Aliens

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
That assumes we have a complete handle on all the natural laws. I don't think this is the case. At the moment we don't know of any way to do it, but as our understanding of the universe evolves we may find a lot of things out that we currently have no clue.

Wormholes, negative energy, and more is more than speculation but less than fact. If indeed there are other dimensions they may be of some use. It is science fictions, but so were waterbeds, submarines, and trips to the moon at some point. To flatly say something is impossible because we don't know how is begging to be proved wrong.
 

AlexR

Joined Jan 16, 2008
732
Neither submarines nor trips to the moon nor indeed waterbeds contravene the laws of physics whereas faster than than light travel and/or communications does.
This after all is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum not a SCIENCE-FICTION AND FANTASY forum and science as we know today it states that information cannot be transmitted faster than light. If at some time in the future this proves to be wrong then by all means let's discuss it then but for now how about relegating science-fiction to the off-topic area where it belongs.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
...
Imagining that technology can over-ride the physical laws just because we would like to communicate or travel faster than light is wishful thinking and belongs either in the off-topic thread or better still in a science-fiction thread (if we had one) rather than in the physics forum.
I think your assumption that you presently know ALL the laws of physics that will ever be understood is surely a philosophical stance!

To the ancient Romans a discussion about orbiting communications satellites using GHz radio signals would have been "completely against the laws of science" too.

Let's please not be so proud as to think we know everything that will ever be discovered, because the evidence in science is always that new things are found, faster and better ways always emerge as the level of technology rises.

Your stance is typical in every age of science. The guys that learned all the latest fashionable science (often crippled by University learning) always believe they know all about "how things work" and everything above their abilites, everything undiscovered at that point, was just rationalised as "against the laws of science". ;)

The FACT is that we don't have faster than light communications YET. But it's not a fact that faster than light communications can never be possible, that is an ASSUMPTION based on our current level of scientific understanding.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

K7GUH

Joined Jan 28, 2011
190
Once again, I appeal to a definition. "Science is the certain (i.e. sure) knowledge of things through their causes."
If whatever-it-is doesn't produce that certain (sure) knowledge, it is non-science, known in some quarters as nonsense. I acknowledge that the definition of science may tread upon the cherished beliefs of some people, but science is what it is.
 

AlexR

Joined Jan 16, 2008
732
I think your assumption that you presently know ALL the laws of physics that will ever be understood is surely a philosophical stance!
I find your assumption about my so-called assumptions very insulting! At no time have I said that we know all there is to know but what I do say is in a science forum if we don't stick with the physical laws as we know then we will be venturing into the realm of science-fantasy where anything is possible and nothing requires any proof.
To the ancient Romans a discussion about orbiting communications satellites using GHz radio signals would have been "completely against the laws of science" too.
True, so to an ancient Roman any talk about satellites and radio communications would be total fantasy just like talk today of faster than light travel is total fantasy.

Let's please not be so proud as to think we know everything that will ever be discovered, because the evidence in science is always that new things are found, faster and better ways always emerge as the level of technology rises.
By the same token just because we may want something (such as faster than light travel) no amount of technology will deliver it if it forbidden by the laws of nature.
Your stance is typical in every age of science.
Yes and without that stance there would have been no progress in science. You and your fellow dreamers would still be in your alchemy labs trying to turn lead into gold or doing whatever futile things you did in your alchemy labs. Its only by rigorous application of the scientific method that science and our knowledge advances.
The guys that learned all the latest fashionable science (often crippled by University learning) always believe they know all about "how things work" and everything above their abilites, everything undiscovered at that point, was just rationalised as "against the laws of science". ;)
So just what do you want? You seem to be anti education yet you expect great advances in science and technology. How do you envisage this will come about? Will we all make a wish and the good fairy come along and give us faster than light travel?
The FACT is that we don't have faster than light communications YET. But it's not a fact that faster than light communications can never be possible, that is an ASSUMPTION based on our current level of scientific understanding.
Our current level of scientific understanding is all we have to work with. No one with any knowledge of science would claim that we know it all or even a small fraction of all but the only way to advance is to build on what we know. Anything else is just idle fantasy.
If we regard faster than light travel as science on the basis that some more advanced civilisation may have discovered it then surely we must allow over-unity discussions since any civilisation that masters super-luminary travel would find over-unity a piece of cake.
 

DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
I agree with THE_RB here, Alex. There are things that seem to go against the laws of physics, but we do not yet know everything there is to know. There could always be a way around it. Submarines may not have been the best example, but what about airplanes? Those "defied" the laws of physics back when they were first invented. It APPEARED to be defying the laws of gravity, right? But now we know how they work, and how they work their way around the so-called "law" of gravity. Why can't this be applicable elsewhere in the future?
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
The lessons I learned from the first time through this gauntlet of "science vs. fantasy":
1. In order to call an idea a theory it must be scientific. In order to be labeled "scientific", it must be backed up by credible references such research & experiments, or at least papers written by others which are accepted in the scientific community. "fringe" references are not real references, as they are not accepted by the scientific community.
2. In order to discuss things in a forum titled science, they must be scientific theories. anything else is apparently the greatest of insults to scientists and science itself.
3. All other ideas, which cannot be defined as scientific theories, (in order not to insult science) are relegated to the off-topic forum.

Faster than light travel is an idea, in the absence of scientific evidence of it being possible. While the idea that it is impossible because our current "laws" of physics do not support it is rather narrow-minded in my opinion, and ultimately wrong, it is still just an idea. therefore it does not "belong" here in the science forum.

basically science doesn't know everything, but what science knows, it knows. If it can't know, or will never know, then it doesn't know, and it's not science.
 

