Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Xanikk999, Oct 18, 2006.
Invisibility cloaks. They're pretty cool stuff, and well on the way to practical development.
I don't think googling a web site about a specualtive theory makes something mainstream, usually and I hazzard usually, you need to at least have some experimental support. Not inference based on inference. At least last time I checked.
Unfortunately the web and certain media tend to love publishing such speculations as if they are accepted in science, the truth is far from it. Don't forget string theory is still in the hypothetical stage , despite the misnomer in it's title theory, there is no diect proof of it's existance at all and the same goes for black holes, but at least there is inference by gravitational evidence with the Black hole theory.
What I mean is: saying what is happening, that it's a singularity, and thus equation B fits this and then going on to say that if equation B fits something which we have never observed directly, then x must result, is a dangerous house of cards, and it certainly isn't mainstream in any sense of the word. I think Black hole theory is the best current fit, and that is mainstream, but the theories on it's "theoreticals" are not. And won't be untill people can verify the existance of a blackhole directly and use a singularity to observe the behaviour your talking about.
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.
Sure but if you want to aprove of something entirely out of science, then at least make sure to show everyone that it is totally speculative and has not even inference of inference to substantiate it.
If you ask me Hawking has lost the plot in recent years dissapearing more and more into speculation and counter speculation of his own works. Which is what happens when you have nothing to work on but inference. He's a bit ahead of his time and has to weight for science to catch up, if indeed it ever does. Needless to say speculative "theories" like his are a dime a dozen and not scientific.
No I am not the arbiter of what is mainstream, but I do know what is fantasy or pure speculation. And I usually don't repeat such imaginings with a straight face. Mainstream media and mainstream science are two totally different things, even if you are Stephen Hawking, you don't get to jump scientific process because you have a reputation. That is all I was trying to point out, not you asserting the "theory" but that the theory itself is not even a theory and is not science. Sorry if that meant I was destroying the wild abandon of your imaginings, I was only trying to clear something up as was perfection no doubt.
I don't think those techs listed are outlandish at all. They are being tinkered with already from what I've heard. We need cooler technology than those old sci-fi themes. I'd prefer more biological advances like stop aging, finish curing the uncurables, advanced stem cell restoration without all the morality issues put aside, ultra skin toughening to make people immune to cuts and even bullets, and of course cybernetic organisms like cyborgs would be fun. Also cool would be to tech up transplants so that people could opt to have their body parts, even healthy, traded in for robotic ones that are far stronger and agile.
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.
Can you link an article about proof for theories that predict FTL?
Time travel (forewards only) - Arn't we doing that already?
If your talking about information transfer then even here FTL is hotly disputed so no I don't think it is mainstream.
I never said I was an authority but I do know what the difference between accepted theory and what speculation is. Accepted theory needs something more tangible than speculative maths based on inference of what properties may exist in an area where there are no direct proofs.
He means into the future not through time but around it, and as far as I understand it most theories tend to say that the future doesn't exist so cannot be travelled to.
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.
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.
Not neccesarily, there are tons of time-travel schemes. How do you know that was the one Starlifter was talking about?
I wouldn't call it common, time-travel is not a common subject but a fringe subject.
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.
p-hole? What's that? You mean the electron holes found in P-type semiconductors? That's the only thing I can think of.
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.
How can they demonstrate it?
And your authority to say it is real would be?
I don't believe it will ever be possible in the star trek replicator sense (well, maybe in another 2000 years...) but the conversion of energy into matter is already possible with particle accelerators.
Perfection, you criticized Starlifter's statement on FTL travel on one basis: it didn't fit with your own view of the universe. Now I'm pressing Sidhe to prove his denial. His strongest point was to discredit the head researcher based on gossip.
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...
Also look up:
Science May 12 2006
Vol. 312. no. 5775, p. 809
Let's try to be civil and stop discrediting scientific speculation in this thread. It's pointless here. Unless, Perfection, you want me to say that your statement on page 1 has no basis in science?
frankly.... I think Habbakkuk, that Aircraft carrier made of ice back in WW2 would have been interest had it been tried
I simply stated that this is not a mainstream fact based on my understanding of the physics community. Is that terribly out of line?
Well, then tell me what your view is on the matter of time travel based on your experience!
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.
Saying something is not mainstream amounts to discreditation?
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.
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!
Such a thing is hard to define, but most science fiction versoins of force feilds are no feasable. Megneticfeilds are sometimes compared to force feilds, because they effectively block certain particles and larger objects motion without direct contact.
Time travel (Forwards only)
It is possible to put people in a large room, acceleate the structure to high speed, and leave in on for a while. This would have the effect of making time go slower inside the chamber, so that people who are in the chamber would experence fewer days than those outside. A person could spend a short time is the chamber and in the outside world, much more time would have passed.
The problem is, in order to have the effect be moticible, you would need a lot of power applied constantly to the apperatus durring the durration of the whole trim. It is just not economically viable to generate that much power. And the benifits from such time travel are very few.
Time travel (Forwards and backwards)
Not possible under current theory.
Not possible directly. You can do things like have a spinning space station, or give everyone magnetic boots, but you can't create real gravity without real mass.
It's possible, but not currently economically feasable.
There's also the problem of where to travel to, which is yet to be resolved, and how to make sure that the travelers are alive when they get there. Where to travel involves building better telescopes. Thus both of these are money issuses.
Not possible under current theory. Strangely this seems the most common rule that scientist try to find exeptions to, but none have had any success.
Particle teleportaion is possible, but it is very random, and it not possible on a large scale.
With a sufficently powerfull microscope it might be possible to describe in detail the structure of an object.
Given that, it might be possible to replicate that object. But the raw materials would have to be built from scrach chemically.
For example it is possible to scan the shape and type of plastic for a plastic vase. It is also possible to build a machine that can create a mold from a digital immage. And a machine can be built to make plastic given a formula. Put this all together and you get a plastic replicating machine. This principle can theoretically be expanded to any buildable object.
But ofcourse such a machine is not economically feasable.
There are mostly engineering herdals here. Ever played sim earth?
Seems possible given enough energy. Some scientists think the Large Hadron Collider might have just enough power. If not then they can always build a bigger one.
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).
It's still interesting to speculate, sure, but it's a bit misleading to say that it's theoretically possible, which is what I presumed "theoretical framework established" meant?
I'm also confused by "Will not occur in a macro scale for a long time, if ever, due to certain issues what will happen to the matter transported, given what is understood realistically today." - it's almost as if starlifter was actually meaning to talk about Teleportation here...?
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.
Also, I wanted a link from Starlifter because I didn't know what nonstandard theory he was refering too. There are numerous ideas that allow for time travel, I wanted to know which one he was refering too.
If you have legitimate criticisms I'd be happy to hear them, but don't make up crap and pretend they're legitimate questions.
Separate names with a comma.