96 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 19 September 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Yet again you have failed to understand a VERY simple point. I have repeatedly said that we need to continue experiments to find out what is possible. I have repeatedly used phrases such as "as we understand it."

Science is the continued investigation of what is and isn't possible. It relies on logical deduction and evidence to come to those conclusions. When it has no supporting evidence its default position is "we don't know". Science is not arrogant, the arrogance is in those that keep claiming the impossible IS possible WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

I think there are people who have already done it, if Ben Rich and others are to be believed, but it's just classified.  I am not sure why that is exactly, but it could just be the sensible desire of preventing hostile powers from getting their hands on this technology.

[TheMacGuffin]

You see, many Americans think that the Russians stole the atomic bomb information from us and it allowed them to build their own bomb in a much shorter time than they would have been able to do otherwise.  That's one reason we would try very hard to keep major breakthroughs like this secret from other countries, if in fact Ben Rich is correct and such breakthroughs have been made.  They would only use our own inventions against us because, well let's face it, they all hate us anyway.

[Sky Scanner]

DONTEATUS, on 19 September 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Thats just it ! THe BIG  "IF" IF Einstein  is right, I will go on record and say this, Maybe Einstein had most of or some of it right as far as the physicis as we know it  down. But We would be quite the Arrogant to think we know all in the universe towards the laws we have yet to claim we know all about.
The key there is Claim and we.
I do agree with 99% of your post Waspie ! ITs that 1% of we dont know that will get ya every time.

There was nothing in Waspie's post that spoke about us currently knowing the limits of what is possible. He said the complete opposite to that.

The laws of Nature is a very simple concept to understand, it has nothing do with time scales, or what technology would be involved, it is simply that if something is possible (regardless of how long it takes us to work it out) then that is because the laws of nature allow it. That is it. All that exists outside the laws the nature are ideas that do not work (ever).

[bewizardry_unharmonic]

Waspie_Dwarf. Calm down pal.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

bewizardry_unharmonic, on 19 September 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Waspie_Dwarf. Calm down pal.

You spend several days trying, and failing, to get across something as simple as the concept that you can't actually achieve the impossible and you see how calm you are.

[keithisco]

Waspie... of course you are right that our CURRENT understanding of Natural Laws (Superluminal speed aside, as that is still purely theoretical) dominates our understanding of the Universe. But.. that is not to say that the Natural Laws as understood today are immutable or even correctly stated.

It may be that a repeatable and verifiable experiment that proves the existence of Tachyons, or other supposed Superluminal particles (with Mass), may be invented.

Not forgetting that Scientific endeavour (verifiable) is still a very young branch of the greater Scientific method, and detection methods improve vastly over their predecessors.

A real problem that I have always had is the Theory of Special Relativity, Energy and Mass are quantitatively massive particulate emanations, whilst C has no mass. Is it possible that C actually refers to something other than the speed of light? Perhaps something more esoteric that we are not yet able to detect, a constant that Einstein deduced incorrectly?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

keithisco, on 19 September 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Waspie... of course you are right that our CURRENT understanding of Natural Laws (Superluminal speed aside, as that is still purely theoretical) dominates our understanding of the Universe. But.. that is not to say that the Natural Laws as understood today are immutable or even correctly stated.

It may be that a repeatable and verifiable experiment that proves the existence of Tachyons, or other supposed Superluminal particles (with Mass), may be invented.

Not forgetting that Scientific endeavour (verifiable) is still a very young branch of the greater Scientific method, and detection methods improve vastly over their predecessors.

Whilst true we simply can not investigate that which we don't know the existence of. We have to assume that our understanding is correct otherwise no science would make sense. Scientific experiments would become nothing more than guesses and the vast majority, if not all, would simply fail.

