Topic: EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine could make interstellar space travel a reality

[Stormbringer]

Actually engineers make things work. they don't give "reasons" why something cannot be done.

[prometheus]

That analogy is not valid. You cannot keep using it. The planets his theories apply to actually exist, they were observable in his time. You also recently made a comparison between modern cosmologies and philospohy (not science) and the flat earth concept. Again, invalid as testing the earth for flatness is a simple experiment that even prehistoric migrations could disprove.

Show me a superstring or some dark matter that we can perform experiments on. Purely hypothetical contructs will remain such. These comparisons you draw are not valid.

Not only that, but even mathematically and hypothetically the construct that Superstring's coat is hanging on is a very shaky nail...

Real scientific theory rolls on, dealing with subjects that can be involved in real world experiments. (e.g CERN's international collider project).   

Couldn't agree more...

A theory that relates to hypothetical material cannot ever be validated, its a pretty safe way to guarantee continued funding for otherwise lackluster feilds of study. (Math, Philosophy, Psychology, Cosmology).

Ten years ago, as a somewhat less jaded man than I am now, I used to spend days on end pouring over books and articles on Cosmology and Philosophy and GUT's, but now I've realised that it's the here and now that matters, not absurdly grandiose dreams about what man might be able to do in ten thousand years time given the existance of quasi religious constructs like unseen Hyperspatial Dimensions...

[prometheus]

The orbital maths you used had been proven on Earth by experiment.  It didn't require the evokation of hyperdimensions to prove it...

And yet the concept that these orbital maths put forth was far different from what the science of the day had decided.  Much of it was scoffed against until people finally started seeing that these were indeed facts. 

Show me the six curled up dimensions, or a similar demonstration of them to Galileo's of the gravity field, and I will change my stance on String theory at once...  Until then, I regard it the same way as the old "Here Be Dragons" on the edge of maps...

[Dracho]

Actually engineers make things work. they don't give "reasons" why something cannot be done.

They work within existing laws, they do not challenge those laws.

Actually, (And I know he'll hate this, but I am going to do it anyway), there are some passages in the Bible that support Prom's point.

The 148th Psalm is, by some accounts, the source of the Scientific Method.  Back when most people in science were also clergy, a certain teacher of one Francis Bacon taught hat based on the 138th Psalm that God put unchanging laws into effect in the universe and if one could learn those laws one would understand more about the world around them.

for instance: 

 3Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

 4Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

 5Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

 6He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.


The Bible also speaks of a chasm that cannot be crossed.  When one thinks of the physical world, does this refer to time, and space, and relativity?

In Context read Luke 7, where it is referring to the distance between a dead man talking to God and his living relatives back on Earth.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

[Tus-XC]

The orbital maths you used had been proven on Earth by experiment.  It didn't require the evokation of hyperdimensions to prove it...

And yet the concept that these orbital maths put forth was far different from what the science of the day had decided.  Much of it was scoffed against until people finally started seeing that these were indeed facts.  So as i view it, when i see theories and such being put down because they seem wild and new, i just remember thats how these maths were views until they were proven to be right (you relize they were only published in a paper shortly after kepler died, so that no one could argue with him about them.  They were made by careful measurements done by brahe, a feat in itself that took years to do, and then it even more years for kepler to make his laws and publish them.  When they were made they were revolutionary thought, outside of the     realm of thought that had driven most of europe during this time period.)

That analogy is not valid. You cannot keep using it. The planets his theories apply to actually exist, they were observable in his time. You also recently made a comparison between modern cosmologies and philospohy (not science) and the flat earth concept. Again, invalid as testing the earth for flatness is a simple experiment that even prehistoric migrations could disprove.

Show me a superstring or some dark matter that we can perform experiments on. Purely hypothetical contructs will remain such. These comparisons you draw are not valid.

Real scientific theory rolls on, dealing with subjects that can be involved in real world experiments. (e.g CERN's international collider project).

I do not rule out anything as impossible, however new scientific theories must apply to reality, not fictional constructs.

