Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling

[FredSnerd]

Can one travel from A to B without actually traversing the space in between to get there.

As we all know the universe is a vast place. Well in excess of 10 billion light years from end to end. Now according to Einstein one can’t exceed the speed of light. So if you’re like me and don’t fancy spending 10 billion years in stasis just to take your annual holidays on FAsuKtil-B49XZ//\\5.2 (which I hear is really a happening place, albeit a little out of the way) you’re gonna have to get there without actually travelling there (or your particles travelling there if your thinking about Star Trek). But is that possible and if so, how? Any thoughts?

[leon]

Talk to Scottie. :lol:

Leon :thumbsup:

[Nesti]

String Theory's successor M-Theory, should allow for it.

Unfortunately, the likelihood is so small that you, as well as everything else, won't be here.

[FredSnerd]

Hey there Mark,

Hmmm "M-Theory". You might have to elaborate.

[Jen]

:screwy::screwy::screwy:
:shrug: too late at night to be thinking of that one :lol::lol:

[renormalised]

I don't know how often I have repeated this next statement here, but Einstein never said you couldn't travel faster than light. What he said is this...any material object within the (this) universe cannot travel AT the speed of light. There are solutions to SR which require that you must be traveling faster than light and whilst some of the conditions for being able to do so are bizarre compared to what we normally experience (like imaginary mass), they are not impossible physically.

So, to the rest of the question...yes, you can. It's called a wormhole:D

Now for the size of the universe....10 billion light years is nothing. The universe is actually closer to 94 billion light years across. If you want to understand why it's this big, go here (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2).

[Nesti]

Okay, M-Theory has higher dimensional space connectivity through things called Calabi-Yaus (named after the two mathematicians). These 6 dimensional structures are stationed at all points in the space and time continuum. Strings pass through these.

Gravitons may enter one and pop out at another on the other side of the universe. Matter and force cannot, they are anchored to the continuum essentially by their feet (ends). BUT, there may be a chance of harmonically altering matter strings so that these ends un-stick and thus the string may freely move through higher dimensional space to someplace else.

The problem is, is that all the strings within you body must simultaneously enter a local Calabi-Yau network, and reappear someplace else at another Calabi-Yau network so that all particles are preserved...as well as the forces.

The book I wrote specifically forbids this, as force particles must be preserved within spacetime, which essentially gives rise to conservation laws.

This also extends to time travel, it violates conservation laws in that overall charge within our universe must be conserved…not to mention the preservation of freedom of choice…so you can add and remove matter, but not force.

This also applies to wormholes too.

BUT, there are OTHER ways to skin a cat! You don’t necessarily have to physically go somewhere to go there, instantaneously, no commuting. I wrote about how our brains are actually wired-up to do just this. But we need to talk about relativity (Again, LOL) to understand this.

***Tapping feet waiting for Carl to start reading*** :P:lol:

[renormalised]

Just to give a visual queue for what Mark has written, here's a 3D representation of one of these Calabi-Yau spaces...

[gman]

This soundslike it would be best answered by somebody in their late fifties/early sixties.
As I understand, some of these people left the real world on a trip withour leaving the room.:rofl:

I heard it had somthing to do with an LSD trip- not sure what a car differential had to so with it but anything is possible

I think I'll go have another bourbon now.

[Nesti]

Thanks Carl...forgot that vital piece.

There is a connection between freedom of choice in quantum measurement, the coordination of matter to form a stable reality, and conscious intent. SO, there's a connection between intent, as show in the clip below, and how matter is manipulated.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128019/killer_move/

Sorry for the metaphysical diversion. :P

[Nesti]

That inhibits I'm afraid...but nice idea. :D

[lacad01]

Don't really follow the theories below but that was a cool clip ;)

[bloodhound31]

Carl, you are a legend and you so ROCK!:cool:

That link is just awesome and I have been reading it all night! My mind is just a SPONGE when it comes to this stuff.

Thanks mate.:thumbsup:

Baz.

[renormalised]

Thanks mate:D. Well, as for rocking, I am a geologist by training:P:D

When talking about distance scales within the universe, you have to be aware of the different ways distances is measured and that when astronomers talk about distance, what you may thin they're talking about and what the are talking about can be two different things. As you can see, there's a big difference between light travel time and actual physical distance. It's something that the public in general aren't aware of, but astronomers just go with the flow as trying to explain it to most people would only confuse them.

[gbeal]

As a 50's 60's child, all I can say is whatever he is smokin' I want some too, LOL.. Jen's right, too late/early to be thinking about this stuff.
Gary

[Omaroo]

Can of peanuts, a towel and a pint of decent ale...

[FredSnerd]

OK Chris now you threw me. I follow why you need the peanuts and ale. But why the towel?

[Omaroo]

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy has a few things to say on the subject of towels...

"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with."

[Barrykgerdes]

Read Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

Barry

[FredSnerd]

Thanks Chris/Barry

I can see now that I asked a stupid question. Of course one would need a towel

[sjastro]

Getting back to your original question the answer is no.

Now wasn't that easy.:D

Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd]

Hey Carl/Mark, thanks for all that great stuff

I found this link to Wikipedia which has a segment on “the possibility” of travelling faster than the speed of light (SoL).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Faster-than-light_observations_and_experiments

It seems that the experiments they have done and theories they have devised suggest that even if one can travel faster then SoL its only a shade faster. But I suppose that if it’s possible to travel just a shade faster then its possible to travel much, much faster (and it would have to be much much faster - 2 or 10 times faster for example is no where near enough).

You know this wormhole/Calabi-Yau thing is all pretty cute (ignoring for a moment that’s its also wild speculation – I mean has anyone ever really seen a wormhole outside of the back garden) but it seems a bit hit and miss to me. I mean if the closest exit point puts you within 1 billion light years of your destination are you any better off. I’d much rather explore the faster then SoL option myself.

As to the actual size of the universe, your right 10 billion light years is nothing. What was I thinking?

BTW I found this very interesting line in Wikipedia. They said “It is widely accepted that it is normally impossible for information or matter to travel faster than c for several reasons. One reason is that if an object were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame”. BACKWARDS in time! That which they told us could never ever be done even if forwards in time was a possibility. I gots ta gets me one of these faster then light machines man.

[sjastro]

Still it can't be done. It's just another way of saying that causality is violated for faster than the speed of light travel.

Steven

[FredSnerd]

So! I think its about time causality got violated. If Einstein did not violate the notion that the rate of time is fixed he would never have solved his problem in the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Don’t you see. Causality has already been violated because there are things that just cant be explained in traditional “causal” terms. That’s exactly what happened to Einstein. He was never going to solve his problem until he put under the microscope one of humanities most basic assumptions up to that time. So lets shake off our shackles and never ask the question ever again “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”. What caused the universe, what caused God. Maybe there just isn’t always a cause or maybe something may be caused by something that comes later. Its all up for grabs now as far as I can tell.

[sjastro]

Causality is simply defined as the cause preceding the effect. By allowing time to be relative instead of absolute doesn't impact on the "arrow of time".

One of the consequences of time intervals being dependent on the motion of the observer is that causality is preserved. Otherwise the speed of light is dependent on the motion of the observer which leads to violations of causality.

Steven

[xelasnave]

We can travel to where we want when we want using that wonderful vehicle we call our mind;)... all of the trips offerred by unsupported ideas posing as theories entitle us to travel this way so enjoy the benefits of the age we live in where many tours are on offer:P...
Now will these trips ever happen in a tangible reality is not relevant as finally it is what the mind takes "home" that is the product of any trip so one can ask ..do we physically have to be there in order to say we have travelled someplace... I have never been to the USA but for some reason I feel I have learnt more about the place simply by thinking about what I am told is there via their "media"... in fact this question raises questions as to what is "reality" ... does one have to "be there" to experience reality...

However currently there is little hope of our species leaving the solar system and landing anyplace ...and so space travell may remain beyond us... and we are doomed to remain here until the place or us is no more.

I am smoking legal stuff:eyepop: and drinking mild coffee:eyepop: so my perceptions may be dulled (or enhanced):shrug: but how would I know it is for an outside observer to determine that side of things:rolleyes:.

alex:):):)

[FredSnerd]

Alex,

Are you sure your smoking legal stuff

[TrevorW]

What about trans dimensional interpolation in the space time continuum

[FredSnerd]

Nah I don't think he's smoken that. Its too hard to get.

[xelasnave]

OK all I cant think is that the red cordial is kicking in.
alex

[avandonk]

My test for all people who want to violate the inherent laws of the Universe is very simple.

Just give me the tattslotto results for the next ten weeks before they happen. This is an easy test surely for disproving that all the soothsayers, clairvoyants and other assorted charletans and deluded self appointed gurus are totally beneath contempt.

Then violating the laws of space and time should be a doddle!

The only trips I took in the sixties was to night school, to study Physics!

Bert

[TrevorW]

"It's beyond the laws of physica as we know it Jimmy"

[bloodhound31]

What if you were in your car doing the speed of light and you switched your headlights on? Would the light photons coming out of the headlights, travelling also at the speed of light, now be double that velocity?

[avandonk]

No!

Bert

[Nesti]

Nope!

I believe...The light from the headlamps will be moving away from the car at LS. The observable universe from the car would be flat and time dilated as though it were traveling at LS. The photons would be moving at LS relative to spacetime and the car could not be seen by the photons anyway. To a stationary observer, the photons are moving at LS and the car a percentage less (not really sure how much...80% of LS or thereabouts???).

This is where Einstein said to put down your visualisation and just stick to the clocks at the photons, in [flat] spacetime and at the car.

[xelasnave]

I thought matter can never travell at the speed of light and if that is so how can we build an idea on an impossibility ... I think second guessing on an impossibility (if indeed my thinking is correct as to the limitation of speed of matter) can only give us impossible answers.

alex

[sjastro]

Alex,

It's rare that I would agree with you on a topic like this.:D

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

It's only a thought experiment dude....one which does not include a cat for once.

[TrevorW]

As science and ideas change so too does our preception of what and what is not possible,

the old addage IMO holds true in that "what humankind can conceive humankind can acheive"

This page has some very interesting articles with concepts and maths way beyond my level of knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Radically_Curve_Spacetime_Usi ng_SlipString_Drive

read and keep an open mind

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol:

[lacad01]

Hang on, the guy's name who wrote it is Bender...not sure I'd trust a boozing, misanthropic robot ;)

[renormalised]

Schrodinger must've hated cats:P:P:D:D

[FredSnerd]

Listen! Its Friday night; I'm trying to stick to my diet but I'm telling myself that that little glass of wine I'm having is OK; last night I reckon I O-deed on the celery and haven’t we strayed just a little off topic here. I'm just sayen.

