74 réponses à ce sujet

[KenKenpachi]

Except that the most of what we "know" in the field of relativity is guess work. That would be like listening to the knight on Monty Phython when it comes to witchs, sure it makes sense in a ****ed up manner, but doesn't mean its not crazy.

[upsettingshorts]

I thought that FTL was theoretically possible but would require more energy than has been produced in the entirety of human history. To the extent that generating such energy on command - and being able to control it - is the bigger hurdle.

[lv12medic]

Also the article is talking about time travel not FTL... Completely different Sci-Fi plot devices.

[ipgd]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Except that the most of what we "know" in the field of relativity is guess work. That would be like listening to the knight on Monty Phython when it comes to witchs, sure it makes sense in a ****ed up manner, but doesn't mean its not crazy.

Whether or not relativity is "crazy" doesn't really have much bearing on whether it's true or not.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I thought that FTL was theoretically possible but would require more energy than has been produced in the entirety of human history. To the extent that generating such energy on command - and being able to control it - is the bigger hurdle.

That and the matter of it being effectively time travel pretty much murder the practicality of near-light speed travel, but, no, as far as I know, it wouldn't be possible to exceed the speed of light in any conventional manner. You  would need to accelerate to literally infinite energy.

lv12medic wrote...

Also the article is talking about time travel not FTL... Completely different Sci-Fi plot devices.

FTL is time travel.

This outlines some of the problems with conventional FTL and sci-fi workarounds.

Modifié par ipgd, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:21 .

[KenKenpachi]

I ment as in no matter how much "sense" something makes doesn't mean its correct. Take 90% of politics. But lets just agree to this agree. They are for the most unproven in any case.

[upsettingshorts]

ipgd wrote...

That and the matter of it being effectively time travel pretty much murder the practicality of near-light speed travel, but, no, as far as I know, it wouldn't be possible to exceed the speed of light in any conventional manner. You  would need to accelerate to literally infinite energy.

I also remember reading something about how the two most plausible ideas - at least in science fiction - were jumpgates (At least the ones that were purported to be stable wormholes, though there's no such thing as a proven stable wormhole yet it could still plausibly exist) and warp drive (in the sense that you didn't go faster than light so much as move your destination close to you by "warping" space itself).

But I don't really think my having read "The Physics of Star Trek" once and an episode of The Universe on faster-than-light travel really qualifies me to make any kind of authoritative statements.  

[vometia]

Didn't scientists also prove that bees can't fly?

Anyway, bah to the lot of them for not having enough imagination.

[ipgd]

KenKenpachi wrote...

I ment as in no matter how much "sense" something makes doesn't mean its correct. Take 90% of politics. But lets just agree to this agree. They are for the most unproven in any case.

You can be cynically wary of believing in the veracity of any scientific theory if you like, but the existence of other falsified scientific theories doesn't falsify relativity by association. ****ty politicians have... absolutely nothing to do with science, so I'm not sure what bearing that has on anything.

It's not like scientists believe in relativity because it "sounds cool" or "makes sense". Any scientific theory is rigorously examined. If a scientific theory is a scientific theory, it is a) feasibly falsifiable, and people have been trying for decades upon decades to conclusively falsify it unsuccessfully.

Relativity is likely to be refined in the future (namely evidenced by the inconsistencies between it and quantum mechanics), but it is infinitesimally unlikely that this particular aspect of the theory is going to be fundamentally violated.

vometia wrote...

Didn't scientists also prove that bees can't fly?

No. Scientists proved that scientists don't know everything about the aerodynamics of insect wings due to the impracticality of actually studying insect flight. People proved that people will believe any urban myth that gets posted on the internet, taken as gospel and then repeated without thought.

Modifié par ipgd, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:49 .

[vometia]

ipgd wrote...

vometia wrote...

Didn't scientists also prove that bees can't fly?

No. Scientists proved that scientists don't know everything about the aerodynamics of insect wings due to the impracticality of actually studying insect flight.

I thought that was kind of the point, though: that saying "the science is settled" is a bit of a fallacy.

ipgd wrote...

People proved that people will believe any urban myth that gets posted on the internet, taken as gospel and then repeated without thought.