Take quatum theory as an example. As improbable (pun intended) as it seems; it actually applies to real matter, stuff that can be validated by experiment. (the d orbital is a beautiful thing, the stuff of life...)

A theory that relates to hypothetical material cannot ever be validated, its a pretty safe way to guarantee continued funding for otherwise lackluster feilds of study. (Math, Philosophy, Psychology, Cosmology).

In my view there are two pure sciences. Physics and chemistry, with chemistry just being a very large subset of physics. These sciences deal with that which is real. These sciences provide results that we can actually use.

Actually my analogy applies perfectly if you remember the realm of thought at that period of time. I'm not saying that what they knew couldn't be proved wrong easily, what i'm saying is that for the majority of people the idea of earth not being the center, and earth being spherical were as much outside their realm of thought as many of the newer theories today.  I say to you take a medeval man and show him our technology he will call it magic, becuase he does not know how to conceptualize it, much in the same way we are trying to conceptualize something that is still just outside of our grasps, but the attempt to conceptualize is what is important as it will lead to the understanding neccessary to bring it into our realm of thought.

[Bonk]

Actually my analogy applies perfectly if you remember the realm of thought at that period of time.

No dice. Kepler had theories about planetary motion. Planets were known to exist when he postulated these theories/laws, allowing for observations to confirm these theories. When the earth was thought to be flat, the earth was right there to test that theory by actual observation. That does not compare at all to superstrings or dark matter (neither of which actually exist). Had Kepler proposed theories on something that was not known to exist in his time then there might be a comparison. His work on integral calculus also had real applications that could confirm its usefulness.

Proposing theories on fictional subjects is just not science no matter how you cut it.

There are theories in modern science that deal with real subjects however that do represent advancement. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of new science, I just insist that it deal with the realm of that which is real as all successful science in the past has.

Things like Eienstien's relativity, Schrodinger's wavefunction, Newton's intuitive and empirical description of gravity.

About the only purely theoretical science I see any real use for is proofs for differential equations that we still rely on computers to solve, though there are many theorems there are no actual proofs, they are all intuitive relationships that happen to bear up under empirical scrutiny. Actual derivations of differential theorems could prove a revolution in mathematics with applications in all areas of science.

[Dracho]

You know Bonk, your point makes me realize that Quantum Computing will probably be the first field to prove extra-dimensional realities, if they exist.  If someone builds a quantum computer that can "go outside this universe" to do millions of years of computations outside of space and time and bring them back in what seems like no time, that'll be proof positive that:

#1 - Other dimensions exist

#2 - We can control entry and exit into those dimensions

#3 - Energy, at least, if not matter, can survive the transition.


Quantum computing is the most likely candidate to do it in our lifetimes.


I personally think interstellar space travel will be unmanned... unless we assemble the man on each end of the trip.. or we go the cryogenic route.  I suspect .9c and a deep slumper (or generational ships) are in our future.

[Bonk]

1) Quantum computers have been produced. (IBM calcuated the factors of a number using nuclear spin states in a perfluoroethane molecule I think it was...)

2) Multidimensional mathematics is common practice. The use of factor analysis (principal component analysis) is common in the interpretation of complex multidimensional data to reduce its dimensionality to a level comprehensible by the human mind. I once revealed correlations in metals concentrations in mussels that would otherwise have been invisible to the human mind in the dataset. Unfortunately factor analysis is often misused on datasets with insufficient samples and dimensionality to reveal genuine relationships however. I originally achieved this running the common statisical sofware package SYSTAT on an old Pentium 133MHz machine, no quantum computer necessary. In fact it can be done with pencil and paper, but that is quantum if you get right down to the graphite and cellulose of it...

Edit: Quantum computers, by definition must operate in our universe. Outside our universe (if there is such a thing, as the universe, is all, so anything outside it, once discovered, becomes part of it... ...see the anthropic cosmological principle...) quantum theory will not likely hold.

Hmmm my head hurts... too much thinking. Time for a dose of Red Green I think... 

[Tus-XC]

Actually my analogy applies perfectly if you remember the realm of thought at that period of time.