[Jen]

:lol::lol: cheers Fred im on a diet too but hey its Friday :lol:

[FredSnerd]

And a hearty cheers back to you Jen

[renormalised]

Let's try a thought experiment here....now, without just dismissing it out of hand (because it doesn't fit what we constitute as being "possible"), let's say that UFO's are actually what they say they are...extraterrestrial spacecraft. Now, what does this say about our knowledge of what constitutes as being "possible". What it says is that we have not only a lot to still yet learn, there is something faulty with our understanding of physics. It may not mean that SR/GR is at fault, but it may also mean that there is. There maybe some solution of SR (such as the Alcubierre Spacetime Metric) which might allow us to achieve the same ability to travel FTL as the aliens do. Whilst we can't see how it may work at present and come up with various reasons as to why it doesn't work, it doesn't mean that the negative conjectures have any basis in reality. In all likelihood we don't really understand the physics of it yet. There maybe some other aspect of physics which has been conjectured which may work, or something we are not aware of as yet that maybe the answer.

In order to put the matter to rest, what needs to happen is a concerted effort into experimentation and rigorous testing of all hypotheses into the physical possibility of FTL travel must be carried out. It may take many years to figure out, but what doesn't need to happen is the present disinterest shown by the majority of the scientific community to do those experiments and continue with looking at the idea as nothing more than fantasy. That's nothing more than hubris based on academic and intellectual conceit.

If we had've all thought like that in the past, we'd never have gotten off the ground and probably still thought that travel into space was an impossibility (even flying, for that matter!!!).

[sjastro]

The work has already been done with particle accelerators. If you plot the energy required to accelerate a particle to a given velocity u, you find the line u=c is an asymptote to the curve. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the particle to c (and surpass it).

It's no coincidence that the LHC is able to accelerate protons up to "only" 0.999c.

Steven

[FredSnerd]

Steve, You're still looking through that narrow prism. Now do what uncle Carl says and think of a way!!!. OK, heres the deal. We know you reckon it cant be done but why dont you put together a hypothosis along the lines of "I dont think it can be done BUT if I was going to try, this is how I would approach it ...." and then you fill in the blanks. Whata you say? I know I for one would really be interested in what you come up with.

[Nesti]

The following are my opinions through my own observations and understanding, but for clarity I will talk in absolutes. This does relate to the thread.

I feel that there are phenomena which are absolute, there are phenomena which can be circumvented, and everything else comes down to how industrious the universe is and how we affect that plasticity.

The “absolute” phenomena seem to relate directly to providing some type of stability to the universe, such as conservation of charge and energy within a system, say; electron voltage, angular momentum, the inability to accelerate mass to LS and the quantization of energy and matter. I feel these may relate to a single physical mechanism or series of dynamically connected mechanisms which fed into each other: just like different stages in a jet engine (N1, N2, N3); they are not physically connected, they are Thermodynamically Coupled in that they share the same system energy, so one will affect the other in different ways.

The phenomena which may be “circumvented” seem to relate to interaction trends, such as conversion of energy to matter and back again, virtual particles and the flexibility of space and time. These seem to bend to the whim of the “absolute” phenomena, in that the rigidity of the “absolute” phenomena means that something has to give, something which does not directly affect the stability of reality.

The “everything else” is the plasticity and higher structures within the universe, such as formation of molecules, life etc. But these somehow feed directly into the “absolute” phenomena buy giving it direction on what reality is supposed to be.

What I have found is that freedom of choice, that is free-will, is not part of the universe which can be “circumvented” or “everything else” part. It belongs squarely as “absolute” phenomena. Remember when I quoted a passage about “obstructions” (pasted in at the bottom to refresh your memory), well I feel that the obstructions in geometry (mathematical), the obstructions in spacetime (geometrical Tidal Forces) are no more important than the obstructions of freedom of choice in a deterministic universe (particle/causal). These type of obstructions force the evolution of energy/matter/force into becoming our other phenomena, our “circumvented” and “everything else” stuff...the formation of diversity in our observable universe. It is built a certain way because the dynamism of energy is forced to work around these obstructions, and to do so in accordance with all of the “absolute” phenomena.

The passage at the bottom is a definition of curvature, a definition of general relativity and what I believe to be a definition of freedom of choice/free-will. All three - as well as others - are fundamental in the formation of OUR reality which we observe. When we dissect the universe, we fragment it also. This then creates (As David Bohm suggested) a broken wholeness. What is needed is a paralleling understanding, one which dissects and one which keeps track of the wholeness. Observable behavior then need to be explained both in terms of the physics and the wholeness…without both, it is incomplete. Which one is missing from science at the moment do you think??

Mathematics is merely what it is, a tool of language which allows us to convey information from one party to another. There does seem to be an underlying synergy between mathematics and the universe itself, but this DOES NOT mean that everything within the universe runs entirely on mathematical operators. The math helps us understand the universe, not the other way around. That’s something people really need to get into their heads.

I also find it funny that many people ridicule ideas and concepts about consciousness within physics, yet those same people, as with everyone else, use conscious awareness and consciousness to form their opinions and understanding in the first place…that’s a contradiction. I won’t even delve into the development of the human species and what part consciousness had to play in developing intelligence. I feel conscious awareness and consciousness is as fundamental to the universe as conservation of energy.

To me, there is an imbalance in science, it needs to be less left-brained and at the end of the day experimentation will verify what is real or not. We need only identify what is “absolute”, “circumvented”, and what is an industrious product of “everything else”.


Repeated passage:
In geometry, curvature may be defined as the mathematical obstruction within a curvilinear coordinate system, so that it cannot be transformed into a flat coordinate system. In the general theory of relativity, gravitation may be defined as the obstruction of tidal forces within a gravitational field, so that it cannot be transformed into a field of flat spacetime. Therefore, might our own destiny, as well as all others’, be defined as the obstruction of freedom of choice within a causal particle universe (the observer influence), so that it cannot be transformed into a purely deterministic reality? If true, then instigating these features, facilitating the diversity of all realities, is the central node. Astonishingly, it may well underpin the structure of mathematics itself.

[sjastro]

Claude,

I have a much more expansive view of this issue than you give me credit for.

Instead of invoking Minkowski space diagrams ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram ) that show very clearly why exceeding the speed of light results in paradoxes, experimental particle physics gives a practical demonstration of why it is impossible to accelerate particles up to the speed of light and beyond.

My previous post would serve as a "hypothesis" which ultimately highlights the futility of using ever increasing amounts of energy in an attempt to accelerate particles up to c.

Steven

[sjastro]

Mark,

I will eventually respond to this as soon as I have gone through your manuscript.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

No worries...hope that you are chipping away at it. Just completed contents and cover proofs, now back to the publisher. Goes to print in 2 weeks...I'll race you! :P

Sneak preview uploaded (modified the proof a little).

[FredSnerd]

Mark

I found your post really interesting. Mind you I think I might need another re-read or two to totally get it but I think I follow the gist. I’m not sure exactly why or how your trying to fit “free will” into all this. I’m wondering whether what you really mean, or should mean is “chance”. That is (adapting your construct) that there are these “absolute” phenomena in the universe and one of them is “chance”. Whereas introducing the notion of “free will” into the equation suggests to me that there must always be a conscious player involved in the workings of the universe (since it is an absolute) and I’m not sure why that would be or why we would need it to be in order to explain the way the universe functions. The notion of “chance” does an equally good job of accounting for the diversity and dynamism we see in the universe and for non-determinism.

Not sure about the notion of “absolutes” myself. I’m tempted to say that there are always exceptions but of course that is an absolute. Be that as it may, if we accept your 3 pillars construct (“absolutes”, “circumvented” and “everything else”) the problem still remains; which category does notion X fit into. I hope you will forgive me for saying but you don’t really give us a great deal to work on as to what exactly falls into each category (and nor could you be expected to in the context of this casual discussion) but even if you had I don’t think that science at present is sufficiently developed to say with any degree of confidence that any notion or concept falls into the “absolute” category.

I admit I had some problems with the passage you quoted at the end. I don’t see how the first two statements (one about geometry and the other about general relativity) logically lead to the third statement; your definition of freedom of choice. And its somewhat surprising given what you suggests in the previous paragraphs about science being a little too dominated by mathematical constructs, which you then follow with a definition of free will based on the two preceding mathematical constructs.

Good stuff though, I found your ideas very interesting indeed.

[GrahamL]

Is the library going to shelve your book under science or fiction or both ?

[Nesti]

I don't know what a library would classify it as, however, I am approaching the market as, non-fiction/new-age.

Firstly, I think it's important to be very clear that this forum is not an outlet, so don't expect me to sell or promote it here...I'm happy to discuss the concepts here, or how to publish economically, but that's all.

The book is being self-published however, ownership of the physical books belong to a shareholder publishing company: one which I created and sold shares. This circumvents monetary, control and ownership dramas associated with publishing companies and gives me full control of intellectual property, the physical product, shares and distribution of monies. It also allowed me to fund the entire process on other people's money. If anyone on the forum is planning on publishing one day, and wants to know the ins and outs of how to keep control, I am happy to tell you how it can be done...cheap.

I have asked 3 people from the forum to be so kind as to read it and offer me some feedback. If they choose, they are free to discuss the concepts with others. The three I asked are very different from each other in the way they look at things; a deliberate measure.

Although the word 'Theory' may crop up in quotes, this is not one. It is a hypothesis without a testable procedure (yet) for any particular part, therefore it is merely a 'suggestion', nothing more.

[Nesti]

Yeah, difficult to explain in a single post. Or even reply without generating a multitude of questions...and it will. You must understand that it's taken 3 years to compress it down to 300 pages, originally it was 1200 pages. At the end of the day, I had to be brutal.

'Free will' and 'freedom of choice' are nothing like 'chance' or 'probability' if we're talking quantum. It's difficult to explain, without understanding the full picture (which is why I discuss it at the very end), but probability can be removed from particle interactions. Now I know that's going to upset some people, but in what I suggest, it can do just that.

