well, they said that man would never break the sound barrier either, but they were wrong!".

That formation of the argument is doubly suspect, since if you do the research there does not appear to be any scientist on the record who actually stated that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. For one thing, bullets were breaking the sound barrier almost since the invention of gunpowder. Heck, whips have been doing it since the invention of whips. The "crack" of a whip is actually a the tip of the whip creating a tiny sonic boom (By the late 1940s, no competent engineer or test pilot thought that there was anything mysterious {beyond the mysteries of complex aeronautical design itself} about the sound barrier) .

But the core of the argument is that maybe some future scientific breakthrough will remove all those pesky scientific theories that are keeping the author from doing what they want.



First off, from the standpoint of probability, there is at least a 50% chance that any new scientific breakthrough will actually make it harder to do what you want. There was an amusing SF story by George R. R. Martin called "FTA" where scientists discovered how to enter hyperspace. They were initially jubilant, with visions of FTL starships and Nobel prizes dancing in their heads. Their hopes were quickly dashed when they found out that the speed of light in hyperspace was slower than in our universe.

But actually it is probably a better than 50% chance that a breakthrough will make matters worse. And this will still be a problem if you try to declare by authorial fiat that the breakthrough is indeed in your favor. Let me explain.

The general rule is what physicists call the correspondence principle or the Classical limit. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment).

Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


I like it. Good stuff.

#20 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 15 October 2010 - 11:28 PM

I want to take offense to the idea that all people who read science fiction consider themselves experts in science, but that's only because I'm a big science fiction reader. I know you weren't directing your statements at all readers of that genre.

Truth be told, I could care less if Joe Blow believes we'll time travel to mars, or fly bussard ramjets to another galaxy. If it effects the public consciousness it's only for the better. After all if people see it, they'll want it, and soon after they'll get it. We saw the Russians launch the first satellite, we passed the national defense education act, and soon after we developed the technology to send people to the moon.

People watched startrek in the 60s. They saw the communicator, the replicator, automatic doors, scanners, tablets, etc. All of which exist in some form today. It has always been true that what is fiction today eventually becomes tomorrow's fact. It just takes time for some creative individual to work the problem.

#21 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 17 October 2010 - 04:19 PM

"Any technology, distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced."
These 'laws' are, of course, wrong. Everything seems like magic to the ignorant. But the key feature of magic is that it does not behave according to natural law.


No, you twisted the original sentence. In its original form it is correct. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This means that an advanced technology, which we humans cannot comprehend, cannot be told apart from magic. And it's true: if I saw an alien make a planet appear by snapping his fingers (tentacles?), and I didn't know it was an alien, it'd be like magic to me.

The wise alien would, of course, know better Posted Image.



That "twisted" sentence is just Dr. Barry Gehm's corollary to Clarke's third law.


D'oh, never mind, sorry. I misread what she wrote, hehehe.... I really should be a bit more reserved when trying to correct people :P (Oh, the irony).




#22 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 17 October 2010 - 06:07 PM

As both transhumanist and s-f fan I fail to see much connection between transhumanism and FTL, perhaps that's not what ChromodynamicGirl was suggesting but just to make it clear transhumanism is not really related with space conquest and you don't see much transhumanism in either Star Trek or Star Wars, this motif doesn't seem to be very popular in space operas for some reason.

Edited by Kolos, 17 October 2010 - 06:08 PM.


#23 Johan

  • Guest, F@H
  • 472 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:26 PM

I agree with ChromodynamicGirl that life extension and transhumanism would benefit from people looking at things in a scientifically more realistic way. Discuss it, by all means, but don't expect it to become reality tomorrow. On the other hand, these things sell, and the media will continue making documentaries and reports about such things as long as they make money from it.

I don't claim in any way to know what is and isn't possible, but I think it's better to have low expectations and end up being positively surprised occasionally, rather than counting on something to happen soon and being disappoined when it doesn't. Call me a killjoy if you want.

#24 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 January 2011 - 07:38 AM

Personally I don't think time travel is possible because I don't think time exists as a dimension, but only as a measure of change...


Einstein, and the majority of physicists around the world believe in space-time because the mathematics supports it. I'm not saying your thoughts aren't true, but rather that you should probably trust the physicists until you know more :P.