Didn't that one appear before the internet was in widespread use?  It seems very old, anyway.

[ipgd]

vometia wrote...

I thought that was kind of the point, though: that saying "the science is settled" is a bit of a fallacy.

It's a pretty bad example of such, considering it doesn't violate anything that we didn't already know (i.e. that the aerodynamics of insect wings requires different calculations from that of bird/airplane aerodynamics). Polar bears wouldn't be able to survive in the Arctic if they had as little hair as humans, but polar bears don't have as little hair as humans, and that's about as useful a statement as "bees shouldn't be able to fly according to calculations applied to bird/airplane wings". Because bees aren't birds or airplanes. They aren't wizards brashly defying the laws of physics, either, it's just really hard to stick a sensor on a bee's wing.

"Science doesn't know everything so it must know nothing" is as much of a fallacy.

Modifié par ipgd, 26 juillet 2011 - 01:24 .

[Godak]

Stanley Woo wrote...

i'm not suggesting we sit around and believe whatever scientists say until a piece of evidence pops out of the ether.

Alright! That is all I wanted.

Stanley Woo wrote...

I'm just waiting for a "definitive" answer on whether coffee and wine are good for you. How about it, science?

Hear, hear!

[bobthecrusher]

it all depends on your perception of speed. Relative to what? if traveling through a wormhole you still go normal speed, but outside the wormhole you're moving faster than light.

[upsettingshorts]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I'm just waiting for a "definitive" answer on whether coffee and wine are good for you. How about it, science?

The answer to both is yes, but not without side effects from overuse.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 26 juillet 2011 - 01:54 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I'm just waiting for a "definitive" answer on whether coffee and wine are good for you. How about it, science?

The answer to both is yes, but not without side effects from overuse.

Most of the benefits which people associate with wine (primarily antioxidants) are actually properties of the grapes that the wine is made of.  If you want the benefits of wine, without the negatives, eat grapes. 

[Godak]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Most of the benefits which people associate with wine (primarily antioxidants) are actually properties of the grapes that the wine is made of.  If you want the benefits of wine, without the negatives, eat grapes. 

Aren't some of the benefits specifically from fermented grapes?

Either way, grapes be good for you. Eat grapes.

EAT THEM!

[Homebound]

i think what we should take away from this is, people will hold on to a notion no matter how soundly baseless it may be, rationalizing it by saying that current science might be wrong in the future.

this reminds me of a story. Me and a buddy were watching a lightning storm. then the conversation came up where he says that sound is faster than light. He says its because you hear lightning before you see it. I try to explain to him that light is the fastest thing in the universe. He rationalized his personal observation by saying that science can be wrong...
The problem is, what hes implying is that sound is faster than light.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 26 juillet 2011 - 04:08 .

[Homebound]

anyways where was i going with this? Oh ya.
Time travel is impossible. If it was, our world's history would be undone over and over again by our future descendants.

[Volus Warlord]

Hellbound555 wrote...

anyways where was i going with this? Oh ya.
Time travel is impossible. If it was, our world's history would be undone over and over again by our future descendants.

Psh not so. We'll kill each other off before we reach that level of technology.

[naughty99]

Hellbound555 wrote...

anyways where was i going with this? Oh ya.
Time travel is impossible. If it was, our world's history would be undone over and over again by our future descendants.

How do you know it hasn't?

[Godak]

naughty99 wrote...

How do you know it hasn't?

...And so it begins!

[kglaser]

Celrath wrote...

And this is where the parallel world theory comes in. Which is every time some one goes back in time they are creating an alternate reality leaving the original time you came from untouched and also making it impossible to get back

This I support.

Plus, tachyons.

[_Mr vas normandy]

If we can create over 100 different smart phones, i say we can make FTL drives.

[Homebound]

kglaser wrote...

Celrath wrote...

And this is where the parallel world theory comes in. Which is every time some one goes back in time they are creating an alternate reality leaving the original time you came from untouched and also making it impossible to get back

This I support.

Plus, tachyons.

so instead of time travel, we go to a parallel world thats main difference is that its in the past?