Imagine this; that probability was attributed to outcomes which we cannot understand because we are not able to observe the mechanism with which chooses one event outcome over the next. Also, that this mechanism is able to connect everything in the past (past light cone), with a pseudo-future of particle states and values (future light cone), in order to construct reality - deciding upon a particle event outcome against another - based upon present and future variables. It builds the present reality on op of the hyper-surface of the present, and it can do it instantly (don't ask how yet).

So, basically, a mechanism which is connected to the past, has pieces of information of the future, and builds today according to the past, present and a floating deterministic evolution of tomorrow.

In this way, we would see particle events which SEEM to contain probability based outcomes, but they in fact do not.

Now, freedom of choice is an interference to deterministic evolution, it forces the construction of the present reality to best-fit the upcoming future. This is why the past is concrete, but the future cannot be fully know, only partially known...it is an evolving picture (snap-shot), I call it a pseudo-future!

That's about the best I can explain it without lots of dialog and illustrations.

See attached graphic for reference.

[FredSnerd]

I could not agree with you more. But why introduce the notion of free will/freedom of choice as opposed to chance when chance achieves exactly the same thing only it does not require a conscious entity. Otherwise you would need to show that every event in the universe is some how influenced by the will of a conscious entity and unless you want to argue for the existence of god I dont know how you can do that.

[Nesti]

Okay, chance is a probability, right?! But what if what we call probability, is simply a hidden mechanism which is juggling particles into a stable reality...then there is no probability, true? No different in the situation of Chaos and Deterministic Chaos. The difference is that WE don't see or perhaps understand what's going on.

Freedom of choice is totally different. It doesn't kick-in when life evolves or beings become conscious, it starts when particles network and form associations (Oh God, here we go LOL). An association can be thought of as a sharing of energy through common frequencies (String Theory) even though the particles are spatial distant: [Spooky] Action at a Distance etc.

In the book I make a very, very clear distinction between conscious and consciousness. The latter is what we know, the former is something quite different and more fundamental. Conscious is an internal awareness of state and value, it goes no further. Consciousness is the application of those states and values and their evolution within extended numbers of interactions. So every interaction contains a piece of the history of all interactions that-that particle was involved in, as well as the others; a family tree of events, particles and states and values...a family tree of strings recording their previous interactions as overtones. The overtones provide a footprint, a map, a recording of that particle's history. This is where it is applied into the past and changing future. It's a harmonic overlay of what was, and what looks like it will be, which decides how to construct the now.

[FredSnerd]

Hmmmm, Maybe I should wait for the book

[Nesti]

Sorry, I knew it would end up this way. Too many unknowns and too tittle background information.

We don't need to get rid of probability at all, but in what I'm suggesting we will need to so that it all makes sense.

No I don't take offense; I'm trying to be clear in my point. My standpoint of freedom of choice is related to quantum measurement which Aharanov discusses. In that freedom of choice seems to define the mismatch between states and values held at the commencement of an interaction and the states and values recorded after the event has taken place (destiny vector versus history vector). So I'm trying to show where the mismatch may come from, and to do that, we must first assume that probability is not what it seems and that we may view it as some hidden variable.

Conscious in an electron = [internal] innate knowledge of the particle, ie. its voltage, isospin, mass etc are all held internally. Particles are born with these values and they are common throughout each particle specie, therefore you could classify these properties as innate.

Consciousness in an electron = the innate knowledge of the particle (its states an values), but with reference to other states and values of other particles that it has had interactions with as some time within its life.

So if voltage, spin, mass etc are simply different vibrations in string particles, then the interactions with other string particles, that is, other frequencies (like and dislike) may produce overtones with non matching frequencies and amplification with matching frequencies.

If a particle is able to retain these frequencies, and strings can hold many, then in every particle may reside a history of its interactions.

Clear as mud? :D

[renormalised]

Yes, Steven, I know all about that...simple physics. What I am saying is if we accept that (for the sake of argument) that these craft are coming here, then there's some aspect of physics which we have no knowledge of and/or what we think we know about physics is not completely correct. All the particle accelerators have done, so far, is confirm what we think we know about physics. It's like doing a series of experiments to confirm a theory when we know what the outcome of those experiments are going to be beforehand. What we need to do is step outside of that box and try some things which may seem to be heretical as far as physics is concerned. Even if we ultimately prove that they don't work, we may learn a few things which we might not have found out otherwise. It may even point to unique and unusual answers to questions we have about other areas in physics (and maybe other fields in science).

[GrahamL]

No worries mark ,I'll look under fiction though, On a conceptual level
the terms you use (seem to / somehow) to descibe some of the core concepts around the book your not promoteing here don't lend themselves to any qualification.

Your Science can't hide behind the intellectual property of one person and its shareholders for long, as its always been it needs to be tested
tried and judged on its merits , whether it falls or flys so be it.

Without that I only see ( to borrow anothers words )
"new age" .. bunkum whos only goal is to spin a buck .

having said that you'll probably sell plenty of them :)



I

[renormalised]

Though I haven't read your manuscript, yet (not until the end of the semester), this would work as a good approximation for how the akashic records are stored. If you take conscious thought and consciousness itself as a fundamental function of the universe that interact with the structure of reality (i.e. the universe) at a quantum level and beyond, then anything that consciousness and thought create will impinge itself upon its surroundings. Therefore, if particles retain a history of their interactions, or to be more precise about it, each string which makes up those particles is vibrating at multiple levels of energy, then as with all harmonic oscillators the tone at which it predominantly vibrates will be a function of all the various overtones it's vibrated at or has had imprinted onto the fundamental waveform. If you know how to deconstruct that waveform, then you should be able to read off all the vibratory patterns it has stored within it. In effect, it stores all the information it comes in contact with. However, the fundamental harmonic vibration itself would act as a field, much like the fields you could subscribe to the 4 fundamental physical forces, as it would be common to all particles and other fields/forces/geometries. Just like matter and energy, information cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form and function. So any information (thought/consciousness) should be preserved as secondary oscillatory patterns overprinted onto the fundamental wavefunction. Hence, the Akashic Records. They would be, in effect, information stored at a quantum and multidimensional level (or whatever level it turns out to be) that was generated by the conscious thoughts and awareness of all living beings. The field itself could be considered a living entity, effectively a gestalt of all conscious thought or innate intent within any living thing. Sentience would then be where that field was of sufficient complexity and structure that self awareness became possible. Once one part of that field became sentient, then the entire gestalt would become sentient. The degree to which the various parts became consciously aware would be one of degree and not of kind, but they would all share in that sentience.

Anyway, I can see this causing some consternation amongst our more literal minded fellows here, and I know many will find it hard to follow, so I think I'll end it here...and goto bed!!!!. Time for some Zzzz's:D

[Nesti]

Geez Carl, that was quick! How about that; you connected the Akasha...without too much of a stretch you can probably see now you how karmic values may be assigned, forming dependent arising and Samsara? Scary thought, yeah? A physical mechanism of an ancient doctrine, hidden within String Theory.

This may test you.
Question for you: If these frequencies are being stored at a linear rate, and of course think about the sheer number of interactions spread throughout the universe, and if the field is connected through higher dimensional space to each an every particle (directly via the sheer number of Calabi-Yaus), we would see a homogenous field growing not in intensity, but in the number of stored frequencies (events). Now if a string frequency (event record) requires energy for it to be added, then where does the energy come from? Remember two things; 1. only Fermions can store/record, Bosons and Gravitons are conserved and, 2. Strings don't take-on energy directly, it is a process which occurs within the Calabi-Yau (the consistency of particle properties are regulated here, just like honing the voltage of all electrons). The Calabi-Yau must find the energy to create the new freq, but where?

Think negative divergence.

Wild idea hey?! :eyepop:

That should create some controversy on the thread...

[sjastro]

Carl,

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that physics (science) is based on experiment and observation. If a theory predicts a particular outcome which is supported by experiment or observation then why bother contemplating alternatives. That is neither physics nor science as it contradicts the scientific method.

The primary objective of a particle accelerator is to smash particles, the fact that SR is confirmed is coincidental.

The beauty of experiments is that the outcome is the same irrespective of whether the objective is to confirm a theory or to develop a theory.


Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd]

Steve, With respect you do tend to keep alluding to that and unfortunatly I dont think it advances things very much.



Yes we know all about the paradoxes and the particle accelerators that "demonstrate" conclusively that its "impossible". You know, the establishment in the science community has been talking like this for centuries and quite frankly its always gotten in the way of good science.


No it does nothing of the kind. It just repeats the old "we know best" line. It brings me in mind of what poor old Faraday must have gone through.


"Then why bother contemplating alternatives"??? That's not the scientific method I know.

[sjastro]

Claude,

It never ceases to amaze me with how the same tired old conspiracy theories surface about portraying science as some old boys club that is out to propagate it's own ideas and to suppress new ones that might threaten the establishment.

Einstein's story epitomizes the very opposite view. Einstein submitted SR to the science community while still a patent examiner with a recently acquired PhD, and as a "relative" unknown, yet SR was quickly and widely accepted.

You should keep this in mind, scientific theories are peer reviewed, not peer group reviewed.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. Contemplating alternative theories that contradict observation or experimental evidence is not science.

Steven

[renormalised]

Of course, however, how often has science been made to progress by those that have defied convention and looked outside of the box. Nearly every major advance in science has been made that way. Now, whilst much of that advance has been made on the previous work of others, the truly insightful advances have come from original thinking. It's not a matter of ignoring, completely, the work of others or the accepted facts, it's about seeing another way of looking at things, or taking what may have been outlandish and crazy and seeing if it actually works.

[Nesti]

If I may describe what I have observed.

There is a trend which is growing in numbers at a very high rate. 5 years ago, an alternative therapy clinic would be busy; today these same clinics are frantic.

My partner's clinic is booked out weeks in advance; my partner herself is booked out 6mths in advance. The only clients which jump the waiting list at terminally ill patients.

People are gravitating toward these new styles of old disciplines in increasing numbers. In fact, we are referred to by Oncology Departments when they have given up. In such a scenario, we regularly see patients which have been told they only have a few weeks or months to live...many years later, they are still coming for treatments and modern medicine (especially the practitioners who although they cannot explain any of it, are becoming accustom to the possibilities) is slowly looking this way. Even insurance companies are seeing the benefits and cost savings in alternative treatments.