Might want to examine the following too:

Ever look through that periscope on top of the empire state building? (Let's assume you have, this is an example)


So have I. The only reasonable way that you and I (or anyone else) can occupy the same space is because time exists. You occupied the same relative location as I did, separated only because we occupied different locations in time.



Not a physics definition, but definitely something to ponder.


The thing is that time travel relies on the past/future configuration of the universe to still exist, I doubt that it does. I think there is only now and the universe does not remember the moment you occupied that same space, for all it cares, you never occupied it.

#25 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 31 January 2011 - 10:55 AM

Okay, I have noticed a lot of transhumanists and technophiles, who are often science fiction fans, have absolutely silly ideas about what is possible under any plausible interpretation of the range of unexplored physical phenomena. This is really hampering the serious coherence of the arguments presented, since a lot of people seem to have garnered their knowledge of physics from Star Wars. For those of you who claim to have a love of science and technology, and want to promote a vision of an ascendent future, it would be helpful if you made any sense. In this vein I have decided to present you with something originally written for science fiction authors, but even more applicable to many of the space-travel/transhumanist cranks.: Atomic Rocket's Respecting Science and Discovery Magazine's Alternative Science Respectability Checklist.

Particularly Applicable Excerpts:

"It's Just A Theory"

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagogue trying to pull a fast one.

The colloquial meaning of the term "theory" is the opposite of "fact", it is a guess, or hunch (what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"). But in Science, the meaning of the term "theory" is totally different. Theory and fact can be the same.

So if Einstein's relativity theory is "just a theory" in the same way that atomic theory is "just a theory", then you shouldn't mind sitting on top of this thermonuclear warhead while I sit in a bunker a few kilometers away pushing the detonator button, hmmmmmmm?

"Well, Maybe In The Future There Will Be A Scientific Breakthrough That Will Let Me Have My Way"

This argument usually takes the form of "Well, they said that man would never break the sound barrier either, but they were wrong!".

That formation of the argument is doubly suspect, since if you do the research there does not appear to be any scientist on the record who actually stated that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. For one thing, bullets were breaking the sound barrier almost since the invention of gunpowder. Heck, whips have been doing it since the invention of whips. The "crack" of a whip is actually a the tip of the whip creating a tiny sonic boom (By the late 1940s, no competent engineer or test pilot thought that there was anything mysterious {beyond the mysteries of complex aeronautical design itself} about the sound barrier) .

But the core of the argument is that maybe some future scientific breakthrough will remove all those pesky scientific theories that are keeping the author from doing what they want.



First off, from the standpoint of probability, there is at least a 50% chance that any new scientific breakthrough will actually make it harder to do what you want. There was an amusing SF story by George R. R. Martin called "FTA" where scientists discovered how to enter hyperspace. They were initially jubilant, with visions of FTL starships and Nobel prizes dancing in their heads. Their hopes were quickly dashed when they found out that the speed of light in hyperspace was slower than in our universe.

But actually it is probably a better than 50% chance that a breakthrough will make matters worse. And this will still be a problem if you try to declare by authorial fiat that the breakthrough is indeed in your favor. Let me explain.

The general rule is what physicists call the correspondence principle or the Classical limit. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment).

Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this forum.

Edited by Rol82, 31 January 2011 - 11:06 AM.

  • dislike x 2

#26 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 31 January 2011 - 11:02 AM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

#27 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 31 January 2011 - 11:08 AM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.


I'm very close to passing out for a few hours before I'm supposed to awake at the proper time, so I'll return to your comments later.
  • dislike x 1

#28 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 09:56 PM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

True, but what I object to is the careless treatment of ideas---especially those with a basis in science fiction---that are by general consensus, falsely deemed by some to be either close to our grasp or within the realm of scientific possibility. At the same time, though, I urge the undaunted examination of the unknown, and believe that the possibilities of science are boundless. But I have greater faith in ideas that can be reconciled with science, and that are more immediate to the practical possibilities of scientific discovery.

#29 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:28 AM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

True, but what I object to is the careless treatment of ideas---especially those with a basis in science fiction---that are by general consensus, falsely deemed by some to be either close to our grasp or within the realm of scientific possibility. At the same time, though, I urge the undaunted examination of the unknown, and believe that the possibilities of science are boundless. But I have greater faith in ideas that can be reconciled with science, and that are more immediate to the practical possibilities of scientific discovery.