No dice. Kepler had theories about planetary motion. Planets were known to exist when he postulated these theories/laws, allowing for observations to confirm these theories. When the earth was thought to be flat, the earth was right there to test that theory by actual observation. That does not compare at all to superstrings or dark matter (neither of which actually exist). Had Kepler proposed theories on something that was not known to exist in his time then there might be a comparison. His work on integral calculus also had real applications that could confirm its usefulness.

Proposing theories on fictional subjects is just not science no matter how you cut it.

There are theories in modern science that deal with real subjects however that do represent advancement. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of new science, I just insist that it deal with the realm of that which is real as all successful science in the past has.

Things like Eienstien's relativity, Schrodinger's wavefunction, Newton's intuitive and empirical description of gravity.

About the only purely theoretical science I see any real use for is proofs for differential equations that we still rely on computers to solve, though there are many theorems there are no actual proofs, they are all intuitive relationships that happen to bear up under empirical scrutiny. Actual derivations of differential theorems could prove a revolution in mathematics with applications in all areas of science.

I don't know really how to put it so you know how i'm applying what i'm saying, so i'm pretty much done here cept for one thing...

kepler didn' t make theories... he put forth natural laws

[prometheus]

kepler didn' t make theories... he put forth natural laws

And that is the crux of the matter...  Good scientists put forth natural laws...  Mad scientists chase after quasi religious fictional constructs...

[Dracho]

kepler didn' t make theories... he put forth natural laws

Mad scientists chase after quasi religious fictional constructs...

But they have marvelous pyrotechnics.

[prometheus]

kepler didn' t make theories... he put forth natural laws

Mad scientists chase after quasi religious fictional constructs...

But they have marvelous pyrotechnics.

I think I'm gonna leave this debate for now, strap on my Tachyon Warp field propelled Rocket Pants, and go for a jaunt round the galaxy...  Or I could just run Celestia I suppose...

[Bonk]

I don't know really how to put it so you know how i'm applying what i'm saying, so i'm pretty much done here cept for one thing...

kepler didn' t make theories... he put forth natural laws

Just to be a bugger:

What about Darwin's Theory of Evolution? It is still technically a theory but deals with real world phenomena...

Anyway, we're getting down to semantics here. Usually a sure sign I've won the arguement.   

Red Green made an awsome james bond style jet pack from two old gas barbeques on yesterday's epidose prometheus... 

[Tus-XC]

well as i said i don't know how to explain it to ya so you can see it how i am, which is right now more annoying than what its worth in terms of my exceedingly limited time

and no it wasn't semantics, i was correcting you because kepler never proposed a theory in his paper, he proposed natural laws 3 of them to be exact

edit: not annoyed w/ you just annoyed w/ my inability to explain what appears to be a simple concept to me.

[Bonk]

edit: not annoyed w/ you just annoyed w/ my inability to explain what appears to be a simple concept to me.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I'm just being picky about what I see as science and what I see as philosopy. (similarly, not to annoy, just to express myself).

and no it wasn't semantics, i was correcting you because kepler never proposed a theory in his paper, he proposed natural laws Wink 3 of them to be exact

Yes, I believe it was semantincs. Regardless, I was aware Kepler's Laws of planetary motion were Laws... but they weren't really until proven as such were they...? Which does not invalidate my reference to evolutionary theory as a real scientific theory. If it dealt with the evolution of smurfs instead of primates, then it would better compare to theories involving superstrings and dark matter. Science must deal with the realm of reality. Philosophy deals with the realm of the imaginary.

I understand that exploring new ideas is a worthwhile endeavor, I just feel that they should not be presented as science unless they deal with reality, as historically all science has. (even while still unproven....) A good example might be global warming, it is unaccepted by many and even thought to be silly, but it deals with real phenomena (temperatures, concentrations, electromagnetic radiation).

well as i said i don't know how to explain it to ya so you can see it how i am, which is right now more annoying than what its worth in terms of my exceedingly limited time

I agree, we're not really understanding each other very well, perhaps some kind soul will come along and translate for us!