Also what I have noticed is the patients themselves. Once upon-a-time they were all Mung-Beans, now we have doctors, lawyers, scientists, nurses, single mums and dads, you name it-we see it.

Another weird contradictory behavior I have notices is that modern medicine is restrictive in its acceptance of alternative thinking, yet is happy to make an exception to the rule as in the case of Placebo Effect. In fact, the Placebo Effect is widely used in drug testing. Then there's consciousness. Neuroscience hasn't a clue how it arises, yet when someone raises the possibility of it being in some way explainable is science terms, academia freak-out. I put double standard attitudes up there with other ridiculous double standards, like renormalization, and that egotistical twit who cannot see past his own self-importance, Sheldon Glashow.

The last is something which relates to this thread. I have noticed a progressive trend toward the spiritual, and a movement away from the scientific. Back in the 50's someone outwardly spiritual was a "Whacko", now they're "Alternative". This goes for the science too. Many people now feel that science is not offering them a better quality of life, many openly admit that while science offers us many technologies and advancements, we've never been sicker, unhappy and disenchanted with life in general. This of course doesn't rest solely with science: politics, modern societal mindset etc all must be looked at, but it seems that people are now attempting to connect again with their inner side.

What I have attempted to do within the book, is to describe in mostly science terms, an inner gut feeling, instinct, held by many, that there is a deep connection between science and spirituality.

As far as testability goes, if anyone wants evidence and observational agreements with what I have written, come along to the clinic and hang around for a few days and talk to people who have been so cut-n-dry at one time, and now just shake their heads in disbelief. We're going through the motions of attaining accreditation right now and wish to set-up a university. It's a long process, but it's worth it. One day we hope to be able to conduct research and analysis on different case studies, so that theories can be put together, based upon data (fact) and observational agreement.

There's an old saying, "there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole". We've seen hundreds of people who, when facing death, turn their backs on modern medicine and seek out an alternative, one which their gut instincts have told them to do...why is that?

Lastly, I'm pretty sure most people on this forum don't look at the stars, planets and galaxies to see the mathematics and science in action; they look because of the beauty...unless it's their job or they are making calculations. That goes for mathematics and science itself; people see the beauty in the field of study/enquiry.

At the end of the day, whether anyone here likes it or not, the world is changing. Before too long, whether people like Glashow like it or not, you will see science probing more than just particles. And why? Because people are slowly learning to turning inward…where real understanding comes from and the increasing realisation that maybe there's more out there than what we can experimentally observe.

[Nesti]

That's actually quite a valid point.

Einstein himself, after studying electromagnetism, saw what was needed and then applied science to the task of constructing an explanation. He did this for SR and then in exactly the same way for GR. He saw what was needed to bring it all together and then applied the tools to build it.

Isn't this what many people are trying to do with what we are discussing? See what is needed to explain what we observe and then employ the tools for its construction.

I also see the clear need for the 'Scientific Method', BUT, perhaps we really are missing some type of interface, between the two trains of thought. I mentioned earlier about a Philosophy of Science...the 'Village Elders' method of inquiry.

We actually have this in aerospace engineering, it's called an 'Independent' , whereby an independent entity, who is broadly educated, and looks upon ALL the information to find merit and/or fault. What does science have at the moment, peer review...that could be seen as the proverbial 'Fox guarding the hen-house'.

Steven, seriously mate, you have to admit that there is a biased pro-science viewpoint associated with peer review?!

Where's the independence? Should there be another, higher, level of review?

[Nesti]

You know how the Egyptians built the Pyramids?...it's really simple...their whole society believed it could be done, and they simply built them. No problem is too big with that level of belief.

[peteyboy]

There is, at least for medicine. It's called Cochrane reviews, and it's an independent group who take important medical issues like 'is taking aspirin everyday good' or 'does chiropractic work' and do meta-reviews of all the publications and studies out there. Often there are hundreds of studies to go through on a single issue. The stats get done (properly), they reject the poorly designed studies, and they form a view. They have laymans reports too online I think: great reading if you are interested in genuine evidence based medicine. The great shock of the Cochrane reviews is how much standard practice medicine has little evidence base!
I don't know if similar organisations exist for other sciences, but the Cochrane model is a very good one.

[Nesti]

Thanks Peteyboy, I'll look into that.

Compiling stats and constructing well designed studies is costly. But that's exactly where we are trying to go.

Cheers
Mark

[renormalised]

The problem with the assignation of karmic values is that they are inherently an imposition...and if freedom of choice (free will) is to be conserved then that restriction on free will has to be balanced by the freedom of choice to either: 1. ignore the imposition of karma, and/or, 2. the freedom to remove that karma (information) that is creating the restriction. The big problem with karma is that it's seen as a fait accompli, and cannot be avoided. If you consider karma as being a pigeon hole into which information is put and that once in there it cannot be removed, except by changing the "shape" of the pigeon hole, then that defies freedom of choice and the conservation of free will. If free will is to be conserved, then the only thing karma can be is a guide to where that free will may go, not to where it will go. The choice would be upto whatever was choosing to make the decisions as to whether it followed that information or not. Samsara (reality as it's perceived by the entity perceiving it...for those who don't know what it is), would then be a choice entirely of that which is making that choice to experience it. Not the choice of some outside agency.

The energy is found from the connection between mind and matter. The field which is consciousness and thought is continually interacting with the physical form fields that shape the higher dimensional spaces. That's where the whole idea of observer and the observed being connected comes from (in QM)...that what you think of observing intimately affects the outcome of what's being observed. It doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious observation or decision, just the mere act of observing will affect the outcome. The maths of probability will affect the outcome in any case (heads or tails...dead or alive). Once consciousness touches those other fields, they gain energy from the act of observation. That is then conserved as information in the vibrational state of those other fields.

[Nesti]

If you go back to the question and think negative divergence as within GR.

Are strings consuming energy in the recording process?! (Rhetorical) If so, what would be the affects, more importantly, what would we observe?

[FredSnerd]

Steven,

Its most unbecoming to try and misrepresent what I’m saying by labelling it “conspiracy theory”. I don’t think that scientists conspire with each other to promote an established view. Rather I think what happens is that those who’ve worked in a field for a time (and I’m not just talking about scientists) have a tendency to become very impressed with themselves and what they know (and not sufficiently impressed with what they don’t know) and consequently become unduly resistant to new ideas, especially if they adjudge the proponents of those new ideas to be mere interlopers.

Your revised remark is no better then the first. I don’t think science or the scientific method would ever discourage the contemplation of alternative theories regardless of what earlier observations or experimentation may say. That’s why the book is never closed, even on such respected theories as Evolution and Relativity.

[Nesti]

Claude - I see you are saying, and I agree, but only within the context of your discussion.

May I bring to your attention that scientists do in fact conspire. There is a Cold War going on for some time. The String Theorists (Ether viewpoint) and Standard Model (Fields in continuum) are vying heavily for big budgets and public support for pursuing their ideas/theories.

The gloves have been off for many years...Glashow refers to String Theory as a "Tumor" whos theory is "untestable and thus permenantly safe".

After some time and realisation, I remarked to my tutor, "there's more politics in science than there is science", to his reply, "you'd better believe it boy-o".

[FredSnerd]

Yes Mark in that wider context I understand what your saying.

[FredSnerd]

Wow this thread has grown, though I don't know that we've actually stayed on topic. Maybe we should rename it "the theory of everything"

[Nesti]

True, but in a way it can be looked upon as being 'ON' topic, in that we have clearly seen that unless you can define 'methods in finding and evaluating truth', topics such as " Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling" cannot be properly explored, only opinions can be discussed.

[renormalised]

I'll have to do a bit of reading on this.

If strings are consuming energy, then in order to conserve that energy (in accordance with Thermodynamics) it must either be re-radiated or converted to a change in the vibration of the strings...a change in frequency and/or wavelength. That may mean a change in state of a particle that string defines or a change in the particle type that string represents, which would be analogous to the decay of a particle from one type to another.

Just had a thought go click...how might this connect to "dark matter", if it exists?

[Nesti]

I feel that it is only possible to express a force if the correct frequency is stored. So no matter how much energy a string takes on, if only a certain amount of stored energy is held for a frequency associated with the graviton, then its mass will be equal to that portion. So stored energy is latent and not potential, as well as regulated by quantization.

BTW, my question relates to: is gravitation (GR) merely the negative divergence of spacetime due to the consumption of energy of strings. And since strings are modulated across the entire continuum - via Calabi-Yaus - then gravitation can be expressed uniformly, same as charge, isospin, mass etc for each specie (each specific frequency). So even though strings are taking-on energy, they are not increasing mass. Is that wild enough?

Dark matter, simply a frequency which is not possessed by matter which we observe. Nothing special at all really.

Dark energy, the release of energy - so opposite to absorbtion - from strings into spacetime. This could be used to 'push' the universe's frontiers while relaxing the continuum tension, ergo assisting in the expansion process, or better yet, an internal regulator for balancing the expansion rate of the universe.

[sjastro]

"Yes we know all about the paradoxes and the particle accelerators that "demonstrate" conclusively that its "impossible". You know, the establishment in the science community has been talking like this for centuries and quite frankly its always gotten in the way of good science."

"No it does nothing of the kind. It just repeats the old "we know best" line. It brings me in mind of what poor old Faraday must have gone through. "

Unless you can support these claims (particularly that the science community operates on a hierarchical basis instead of debate and consensus through peer review) then I cannot interpret it in any other way.

The prompt for alternative theories is through experimentation and observation. In the context of Carl's comments there is no obvious reason to theorize why the speed of light in a vacuum is not the upper limit given that experiment and observation over 300 years have shown otherwise.

Steven

[renormalised]

If we assume that the Higgs Field/Boson exists, then the only way a string may gain mass is to act as that field or to interact with it. It would have to vibrate at the correct frequency for a Higgs or act as the field from which the Higgs emerged. Gravitons, like photons, have zero mass, so they don't (apparently) interact with the (probable) Higgs Field.

Dark matter....that's where I was heading (in terms of frequency).

[sjastro]

Mark,

Of course it's pro science why shouldn't it be.

The whole point of peer review is bring about scientific debate and hopefully consensus.

Consensus can be very slow. It took 50 years of debate and research before continental drift was finally accepted by geologists.