Hi for one thing: I don't think that this discussion is in the right thread. This is more like Other conversations or Philosophy, because let's face it this is just a fruitless discussion on Rol's opinion of your average sci fi fan. Sure they have a propensity towards flights of fancy. Sure it's the OP's attempt to explain that everyone, EVERYONE, should lower expectations to the poster's years-tested acceptance level when speaking about scientific discoveries, but c'mon, it does not belong in rational physics discussions. More like sociology or pop psychology. I mean since we're discussing the true definition of "magic" compared to science when is the poster going to break out chapters from the necronomicon to support their case? :)

Second: I believe the OP really posted the vague topic as a way to lay out their pretensions and have everyone agree with him/her. The argument amounts to "these people expect too much. I think they're dumb." As if he or she is the expert on what constitutes real scientific possibility versus idiocy. I've got to repeat what others have been saying, what is "magic" is simply relative to experience. Take the New Guinea cargo cults for example. An airplane is an obvious mechanical device to Americans, but if you were to go to New Guinea in the 60's you would find that the natives were mesmerized by these metal gods that buzzed overhead. So much so they would construct effigies out of straw in an attempt to call them down. As far as the tribesmen were concerned our science was magic.

The OP is probably as much a naive sci-fi fan as the people he or she is criticizing but wants to differentiate him or herself from the rabble in this weak attempt at discourse. Maybe the poster was exercising their logic muscles, but nevertheless, this very approach reveals the poster as much an amateur as the navel-gazers he despises. Why bother come on these boards and rattle an empty cage? If you lack optimism in science then what are you even DOING here? Sorry but who the heck are YOU to judge what the future holds? Rather than spit out one-note, unfounded (magical?) opinions, offer some construction.

Edited by solbanger, 11 February 2011 - 02:29 AM.


#30 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:39 AM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

True, but what I object to is the careless treatment of ideas---especially those with a basis in science fiction---that are by general consensus, falsely deemed by some to be either close to our grasp or within the realm of scientific possibility. At the same time, though, I urge the undaunted examination of the unknown, and believe that the possibilities of science are boundless. But I have greater faith in ideas that can be reconciled with science, and that are more immediate to the practical possibilities of scientific discovery.

Hi for one thing: I don't think that this discussion is in the right thread. This is more like Other conversations or Philosophy, because let's face it this is just a fruitless discussion on Rol's opinion of your average sci fi fan. Sure they have a propensity towards flights of fancy. Sure it's the OP's attempt to explain that everyone, EVERYONE, should lower expectations to the poster's years-tested acceptance level when speaking about scientific discoveries, but c'mon, it does not belong in rational physics discussions. More like sociology or pop psychology. I mean since we're discussing the true definition of "magic" compared to science when is the poster going to break out chapters from the necronomicon to support their case? :)

Second: I believe the OP really posted the vague topic as a way to lay out their pretensions and have everyone agree with him/her. The argument amounts to "these people expect too much. I think they're dumb." As if he or she is the expert on what constitutes real scientific possibility versus idiocy. I've got to repeat what others have been saying, what is "magic" is simply relative to experience. Take the New Guinea cargo cults for example. An airplane is an obvious mechanical device to Americans, but if you were to go to New Guinea in the 60's you would find that the natives were mesmerized by these metal gods that buzzed overhead. So much so they would construct effigies out of straw in an attempt to call them down. As far as the tribesmen were concerned our science was magic.

The OP is probably as much a naive sci-fi fan as the people he or she is criticizing but wants to differentiate him or herself from the rabble in this weak attempt at discourse. Maybe the poster was exercising their logic muscles, but nevertheless, this very approach reveals the poster as much an amateur as the navel-gazers he despises. Why bother come on these boards and rattle an empty cage? If you lack optimism in science then what are you even DOING here? Sorry but who the heck are YOU to judge what the future holds? Rather than spit out one-note, unfounded (magical?) opinions, offer some construction.

Well, if you knew more about the dirty old man known as Chomodynamicgirl, you wouldn't have wasted the energy to ponder and compose. As for myself, maybe it would be easier to illuminate my feelings with an example of talk I hear far too often, like "immortality is just around the corner." But when I make comments like "science is boundless," it should be clear where my loyalties are in this debate.

Edited by Rol82, 12 February 2011 - 01:40 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users