Georacer

Joined Nov 25, 2009
5,182
I really don't like to intervene to senior members' disputes. Please conclude the argument yourselves or even let it die out itself. Please don't continue arguing or this thread will end abruptly.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
There really is no point of arguing. All that's going on here is that certain ideas are theories (with their own forum), and other ideas are just ideas (also with their own forum). That doesn't make them any less important. It's like a plate of food. you have meat and you have dessert. You don't want the desset touching your meat, so keep it on the dessert side of the plate. People really get upset when you start slathering pudding on their steak. but pudding really is yummy, and it already has a spot - on the other side of the plate. an offtopic thread for this post has already been created.

EDIT: today's pudding may well be tomorrow's steak, but for today it's only pudding.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
999
FTL through the normal space we know and love is not likely. Now, I say this, not because I'm crippled by university learning, but because it will completely negate a standing theory that has much going for it in the way of observed results.

However, there may possibly exist ways to get where you want to go faster than trying to get there by going FTL. Already we can witness objects receding from us FTL and they do this without traveling through space FTL. They achieve this feat because space itself is not fixed. In this case it's expanding and dragging them with it.

This suggests, to me anyway, that there is likely more complexity to space itself than just X, Y and Z. Actually, this is not a new idea at all.

One thing all that varsity learnin' does for those of us that have done some of it, is it teaches us that new ideas must build on the existing ideas that have been shown to be correct. If in 1905 (106 years ago. Hardly 'fashionable') Einstein had published a theory of relativity that totally trashed the monumental work of Newton, he would have been laughed out of the patent office and every academic society he belonged to. He didn't, and that his theory agreed with Newton's for 99.999% of what we can see and do, told him he was on the right track. In fact, Newton was not wrong, just a tad incomplete. He was thinking about it, but that's for a different diatribe.

Suffice it to say that we should be looking for other ways to get where we are going, rather than try to find ways to go FTL.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
Can you post a link showing the FTL galaxies? The last thread one the subject had no such thing.

They are red shifted, but they are not FTL compared to us. Given that isn't possible, if they were FTL we could not see them. They would effectively be in another dimension.

The faster you go from our reference, the more energy it takes to go even faster. You can get as close as you want to light speed, but never reach it. It is a calculus limit. It is also a boundary condition for a black hole. This is absolutely core to the theory of relativity, and no violations have been observed until the fuss in Geneva (which has still not been absolutely verified). It is why the apparent violation was such a big deal, it was the first violation ever observed.
 
Last edited:

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
I'll apologise to the moderator and everyone if my post caused an argument or caused the thread to go off-topic.

My statement that sparked the argument was;
THE_RB said:
...
Eveything is just a matter of technology. For anyone with sufficiently advanced technology the boundaries become much smaller.
Which I do not believe is off topic in a highly speculative thread about aliens and alternative universes, nor is it "unscientific" in concept. There is nothing in modern science that proves that we will never achieve better communication systems that may be capable of useful interstellar comms. Maybe it won't use EM at all. Maybe it will use EM but through a wormhole etc. Maybe it will be faster than light comms, maybe it will be "other than light" comms. At this point we just don't know how to do it.

AlexR said:
...
So just what do you want? You seem to be anti education yet you expect great advances in science and technology. How do you envisage this will come about? ...
I wish to respond to this point, not as a continuation of an argument but as a clarification of my position. I'm not "anti-education" at all. I am VERY much for education. However I think that universities as a method of education are becoming obsolete, and where 200 years ago universities may have been responsible for much of mankind's technological improvement these days the private sector is generally responsible for technology development and the role of universities is to educate young people to a basic level of competence that makes them employable. If the private sector (or a gifted individual) working on a technological breakthrough needs specific information traditionally taught at universities, well, they just google it.
 

Georacer

Joined Nov 25, 2009
5,182
So you say that advanced knowledge is no longer obtainable through the academic circles? That only corporations can elevate the current level of knowledge and expertise?

I think this is invalid. Sure, the undergrad students have nothing to do with this procedure (and they righly aren't so), but doctorates and professors still do A LOT of work towards advanced research, at least in my country.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
999
Can you post a link showing the FTL galaxies? The last thread one the subject had no such thing.

They are red shifted, but they are not FTL compared to us. Given that isn't possible, if they were FTL we could not see them. They would effectively be in another dimension.

The faster you go from our reference, the more energy it takes to go even faster. You can get as close as you want to light speed, but never reach it. It is a calculus limit. It is also a boundary condition for a black hole. This is absolutely core to the theory of relativity, and no violations have been observed until the fuss in Geneva (which has still not been absolutely verified). It is why the apparent violation was such a big deal, it was the first violation ever observed.

Hi Bill,

I did mention this in the FTL galaxies thread. See post 90.

And, as I've said there (and before), no tenet of SR is broken by this

Giving links to information that is readily available is not normally something I'm fond of, but in this case I will. Look at this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light. Check out section 1.10. There are many, many more references to this out there. All you need to do is look for them.

Also, check out section 1.4 for something else I've mentioned before.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
So you say that advanced knowledge is no longer obtainable through the academic circles? That only corporations can elevate the current level of knowledge and expertise?
...
I don't want to keep going on about that point as it is off-topic. However I did not say "only corporations" will cause tech advancement, I said "these days the private sector is generally responsible for technology development" ie; for the bulk of tech development. To clarify my point it was that technological advancement will continue as usual, even if universities play a lesser role in the future. :)
 
Top