Steven

[renormalised]

For the most part that is correct (prompts for alternative theories), however a hypothesis doesn't necessarily need an experimentation or observation. We have no way of knowing whether such things as hyperspace/subspace or other similar higher (or lower) dimensional states might exist unless we do the experiments and make the observations. There maybe things we have observed with what we think we know about the nature of spacetime that we may have gotten incorrect in our interpretations. There are quite a few observations which have stumped us and we don't know the answers for. Maybe the answers lie outside of what we might consider as being "orthodox physics".

In any case, much of what was once "heresy" invariably becomes "orthodoxy", when we sit down and do a bit of thinking.

[Nesti]

Steven, I totally agree with you, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying what you are pointing out is in fact imbalanced. You've said it right here "about scientific debate ", true, and there's no external input here; there's no non-science input to governance. Science is overseeing science, and that's the whole problem. We have scientists making decisions about what should or should not be pursued, or worse yet, making decisions which affect the world on a socioeconomic level.

I personally might object to something that I'm not invited to know about, or deliberately excluded from.

At some point I might not like the idea that somebody who doesn't perhaps share the same holistic picture as I do, making decisions which may affect the world in which we all have equal rights to. Many scientist look upon the public as non-academic individual whom need guidance. Perhaps I might feel scientists are the ones whom need the guidance, as they're the ones who need to 'Unplug' once in a while. Also, I might object to 1 Tesla running through a 17km circle 5mm wide on a planet which I inhabit...so might many more people.

[renormalised]

How true...however in the case of continental drift it was a matter of a non geologist's ideas being disregarded by geologists simply on political grounds. His ideas didn't fit in with the accepted paradigm and because he was an outsider, that made his ideas even more heretical than they otherwise would have been. Even though the answers were staring straight at them in the face, it took all that time for geologists (mind you, fresh minds to the problem, not so much the entrenched view) to figure out that he was right in the first place. They had to go out and do the exploration work and experiments to see what was correct. Even then, it was hard for the orthodoxy to come to terms with the new paradigm. Now it's an accepted fact within the geological community in particular and the scientific community in general. Much the same as evolution, even though (in both cases) we still have a lot to learn.

The ideal of peer review is to bring about debate and consensus, but all too often it's one entrenched view and its adherents being insufferably staid and doing its utmost to prevent new ideas from gaining acceptance.

[Nesti]

Peer review has been talked about before, not just by us.


I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.
Charles Darwin


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck, 1920

[TrevorW]

I thought I read or heard somewhere that the universe is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light

??????

[sjastro]

Space-time can expand faster than light. The early history of Universe required the Universe to expand faster than light to preserve causality (the horizon effect).

Objects moving faster than light in space however is not possible.

Steven

[sjastro]

Carl,

I'm still curious as to why the speed of light as being the max. limit is being brought into question. What is the prompt in this case?

Steven

[sjastro]

Mark,

Politicians built the LHC, scientists only lobbied the politicians.

In regards to pure science which is not subject to political, economic, technological influences etc, I have absolutely no problem in science overseeing science with regards to peer review. I would rather have experts review my work, instead of non specialists or worse still non scientists.

Steven

[renormalised]

It's not, at least not using the usual methods and trying to accelerate to c in normal space. What I am saying is what if there are aspects of the universe we're either not aware of yet, or that something which we have postulated (i.e. hyperspace, etc) might be the answer to traveling faster. As you're aware of, there are methods we do know of which don't violate SR which will allow us to travel faster, however there are objections to those methods which are based on conjecture which they haven't tested yet.

All I'm saying is that they should test these things via experimentation before dismissing the proposals out of hand. They may not be testable now, but at some time in the future we may have the technology and energy generating requirements to test them. So instead of saying it's impossible, it would be better to withhold judgment until we're able to make a fully informed opinion.

[FredSnerd]

Carl,

Couldnt agree with you more. To say, based on our current state of knowledge that its impossible is frankly just absurdly foolish and unscientific.

[Nesti]

If you want some more light shed on what I was alluding to when I was referring to the difference between conscious and consciousness, ie, particle states and values, versus , those states and values working in with other states and values (respectively). What is innately known (conscious), versus, what requires interaction to form (consciousness). Just watch the last half of the first clip, and all of the second and third clips.

Hope you find it interesting that conscious knows the decisions that consciousness will make 6 seconds later!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnm4T_8OkxA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvacNxV6xnI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSytRFoITk&feature=related

[sjastro]

Carl as you know we don't live in a Universe where we all travel faster than light,where the speed of light is the lower limit and mass takes on an imaginary value. So we can discount that option....

With regards to "hyperspace" let's put that in the right perspective as well. While there are people out there who suggest that faster than light travel is possible through String theory, energy conditions are violated in GR. So we can discount that one as well. On top of that you know my opinion of String Theory.

Our judgment is based on what is happening now. Not tomorrow, next week, 10 years from now, or 20000 years from now. That is how science operates. As it is stands now, the speed of light in a vacuum is the upper limit. Scientists are satisfied with SR, the observations and the experiments.

To argue to withhold judgment until we have a fully informed opinion, one needs to consider the logic.

(a) It assumes our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient.
(b) It assumes someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation.

and most importantly

(c) When is a fully informed opinion decided? (eg is the new value a limit or can we go faster?)
If (a) is an ongoing event it implies we will never reach point (c).

That's the trouble when you don't have a crystal ball. Everything is based on assumptions.

Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd]

Steven

I don’t believe anyone here is (a) “assuming” that our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient. We are “allowing for the possibility” that our current level of understanding is deficient. There is a world of difference. We aren’t (b) “assuming” that someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation. We are allowing for the possibility that someone will; And as for (c) when is a fully informed opinion decided? Well you know, maybe there is no such thing as certain. Evolution is perhaps the most respected scientific theory ever but I don’t think anyone says that it is certain. It is constantly subjected to challenge and so it should be. Newtons notions of gravity were the bible until Eisenstein came along. That’s true science in my opinion.



Regards


Claude

[renormalised]

I'm not talking about the superluminal solutions to SR, Steven, I'm talking about solutions like the Alcubierre Metric etc.

You talked about discounting this and that (sure you're not in the retail business:P:D) just because it violates what we know of physics now. If that held for all physics (or anything else), we wouldn't be where we are now. Remember, right up until the 30's and 40's, they thought it was impossible to break free of the planet's gravitational pull because it would take too much energy. Very many prominent scientists thought that. Lord Rutherford said it was going to be impossible to harness the energy in an atomic nucleus...they'd never split the atom. You couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound because you'd hit a "brick wall" that would destroy your aircraft etc etc. I could go on for a long time about scientific truths that were rock solid, that turned out to be wrong.

Science is about making assumptions. If you don't assume something then you have no hypothesis to test. Your assumption maybe wrong, or it maybe right. In the case of SR and GR, with our current state of knowledge we believe them to be rock solid (for the most part). But that's not to say that they'll not be modified in the future, or that maybe something else may come along to replace them. Newton thought his theory was rock solid. So did most other scientists for 250 years. But Einstein comes along and changes things with Relativity.

You're assuming (or at least implying) that Relativity is going to be the definitive answer, ad infinitum. The logic of that is faulty as well. That implies 3 things...1) That the logic on which it is based is flawless, 2)That no other theory will be derived that will challenge it, and, 3)That no experiment or observation has or will be made that will contradict the premise of the theories. Just as you have implied I am crystal ball gazing, so are you in this instance:D

Science is not about the here and now, Steven. Science is about the "what if", "what can be or could be", "what might be". If science just dealt with what it knows and never considered the infinite possibilities (wrong or otherwise), we'd have never left the safety of the caves (if they were ever that safe in the first place!!). We'd have never landed a person on the Moon, no probes would've visited any planets, we wouldn't have flown in the first place, we'd have no atomic energy, you wouldn't be able to take your astropiccies, I wouldn't be typing this out on a computer keyboard etc etc.

Yes, our judgment is based on what we know of things at present, I agree with you on this. Yes, the efficacy of SR and GR have been satisfied through experimentation and observation. However, in saying "as it stands, now", you know yourself that at some future stage it may not have the standing it holds at present. Or, it may still have...we just don't know.

Funny thing here Steven, neither of us will probably totally agree with the others' arguments simply because we think differently...you're the orthodox literalist and I'm the radical:P:D. You like your boxes, I get claustrophobic:P:D

Agree to disagree;):thumbsup::D

[avandonk]

The only way to really test what you claim in the obove vague farrago of assertions is a double blind test.

All quacks ignore their failures and only quote their successes even if they are due to a placebo affect. It is no good hiding behind the term 'spiritual' as this is beyond science to probe as it is a fiction in the mind of the deluded.

The simple statement that there is more out there than we can experimentally observe puts you fully in the mindset of self delusional ignorant twits.

Science is not about proving anything. Far from it. It is about disproving any conjecture by experiment.

Collecting 'evidence' to formulate an hypothesis is science.
Collecting 'evidence' to prove any hypothesis is not science.
One experiment can disprove a seemingly valid hypothesis.

Turning inwards for so called answers is a total cop out. By contemplating my navel I can get enlightenment? I would rather contemplate what has been slowly extracted from our reality by very many smarter people than myself.

It is good that people ask questions but do not let your own ignorance lead you astray because the reality is too difficult to even start to comprehend.

Bert

[renormalised]

Regardless of what you may think of Mark's assertions, Bert, what you have replied with here reeks of intellectual hubris and arrogance and really isn't called for in this forum. I know you have strong opinions on subjects like this, but whatever you may think of the subject matter, it doesn't make the people who believe in it fools, necessarily. They maybe misguided, yes, and many maybe ignorant of scientific "reality" but they only become fools when they persist in following a belief that is clearly been shown to be false. However, don't ever state that science has the only way to provide the answers we seek or that it is infallible. You say greater minds than ours have slowly extracted the truth from reality. Well I can say quite unequivocally that those minds (except for the most conceited and arrogant of them) would counter your statement by asking the question of you..."what's real to begin with??" They would also be mindful of the fact that nothing is written in stone and that they don't have all the answers, no matter what they believe in.