You have to push the boundary of what is known from the inside.

keithisco, on 19 September 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

A real problem that I have always had is the Theory of Special Relativity, Energy and Mass are quantitatively massive particulate emanations, whilst C has no mass. Is it possible that C actually refers to something other than the speed of light? Perhaps something more esoteric that we are not yet able to detect, a constant that Einstein deduced incorrectly?

What is your problem based on? Observation, reproducible experimentation, logical deduction or just personal opinion? If it is the latter then it is no more than a guess and unscientific.

Anything is possible, but Relativity has been tested and tested again. So far the theory fits the observations extraordinarily well. Relativity made predictions. things that were not even observed at that time (such as the apparent bending of light by mass and time dilation). Experimentation has verified most of these predictions and shown  that relativity fits very, very well. Given this why assume it is wrong UNTIL their is evidence to that effect?

[thewonderman]

So basically what this is trying to tell us is that they have technology, they have built the crafts but they just don't know how to travel through space in them. I wondered what all those triangles we're.

[OverSword]

My guess is that in order to 'warp' space it will require a means to generate an enormous amount of gravity.  Anyone who posesses that will not only have the means to project themselves crazy distances seemingly instantaneously, they will also have the means to destroy entire solar systems with a gravity weapon.  This is the type of technology that unenlightened non-peacful societies (like humanity) have no business possesing.

edited for massive spelling errors

Edited by OverSword, 19 September 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Hawkin]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 19 September 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

No I didn't miss it, but no laws of nature were broken. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in... our understanding of the laws can (and do) change, the laws themselves remain the same.

To my understanding, The Bullwhip is the first man made object to break the sound barrier. That crack you hear is when it's being broke.

[jroman]

What about heim's theory? This one travels faster than light! See link below:

http://www.hpcc-spac..._Propulsion.pdf

Judge for yourself. What do you think?

[~C.S.M~]

Im skeptical of this. But I like surprises, so lets se.

Maybe even if they fail, they may uintentionally discover something new.

[keithisco]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 19 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Whilst true we simply can not investigate that which we don't know the existence of. We have to assume that our understanding is correct otherwise no science would make sense. Scientific experiments would become nothing more than guesses and the vast majority, if not all, would simply fail.

You have to push the boundary of what is known from the inside.


What is your problem based on? Observation, reproducible experimentation, logical deduction or just personal opinion? If it is the latter then it is no more than a guess and unscientific.

Anything is possible, but Relativity has been tested and tested again. So far the theory fits the observations extraordinarily well. Relativity made predictions. things that were not even observed at that time (such as the apparent bending of light by mass and time dilation). Experimentation has verified most of these predictions and shown  that relativity fits very, very well. Given this why assume it is wrong UNTIL their is evidence to that effect?

Highlighted (mine): Gravitational Lensing is far from proven because simple refraction offers a better model to explain "Einsteins Cross" etc. Neither could time dilation have an effect on light because it carries no mass therefore should not be affected by mass. It is more usually explained as mass causing Spacetime to bend, and light having to traverse these local irregularities in uniform space that produce multiple images at the same time ( that curiously focus at the Earth).

That is one of the reasons why have doubts about Special Relativity - it is a Theory that has slipped into the state of Orthodoxy, therefore must not be challenged because to do so is "Unscientific".

Gravitational Waves are also predicted by SR - yet our best endeavours have led to nothing. No detection of any Gravity Wave, anywhere which is another reason I state that "We" are currently not capable of devising an experiment that conclusively proves any part of SR.

GR and SR may well turn out to be correct - but the Jury is out until irrefutable proof is provided. I dont mean another Theory to support this theory - but actual quantitative evidence that cannot be refuted.

Unscientifically yours

Keithisco

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Simple refraction by what medium? The ether?

[DONTEATUS]

So what is it ? Possible,Impossible ? Remember NASA does THe Impossible really well. And on a regular basis !
WHo really knows ? We are just looking into the Looking Glass for the first time it seems.
Dont forget the Topic, To Boldly Go ,It also comes with Try everything to Get there !