cairo140
2+2=5
Invisibility cloaks. They're pretty cool stuff, and well on the way to practical development.
Dong2Long said:I found this thread by searching via a good post you made in another thread. But the earmuffs I don't "get."
I just googled for what you were talking about, and found it no problem. In the world of physics, this is all common stuff, but maybe not for us. Internet makes any of it readily findable.
The backward time machine involves using a gravitational distortion to move a particle, or subatomic particle back... not people. It cannot be tested emperically, as no one has a supermassive gravitational source in their labratory, but the science seemed peer-reviewed from my google.
You might try using Stephen Hawking in your google, and knowing what the consequence of transferring information across folded space, and indeed what it means to travel in a "line"... I was very educated from the effort.
I don't think he said that they did find a p-hole; the search has been on for a while, and only indirect evidence would likely be found.
Google, buddy, google...
Dong2Long said:Hawking is mainstream, as are his derivative ideas.
My post was not about debating what you choose to call mainstream or not... it was about finding the answer to what certain ideas were. They are easy to find, and learn about... with google. Take your debate about mainstream to another thread and reread the topic of the thread:
Whats the most outlandish technology that you can think of that might be possible?
I would hardly call personal speculation about "outlandish" technology necessarily mainstream, even if we were to take up yours & others' thread-hijacking dribble handing down your view of "mainstream." In any event, you are not the arbitor of what is mainstream and what is not.
Myzenium said:Sidhe, get real. FTL travel is possible, and scientists can demonstrate it. You're no authority on what is "mainstream", "fantasy", or "pure speculation". Admit it.
Myzenium said:Sidhe, get real. FTL travel is possible, and scientists can demonstrate it. You're no authority on what is "mainstream", "fantasy", or "pure speculation". Admit it.
MrRats said:Time travel (forewards only) - Arn't we doing that already?
I have little qualifications, but I've taken a few rigorous courses on the matter, and am an avid wikipedia read on the topic. It allows me to guage certain basic views that physicists have.Myzenium said:"Not a mainstream view"? Out of curiousity, could you link me to your qualifications to state what is mainstream in science? Thanks.
Not neccesarily, there are tons of time-travel schemes. How do you know that was the one Starlifter was talking about?Dong2Long said:I just googled for what you were talking about, and found it no problem.
I wouldn't call it common, time-travel is not a common subject but a fringe subject.Dong2Long said:In the world of physics, this is all common stuff, but maybe not for us. Internet makes any of it readily findable.
Time-travel is a legitimate scientific question and I'm not saying that those who argue that it is possible are unscientific, just in the minority.Dong2Long said:The backward time machine involves using a gravitational distortion to move a particle, or subatomic particle back... not people. It cannot be tested emperically, as no one has a supermassive gravitational source in their labratory, but the science seemed peer-reviewed from my google.
p-hole? What's that? You mean the electron holes found in P-type semiconductors? That's the only thing I can think of.Dong2Long said:I don't think he said that they did find a p-hole; the search has been on for a while, and only indirect evidence would likely be found.
I'd say it's certainly possible. Just get a lot of crap at the same place and presto. We can do it, the question is just with how much effort.Dong2Long said:Not a chance! Will never be done.
How can they demonstrate it?Myzenium said:Sidhe, get real. FTL travel is possible, and scientists can demonstrate it.
And your authority to say it is real would be?Myzenium said:You're no authority on what is "mainstream", "fantasy", or "pure speculation". Admit it.
Blazer6 said:Transforming energy into an object or said object broken into energy. Constructing an object from what is in the air and in a large scale. The objects you see materialize in Star Trek is far too small an example; I am seeing more of an entire structure that instantly occupies empty space.
I think a sort of magnet is efficient enough to bring enough particles to form matter.
Perfection said:I have little qualifications, but I've taken a few rigorous courses on the matter, and am an avid wikipedia read on the topic. It allows me to guage certain basic views that physicists have.
I simply stated that this is not a mainstream fact based on my understanding of the physics community. Is that terribly out of line?Myzenium said:Perfection, you criticized Starlifter's statement on FTL travel on one basis: it didn't fit with your own view of the universe.
Well, then tell me what your view is on the matter of time travel based on your experience!Myzenium said:What a coincidence! I went to school too, and got stellar grades in scientific classes! I also read scientific news. It's a small world after all...
This doesn't give any credence to FTL in the common sense (that is something that tranfers info FTL). Additionally, how do you know that is what Starlifer was talking about.Myzenium said:
Why?Myzenium said:
Saying something is not mainstream amounts to discreditation?Myzenium said:Let's try to be civil and stop discrediting scientific speculation in this thread.
If you actually view that my post has no basis in science, then I ABSOLUTELY want you to tell me so I can correct my views. If someone wants to talk about science then someone should be open to criticisism because that's a huge part of what makes science strong.Myzenium said:It's pointless here. Unless, Perfection, you want me to say that your statement on page 1 has no basis in science?
Perfection said:Well, here's my thoughts on each matter:
Force fields.
Force fields exist everywhere, but they really are different from what you are probably imagining in a science fiction sense. There are some things that have some of the properties ascribed, (magnetically contained plasma sheets being an example) but they require massive energy and probably couldn't be implemented in a manner seen in science fiction.
Time travel (Forwards only)
Well, that already happens.
Time travel (Forwards and backwards)
I doubt it, every proposed physical mechanism requires assumptions outside of mainstream physics.
Gravity generation.
GR demonstrates that acceleration and gravity are really one in the same, so it's pretty easy to generate gravity by spinning something. One could also devise something that uses Electromagnetism to simulate gravity. However, the grav-plating on all those Sci-fi shows is utter fiction.
Intersteller travel.
Certainly feasible under current understanding, mostly an engineering challange.
FTL travel.
I doubt it, like time travel, every proposed physical mechanism requires assumptions outside of mainstream physics.
Teleportation.
Been done, but I doubt one could teleport things much larger then a molecule.
Terraforming.
Sure, could be done, would probably take a long long time to do though.
Fusion power.
Quite plausible, we're nearing the point where we break even energetically. However, economic viability is a whole different ball-game.
Blackhole generation.
Certainly possible, if nature can do it, so can we. The question is how hard is it for us to do, and can we make small ones in labs. I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer that questino.
Other.
I think the most outlandish is the technology that we could use to alter ourselves. It's only a matter of time before we'll have the technology to enhance our mental capabilities significantly, the cultural impliciations of this is fascinating.
There are certainly speculative ways on how time travel into the past might happen - however, all of them to my knowledge have some limitation or another that is beyond our current knowledge of physics (e.g., whether we can travel through a wormhole).Dong2Long said:I just googled for what you were talking about, and found it no problem. In the world of physics, this is all common stuff, but maybe not for us. Internet makes any of it readily findable.
The backward time machine involves using a gravitational distortion to move a particle, or subatomic particle back... not people. It cannot be tested emperically, as no one has a supermassive gravitational source in their labratory, but the science seemed peer-reviewed from my google.
But you don't actually believe these views are not mainstream and are doing that to try to prove some twisted little point. So I feel no neccesity to dig out links for my points.Myzenium said:Okay, Perfection, I'll play your game.
Perfection, the burden of proof is on you. These views are not "mainstream". I require credible evidence that each of these statements are true. Have a good time digging up links!