I will agree that science is far preferable to superstitious ignorance or educated ignorance but it is not the answer to everything. Delusion, Bert, is a multifaceted monster and an over confidence in science can be just as deluded as anything else. Being spiritual doesn't make you deluded. Many of the world's greatest scientists have a degree of spiritual belief, or a belief in a greater intelligence operating at some level, however they may have defined it. Some were actually quite religious. But they never let either science or spiritual belief act as antagonists. They knew when and where either or both were applicable and quite often integrated both where it was appropriate. But in the final analysis, they let both speak for themselves in their appropriate circumstances. Oh, and yes, some are/were atheists too, but that is just their own opinions...something we're all entitled to regardless of their efficacy.

It's upto you what you think you need to say or do, but I feel that an apology is in order here...not because of what or what not either of you may believe or not believe in, but because what you wrote was out of order.

[avandonk]

If I have offended any one I am not sorry! I find this quasi scientific religious claptrap that now permeates our society to lead the ignorant astray due to a major failing in our education system. Clear thinking has been thrown out.

I did not advocate anyone to think like me.

To advocate a 'clinic' on these forums needs some comment.

I will not resile as these perpetrators of quasi religious claptrap have no place here.

This is an Astronomy Forum.

If people want a 'quack cure' for cancer they can find it some where else.

I did not address intellectual hubris as all my life people have mumbled something along those lines.

Bert

[renormalised]

I agree with you, Bert. There's a lot of very fuzzy thinking going on and there are people who are taking advantage of this. But what you have to do is look at the fundamental causes of this, not shoot people down for their feelings or beliefs on the matter. What's deficient in society that is creating this situation. It's more than educated ignorance, or crackpot belief systems or old superstitions. People invariably turn to a belief, knowledge system or code of conduct when they feel it most suits them or they feel that what's presently on offer doesn't add up itself. Meaning in their lives is one reason, but meaning in itself is not the whole answer. As a society I feel we all need to sit down and really take a good look at ourselves and think/debate about this then take positive steps to sort things out.

[FredSnerd]

Your a cranky man Bert. Off with their heads. Burn all the heretics at the stake

[avandonk]

I only get cranky with people who want to lead others astray especially when they do not know any better.

Your epithets of burning people at the stake and off with their heads is exactly what I am against.

Bert

[renormalised]

The problem with anything like this, where you feel strongly about something, is that it can get rather carried away with. Then people become offended and that's when trouble starts. Freedom of speech is not a right, it's a privilege, one that has to be earned and/or agreed upon by the body politic. Never, anywhere in the whole of history or existence has it been shown that absolute freedom of speech and thought have existed. There have always been limits imposed on the thoughts and actions of people, their beliefs and such. However, where the right to say what you like and to have an opinion was and is respected, it's also incumbent upon those who exercise those privileges to responsibly handle the power that this brings and to be mindful of others who may not share your views. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, it just means that even if you're right about something, sometimes it's better to hold your tongue and look for another way to express your opposition to a position held. Or to express it in a way that cause the least amount of hassles to everyone concerned. The is more than one way to skin a cat.

[FredSnerd]

Soooo. How bout those Nicks!!!!

[renormalised]

Nicks....NICKS!!!!.....give me the cat:P:P:D:D

My Stradivarius needs some new strings:P:P:D:D

[avandonk]

If I cannot be a disagreeable old bloke at 60, how long do I have to wait?

My mother used to say 'you will understand when you get older' whenever I disagreed with her. I still disagree with her.

I don't really feel strongly about this as I do not give a damn what all you good folks do.

If pointing out something nasty is disagreeable, then so be it.

If people prefer to live in their delusional space, good on them!

Bert

[renormalised]

You have to be at least 80 and in a nursing home:P:P:D:D

[FredSnerd]

Actaully its not even a good idea in the nursing home. Some of those nurses like to lash out when the relatives arnt looken and then accuse you of being senile. Life's a b<T%H

[sjastro]

I wasn't talking about superluminal solutions either.
The Alcubierre metric has been discredited for reasons I have already given.
It only works in Star Trek not in our Universe.

Despite what you may think I am not in the role of being the defender of the faith. It's a sad state of affairs this thread has gone into hyperbole mode.

Steven

[Nesti]

Oh dear-me Bert!

First of all, no offense taken here; I can roll with anything.

"It is no good hiding behind the term 'spiritual' as this is beyond science to probe as it is a fiction in the mind of the deluded."
Well that's a nice opinion Bert, and since you've been so kind as to share your viewpoint of my philosophy openly, please allow me to share my viewpoint of your philosophy openly...I've seen it all before Bert, people running around pointing the finger and playing the Professor, standing on the soap-box and proclaiming to the world the ten commandments of the scientific Esquires Club...and then something happens to them, Nature rolls the dice and they end up with the short straw.

What happens then? Well all of a sudden, the steadfast ways of the 'Pensioner Police' are humbled by nature's throwing of the dice and the words of their doctor. Nature deals them something unexpected and the Golden Calf of Science is forgotten as they run for help...all of a sudden a believer appears.

You can tout all you like about my belief Bert, but when the proverbial gun gets put to one's head, trust me, thinking with your head gets replaced with feeling with your gut in less than a heartbeat. The tables get turned and the Pillars of Science become the "Quasi Scientific Clap-Trap".

This might be an Astronomy Forum, but it's a 'General Chat' section which you are corresponding on, or has your high powered observations and investigative techniques failed you today? (sounds similar to some scientific inquiries actually). Further, if it pains you to hear the 'General Chat' of others, why do you participate? I'm happy to read the views of others, you never know what you might learn. You'll need to look in the mirror to assign blame on this point.

"If I cannot be a disagreeable old bloke at 60, how long do I have to wait?"...well that's a convenient 'Get out of Jail Free' card isn't it? The simple truth Bert is that you have replaced Majesty with Math. That will only breed discontent. The place where you currently are at is called Dukkha (meaning unsteady and disquieted) and leads to Samsara. You really need to stop and learn from this stuff.

Cheers
Mark
The Quasi Scientific Religious Clap-Trap Mung Bean.

PS. PSSST! Just quietly Bert, you're in a minority group, just like the dinosaurs.

[sjastro]

I was highlighting the logical fallacy "argumentum ad ignorantiam" where a premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

The assumption that today's theories will be replaced in the future because history proves this is an example of this fallacy.

Steven

[TrevorW]

MS was first diagnosed in 1800s

http://www.msaustralia.org.au/aboutms-history.asp

15 cases are diagnosed in WA alone each month, normally healthy fit people even non smokers or drinkers can suffer from it

100 years later they still don't know what causes it or how to cure it

probably not enough deaths occuring from it to warrant finding a cure

don't tell me science knows all the answers

I wish they did

[Nesti]

Oh, one point I forgot to mention Bert, and since you’re quite the logical mind, allow me to elaborate in logical terms.

Buddha: one of those Religious Clap-Trappers, taught follower how to be content and happy in one’s life no matter the adversity; he taught followers to be able to identify with suffering and to disconnect from it, right?!

Well, if science is so much more than religion or mysticism, why is it that science has not offered you a release from suffering…since all I have read from all of your words, in every one of your post, is hostility and a cantankerous disposition to the opinions of others. Science has imprisoned you in frustration...for what...what could it offer you that is worth the trade?

Buddha taught follower to be accepting of the opinions of others, and if someone did something wrong or thought outside the truth, that there should be a level of forgiveness, for they know not what they do.

So if science is the pursuit of truth, then the truth is-is that science is nowhere near as powerful as even a simple ancient doctrine in the betterment of human life, at the most fundamental level.

Perhaps if you know so much about science, you should do as Buddha did, and lead by example in the education of others (Dharma teachings). Not point the finger and cast stones unto the ones who "permeate our society to lead the ignorant astray due to a major failing in our education system".

"Clear thinking has been thrown out.", obviously Bert! Replacing happiness with science is really not clear thinking at all.

The other side of the coin is that there are people out there who aren't happy unless they're upset about something...surely you don't aspire to be this?

Cheers
Mark
(Mungas)

[Nesti]

But you do! Why else would you post your opinion?

You're actually a caring person Bert but you just don't know how to show it...do you?

Comon Bert, open up! Tell us that you really do care for all us "deluded" people. You're just playing 'Tough Love' aren't ya Bert? :lol:

[renormalised]

Yes, however the assertions as to its discredit are still conjectural and based on the opinions of researchers who may (or may not, I shall conceded here) have it wrong.

I'll quote here from wiki...

"However, if certain quantum inequalities conjectured by Ford and Roman hold,[/URL] then the energy requirements for some warp drives may be absurdly gigantic, e.g. the energy equivalent of 1067 grams might be required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#cite_note-7) to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way galaxy. This is orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the universe. Counterarguments to these apparent problems have been offered,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#cite_note-Kathryn_Janeway-1"]but not everyone is convinced they can be overcome."

The operative words here are: "However, if certain quantum inequalities conjectured by Ford and Roman hold"...it's if they hold, not whether they do or that they do (or not). They don't know, and it's conjecture in any case. That's why I said quite a few posts ago that they should set about (starting) with experiments to see if those conditions and arguments are the case or not. If they do preclude the Alcubierre Metric, then that's just it. However, that doesn't mean that something else won't work. That's what makes this so interesting...we have argument and counterargument going to and fro. The reasons as to why some seem reticent about overcoming those roadblocks is precisely because they're have present knowledge uppermost in their minds and aren't sure it can be circumvented. That's fair enough and understandable. From all our experiments and observations (so far) it appears it's impossible, but that doesn't mean it ultimately is.

As for saying it doesn't work in our universe, only in Star Trek's (rather quaint)...how do we even know unless we try. Like I said previously, if we all thought that way, we'd still be living in the Stone Age. We wouldn't try anything if we thought initially that it was impossible to do. Even if previous experience said that it was...sometimes it takes persistence in the face of all accepted wisdom to finally bring about something which is thought to be impossible to achieve. Think of Faraday and his lightbulb and countless other examples of persistence. Quite often, experimentation points us in directions we haven't previously considered and engenders new ideas. That's why the work needs to be done and not declare that everything we've done discredits these ideas, therefore we don't do a thing. There's more to testing an idea than scribbling "hieroglyphics" out on a blackboard or the back of an envelope. Sometimes what looks perfectly fine in theory doesn't always measure up in reality, when everything is put to experiment and testing.

This rationale also applies to String Theory too...or any other theory for that matter. No matter how solid a theory appears or what we derive from it, testing its validity will always be an ongoing exercise.

If we really knew the final answers, we wouldn't have to test them.

[avandonk]

First of all science is not in the business of replacing non sense beliefs.

Irrational beliefs are just that.

As to your assertion "Well, if science is so much more than religion or mysticism, why is it that science has not offered you a release from suffering…since all I have read from all of your words, in every one of your post, is hostility and a cantankerous disposition to the opinions of others. Science has imprisoned you in frustration...for what?"

I have never heard so much self satisfied drivel. I am not unhappy with myself. I find when the idiotic ignorant try to lead the rest of the ignorant down a blind path with their simple platitudes, this is what grates against my mindset.

I spent many years teaching PhD students in the finer points of our craft and many of them are now employed in the best Universities and Research Institutes.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how deluded it is.

If you think I need an invisible friend to round out my life you are even further deluded. The smartest Jesuit priests lost that battle long ago.

I am not getting into a slanging match with anyone that thinks the undetectable is real. It is even worse when they quote ancient scriptures written by people that would think it was a miracle to converse on line.

I come from a place where rational criticism is assumed and encouraged.

Bert

[Nesti]

This thread's going quite well...a little reminiscent of the events surrounding the attached photo, but well.

Carl Heisenberg and Steven Schrodinger are on to round...13?

[renormalised]

And then there's the old adage "Ignore history at your own peril";):D

Today's theories may or may not be replaced, but to dismiss the fact that previous ideas have invariably been either supplanted or highly supplemented by new ideas, as being fallacy, is skating on thin ice.

[renormalised]

Hey, where's the card girls and the cheerleaders??!!!:P:P:D:D

[renormalised]

Just getting off topically off topic, do you notice just how dull and uninspiring degrees sound when you express their pronunciation phonetically??!!:P:D

Like PhD...sounds like "fud", MSc = "misk" and BSc = "bisk":P:P

They just don't sound grand enough, like "professor":P:D

I say they need changing:D

[Nesti]

You crack me up Bert...you just can't help yourself can you. :lol:

You still haven't answered my question as to why you bother communicating with the "deluded" and "ignorant" on a General Chat forum?

"I spent many years teaching PhD students in the finer points of our craft and many of them are now employed in the best Universities and Research Institutes." Yeah, self satified indeed Bert. That's somewhat hypocritical isn't it?

"THE CRAFT" how egotistical can someone get?! I have a quote for you Prof..."quaint ceremonial village, occupied by demigods on stilts". Einsteins own words describing behavior like yours. And your comments don't impress me the least.

I think the shoe fits nicely.

[TrevorW]

Me thinks this thread has gone way off left field, please guys keep it nice

otherwise he who holds the axe may chop you off

[renormalised]

That's what I'm afraid of...

[Nesti]

The topic gets diverted when people suppress the opinions of others.

Go back to where the thread gets diverted, and you'll almost always see it was someone trying to suppress others. It's an ego thing.

The thread and topic we fine before.

[FredSnerd]

Hey, hey, what’s going on here. Leave you blokes for five minutes and look what happens. The thread turns to S@#T. Now Bert. I want you to shake hands and apologise. Berrrrrt!!!! And Steven, don't misapply Latin maxims. Its not nice; "argumentum ad ignorantiam" indeed. How many times do you have to be told allowing for the possibility that today's theories will be replaced in the future does not amount to an assumption that they will be replaced. Now I want you to write a hundred times. I will not use hyperbole to win an argument.

[sjastro]

And I'll say this only once, you cannot assume a premise is incorrect (or correct) on the basis that it will be proven incorrect (or correct) in the future. That is a logical fallacy as there is no causal relationship between past present and future.

On the otherhand if the premise is proven to be incorrect in the present and corrected in the future, there is a causal relationship (cause and effect), hence there is no logical fallacy.

Hawking responding to the issue of time machines (= traveling faster than light) said if such a concept is true then we should be overrun by tourists from the future.:lol:

On that note it's time for a permanent exit from this thread.

Steven

[Nesti]

Wow Steven...popping smoke and extracting with military precision!

:lol:

[renormalised]

Steven, carefully read what you wrote here (even if you don't respond). No causal relationship between past, present and future??. If something happens in the past that causes an event to happen, does not the consequences of that event move forward through time, to the present (the past's future) and if it's important enough, into the future (both the future of our past and present time). If there was no causal link between past, present and future, then no event which happened in our past would move forward to the present or anything which may happen now (or in the past) would move into the future. However, according to convention, the only situation in which there would be no causal link would be from events happening in the future, if time travel is impossible. That would mean nothing from now would leak backwards through time to the past and neither would anything from the future leak back to now, or further back through time. If you regard the arrow of time as being inviolate, then anything which happens in the past cannot go anywhere but forward to the present and, possibly, the future. The causal link runs one way, in this case.

However what you are doing is assuming that FTL is incorrect now, and will be so in the future, when you have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. In essence, you are arguing a furphy. Neither of us can know what will occur in physics theory as far as future knowledge is concerned. In all likelihood we may both be in for a surprise. That's why I said we need to consider all possibilities and do the work to either confirm or deny their validity...whether that's done now or in the future is irrelevant. It should be done.

That statement from Hawking was facetious. Just because you don't see tourists from the future doesn't mean they're not here. Or, if they're not, then saying they don't exist and therefore time travel doesn't exist because of this is also rather dodgy logic. You have no way of knowing. Either situation is possible, for all sorts of reasons. Tourists aside.

[xelasnave]

What an interesting thread:thumbsup:.

It seems most have their feet on the ground and open to the possibility of developments in our understanding of the Universe admitting we still do not know everything:rolleyes:.

This must be a good thing:thumbsup:.

If one thinks we know it all and nothing will change ...well I see that as unfortunate...and such a belief places us on no higher level than any leading civilization before us...

Sitting on the outside my observations of the scientific method is that like most things implimented by humans it will work well if the rules are followed..:eyepop:
However for mine it seems science goes out the door if the math says it can work and frankly as I have said I am suspicious of..not the math as such..but those who can use it as a tool that can fashion many realities:D..look at string theory.. this is a non established reality one which most are worshipping as the key to total understanding... so much effort etc but upon what hint of experimental evidence has it run as far as it has travelled... math without experiment etc is meaningless and I know all will disagree ...math in support of a stupid premise does not carry weight with me ...dam I have read scientific research papers upon ..for example..the meta universe... the observations etc all added up etc etc... but when it got to the unsupported extrapolation that our universe is inside a black hole...a propostion unsupported other than by the math I lost faith in the reasonableness and dependability of the paper...

We need to tie math to an observable reality evidenced by experiment...and even then be cautious that the findings match the predictions too closely...

just think of the "theories" that dont follow the rules and think of those folk who should be the first to reject same as non scientific are the first to run out in total support...

again think of the idea called string theory or/and if you like M theory ..it is still an idea ..it is still a revamped non original 200 year old geometric construction of the limitations particles should have..should have..they can/will only do what our geometric construction entitles them...yes maybe and when you can weigh a string and get some tangible data it could be at that point the idea could have a degree of respect... ...and it is no good saying well this explains this or that if there is no basis other than the musings of someone sckilled in math..and that is not sour grapes:lol::lol::lol:...
But these "theories" that are treated like "fact" but exist solely upon the math saying the universe will be bound by the rules humans work on on paper or in a computer model...

if this is not the case perhaps someone can tell me what experiments support, for example the inflation theory or string theory or M theory or the notion that we have multiple dimenions, parrallel universes or that black holes hold the key to time travell...super symetry..a corner stone to the current "standard cold dark matter model" as I believe it is called...the math supports the notion of these super particles but really I would like something more before I buy that idea....

go to the cern site..look it over.. and ask yourself does the demonstration of rationality come out when these folk are so indulgent in matters simply beyond belief and can be only supported by math extrapolation (not to mention the use of the site to list their social activities, book club etc...or has this changed since I was last there????

....and upon my understanding the n prize went to GR before any observational or experimental evidence was offerred in support which seems to me as a matter of giving the prize even when scientific method has not been followed...so is it at that stage science or speculation???..

I could be wrong on my understanding of the history as GR etc is not my profession...and I rely on my friends here to say so if my understanding of the history is flawed...I can be shot down with a list of experiments to establish GR (at the point of the prize giving) string theory etc

Those in the science profession refuse to accept that corruption can enter their profession (as it can with any profession) and yet we could grow tired if we sort to list the folk who have corrupted data/results to suit their own particular needs...now these folk are the exception one would like to think but to ignore this fact and the scepticism these rouges generate in the wider community such that some will regard all science as little better than any other "cult" driven by their beliefs would be silly really.

Folk remember the bad guys as we all know and forget the reality of gathing of scientific data...er and sample analysis seems to have gone out the door with string theory and dare I say the big bang theory...but true science must be boring if you want to test your ideas past one or two observations...
We still infer black holes and dark matter by our beliefs...we believe because of GR it is so and therefore it must be so... could the current science be wrong..no way never never never... well never say never.

Men like Bert have the cred from many deeds well done, they (he is) are honest and have the right to think those rouges who I refer to (the result fudgers and grant scammers) do not exist as his expectations of others will be as high as he sets himself and yet I doubt if all will be as professional as Bert has no doubt been in his career.

I was an honest real estate agent and because of that refused to think other real estate agents deserved their bad reputation... well I found out they were not all like me... when I had the opportunity of seeing them from the view point of a client (both selling and buying for various Government Depts) all I can say is those I came across were either unprofessional incompetent or shifty...would not feed any one that I had to deal with..over 100)

I grew up in various court house residences (flat off the court house and CPS office) next to the local police station so I always thought police were fair and uncorruptable..and I feel I was wrong in that assumption and have noted various exceptions to that original belief..but given my closeness to the "system" how else would I see it??

The rejection of alternatives out of hand is arrogant, even if the current science seems infalible it may be flawed... but rejection is convenient to eliminate competing views but is the predominance of one idea (or theory) a gaurantee of finding knowledge... a monopoly on thinking should be regarded as suspect.

The big bang is a theory and yet due to the finding of "background radiation" all alternatives, such as the steady state model (who even remembers there was such a view??) now are not considered as worhty of pursuit and so no funding and no further research..anything competing with big bang will not get a look in....how can an idea move forward when it is crushed by one bit of news..the finding suits the big bang but is there absolutely no other expalnation for the "back ground radiation other than support for BB theory?

I can not see that the grasping of one idea as infalibile and to exclude all others as helpful.

The older I get the more things I find are not really facts but positions based upon ones beliefs and rejection of any other view.

AND look to history it is so often the rank outsider who has the original "new" idea and I guess in those circumstances we could call that idea as "alternative".

Again alternative gets bad press because some alternatives are simply out of hand , medicine health etc... and alternative suggests a lack of comformity and a lack of respect for the system (whatever system not only science system)... so we must fear alternative ...no one wants change and that is a fact.

The guy who worked out what actually caused ulsers was laughed at because his idea did not fit the current learning and yet he turned the treatment of the condition on its ear...now if one had a nice practice in Macquarie Street specialising in treatment of the condition on the basis of causes being related to stress and purchased your world on the income from same you would reject any new treatments no doubt... but such a responce points to human nature not to a flaw in science ...the new guy actually went back to old and out of date treatments to see what they may offer...He discovered that in the old days the condition was treated with bismuth which pointed him to the consideratrion that ulsers may be caused by bacteria and not stress...no doubt the folk who knew more had not given their predessessors any recognition that there was some hope in their olden day approach to treatment... but as I understand the matter although very much any alternative approach it turned out to be correct.

Now we all know alternatives signals "crack pot" but I would suggest the application of a simple line from something I read a long time ago...Desetarata (spelling?) but it goes like this..."listern to the dull and the ignorant for they to have their story"... and maybe this simply points to a mechanism to remind us that as much as we think we know it all a fool may point out something not obvious to us, it may be a simple fact overlooked by repeated specialisation and refinement of an idea which thru the introduction of greater complexity sees the original premise hidden from simple scrutiny...

I am dull ignorant and old but perhaps less determined to accept ideas as fact simply because there is a wonderful equation to support the idea .... or to accept anything really that does not add up just because someone else thinks they could never be wrong.
alex:):):)

[sjastro]

So much for promises.



Carl,

Try reading it in the context of the paragraph not as an isolated statement.

Once again a logical fallacy. FTL is incorrect on the basis of theory, observation and experiment. To argue that FTL may be correct is an assumption in itself that not only contradicts the current science (now) without proof, but requires the future to have a definite outcome.

An obvious question that arises is where do you draw the line with this mode of argument? Why simply confine it to FLT, why not perpetual motion machines? The logical extension is to science itself.

In other words lets have science turn itself on its head, deny its own experimental and observational data and attempt to second guess itself.


I know that it was tongue in cheek.

Steven

[renormalised]

They were meant to be broken:P:D

[TrevorW]

Three green skinned multi segmented insectoid aliens in the distant galaxy of Xanadu having a chat

"Are we the only life in the universe"

"Off course look at the requirements planetary position, gravity, atmospheric composition etc needed for us too exist, that can't be by chance it must have been the work of the almighty Whogivesacrap"

"Well then what about UFO's"

"Figments of our own imagination to satisfy a personal desire that we are not alone in the universe"

"Okay then who believes in faster than quark travel"

"It'll never happen, the laws of Nocando, can't be broken"

"Do you mean we are stuck here on this overcrowded, polluted planet for all of our 2000 cycles"

"No, I think Wannagetoutoffhere is working on it and should have the problem solved in the next 100 cycles"

[FredSnerd]

I knew you couldnt keep away. Its in the blood man.



Its a furphy. Whether in context or not.

Steven, you cant hope it to be logically fallacious. It must be illogical in fact. You know. Any child will tell you that to say that something may be correct is not to assume that it is correct. With all due respect you really need to step back a bit on this one.



Because the subject is so new. Relatively speaking:rofl:
We know so very little about it and your wanting to close the book on it all and say. This is the way it is. They have a name for this approach, its called "jumping to conclusions". Bad idea and very unscientific. Lets get more data in before we declare it to be impossible.

OK, we'll let you off the hook this time but you know, anyone who didnt know you better might have thought you were putting that argument for real.

[FredSnerd]

Couldnt agree more Trevor

[renormalised]

You still don't get a thing I have written, Steven. What I have said, all along, is this...we don't know. You are correct in stating that, presently, theory and such says it is incorrect and a false assumption. However, you're assuming that the present state of knowledge will continue on into the future, and that in itself is a logical fallacy. Where's your proof in that?? There is none. You can only summise that a premise once held will always be held. What I have tried to impress upon you is that instead of arbitrarily dismissing something just because it doesn't fit in now, doesn't mean we should always do so. Neither you or I have any clue as to what the state of knowledge in physics will be in 50, 100, 200 or more years. It doesn't mean that it's open slather for everything, but that some things are more likely than others, and maybe some things will always remain off limits.

It's not about turning science on its head or anything like that, it's about breaking out of comfortable paradigms and looking outside boxes. If you stop asking questions, you won't get any answers. If you're not willing or unable to look at something anew, then you'll just sit there and slowly move along.

You want to know where all this was coming from??. I wrote in an early post this....let's take this generalisation: assuming (for the sake of argument) that all these UFO's (or at least some of them) are exactly what they are, extraterrestrial spacecraft. If that's the case, what does that say about our present knowledge of physics and the possibility of FTL travel. Unless they live for many thousands of years and don't mind traveling at below c, it can only mean 2 things...

1) Our present knowledge of physics is seriously lacking in relation to this: i.e. they use methods we are not aware of,

or,

2)We can't see the forest for the trees: i.e. we have come up with a way but just don't realise it yet because we've been blinkered by what we presently believe to be the case.

In either case, what we should do is experiment and find out. Then whatever the outcome, we include that in our body of knowledge.

[sjastro]

No Carl that is not what I am advocating. If you read my posts carefully you would note I use the terms now and current very deliberately.
I also mentioned the implications on causality if a premise is proven to be incorrect.
A premise is correct as it stands now. You can't go faster than light as theory stands now. A theory will be disproven through observation and experiment. Scientific method at work.
What you don't do is to assume the theory is incorrect to start with on the basis that it will be proven so in the future. That is an example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work.

Or aliens don't exist.

[renormalised]

I have read your statements carefully, and I know you have chosen your words carefully, but you are still making the assumption of what holds now will be the same in the future, even if you're only implying it in the spirit of your posts. I am assuming that this may or may not be the case. But neither of us knows what the actual outcome will be, because neither of us can predict what we'll know down the track. I am not disputing what is in current theory (remember that word...theory). What I am saying is if there are alternative ideas floating about, that haven't been tested (which they haven't), that may (and I stress, may) lead to a different answer to the questions being asked, then it is wise to do those experiments and see what happens. If they turn out false, then so be it. If they turn out true, then great. But don't presume that because we think we know what the truth is (from what we've done up until the present) now, that it'll necessarily remain so in the future. It may, it may not.



That statement is excluded from the argument. The whole question was prefaced by this: assuming (for the sake of argument), so that negates that premise.

However, it is a possibility and one which would, by necessity, change the premise of the initial argument (if it was included).

[TrevorW]

:argue::fight::mad: :einstein: :love2:

[renormalised]

hahaha:P:D

Hey Steven....looks like we're bilingual. We seem to be arguing in Japanese, and dueling with lightsabres:P:D

Uncle Albert's there telling us to "Schtop zis sillinezz!!":P:D

That last emoticon...I don't think I want to go there!!!. That's too much info!!:P:D

Just had a thought....if we could figure out how to foreshorten highly focused beams of light or charged particles and create a lightsabre, we'll make a killing (literally) on the arms market!!:P :D

[FredSnerd]

Steven

I understand that you have a great deal of experiance and knowledge in this area and so it would be quite a pity if we couldnt utilise that. Soooo I wonder if you might reconsider. Why not pretend for a moment that Carl is a politician (sorry Carl) and he comes to you and he says if we dont get to FAsuKtil-B49XZ//\\5.2 (which is 10 billion light years away) in the next 50 years the world will end. What do you think might be the best avenue to explore for achieveng that. Now I understand that your immediate inclination might be to say its impossible but after Carl shows you that what lies ahead is certain destruction of humanity, you might want to reconsider the possibilities mighten you. Why dont you give it a try and let us in on what direction you think might be the most fruitful and why.

[renormalised]

You were close, I was once the VP of a political party:D:D

[FredSnerd]

The "VP"? I know I'll kick myself when you say

[FredSnerd]

Vice President. God its age isnt it.

[Nesti]

Explains the 'Pit-Bull' characteristics :D:D:D:D

[renormalised]

Precisely:P:D

But I can assure you I had no dealing in the vice...that was the treasurer's and president's jobs:P:D

[FredSnerd]

Thats what they all say of course

[renormalised]

No, that comes from being a very good debater and being too smart for my own good at school:P:D

[Nesti]

"at school" :P:D

[renormalised]

Yep, right at that place:P:D

[TrevorW]

Sorry guys but I recently read this text and it seemed logical

"You and I are rational beings yet we have faith. Faith is belief despite the total absence of proof , it is not reasonable in any way. Dogmatists attempt to create a logic of rules, so dogma is almost antithetical to faith"

In other words although it isn't plausible based on our current understanding we argue over a possibility we have no way of knowing may or may not happen at some future point in time.

So you both have valid points of view, neither of you are right or wrong.

[renormalised]

That's precisely what I have been saying all along:D

The whole premise of my original question was a hypothetical, that's why I prefaced it with "assuming (for the sake of argument)":D:D

[sjastro]

No I don't. This line of argument also fails to "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

To assume that a premise is correct today will also it be correct tomorrow is a logical fallacy.
To assume a premise is incorrect today because it will be corrected tomorrow is also logical fallacy.

It doesn't leave any scope does it.:)

For me the whole issue of considering that FLT travel is possible in the future is superfluous. Whether it will occur or not obviously has no impact on science today.
Theoretical physics is hard enough to comprehend today without trying to project it into the future.
For me it's the current issues that count.

So Carl if FTL travel occurs in our lifetime you can send me a 4-D spacetime video E-mail message on your Windows ZZZZ driven quantum computer telling me "I told you so".:lol:

Steven

[sjastro]

I hope Trevor is not having some weird fantasy.:)

[renormalised]

I have a very nervous twitch about this one!!!:P:P:D:D

[renormalised]

You do know I'm sending this via subspace carrier link from Deep Space 16, out by the border with the Orion Confederation, don't you??. It's coming to you from 1600ly away:D:D

[renormalised]

Had any thoughts on the lightsabre idea??:P:P:D:D