Sign in to follow this  
Holo

Shared Future Timeline (Editable Google Doc Inside)

Recommended Posts

Who do think I'm going to trust, you or Einstein?

Eistein has been dead for 50 years. It is time to re-think some of his ideals. Last thing I need is another dark age from people who refuse to re-think. (I.e Medical Research on blood, idiots refuse to re-thinks dn those who do get severe critism.)

Our understanding today is unexpected to the people in the 1800's, unimaginable to those in the 1700's, magic to those in the 1600's, heresy to those in the 1500's, and witchcraft to those in the 1400's.

Simply, the technology of our interstellar descendants will be pure magic to us. FTL communication is magic to you, but it will certainly be found in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like claiming we'll be able to build perpetual motion motion machines in the future. Causality is just as foundational to physics as conservation of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's like claiming we'll be able to build perpetual motion motion machines in the future. Causality is just as foundational to physics as conservation of energy.

"There is no way an rocket can leave Earth."- NY Times, 1926.

We landed on the moon using rockets.

We built spacestations with rockets.

We sent machines to Mars and the outer planets using rockets.

Everything is possible.

We could enclose important transmissions in a warp bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the statements of the new york times are physical laws now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the statements of the new york times are physical laws now?

If that was true, we would not have NASA, we would not have airplanes, etc.

Don't hate because I'm questioning Eisteins theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that was true, we would not have NASA, we would not have airplanes, etc.

Don't hate because I'm questioning Eisteins theories.

There will be a moment when there will be no other way to be than right, if that point hasn't come yet, it will some time. You have to understand that, we don't live in a perfect world of limitless expansion and invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two options here;

1) Our understanding of extremely basic physical laws in 1926 meant it would be impossible for a rocket to reach space.

2) The reporter in a non-scientific publication had no clue what they were talking about.

1 is required for your example to actually be relevant, but doesn't work any time after Newton, never mind Einstein. 2 happens every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. If you find a universe with infinite energy, why not just use that?

I can't possibly answer that as this is becoming paradoxal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two options here;

1) Our understanding of extremely basic physical laws in 1926 meant it would be impossible for a rocket to reach space.

2) The reporter in a non-scientific publication had no clue what they were talking about.

1 is required for your example to actually be relevant, but doesn't work any time after Newton, never mind Einstein. 2 happens every day.

1. Our understanding of the universe is still extremely primitive.

2. We could use mini-wormholes/Acclubirre drives to send probes equipped with messages, or maybe even the radio waves themselves.

I'm happy that I'm holding up! This could turn out to be an interesting debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Our understanding of the universe is still extremely primitive.

2. We could use mini-wormholes/Acclubirre drives to send probes equipped with messages, or maybe even the radio waves themselves.

I'm happy that I'm holding up! This could turn out to be an interesting debate!

1. What are you judging that by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What are you judging that by?

The fact that scientific discoveries are still being made, and don't seem to be slowing down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of these physical discoveries are overturning basic laws like causality and conservation of energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that was true, we would not have NASA, we would not have airplanes, etc.

Don't hate because I'm questioning Eisteins theories.

NASAFanboy,

No on is disagreeing with you because you are questioning Einstein. Everyone questions Einstein - modern scientists have done it every day for the past 50 years, and will do it every single day into the foreseeable future. The difference, however, is most people who question Einstein do so with a hypothesis, or to prove their new discoveries valid.

You are questioning Einstein simply because history suggests everything we know will be found to be incorrect as time goes on. I feel like that's the wrong reason to question Einstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy,

No on is disagreeing with you because you are questioning Einstein. Everyone questions Einstein - modern scientists have done it every day for the past 50 years, and will do it every single day into the foreseeable future. The difference, however, is most people who question Einstein do so with a hypothesis, or to prove their new discoveries valid.

You are questioning Einstein simply because history suggests everything we know will be found to be incorrect as time goes on. I feel like that's the wrong reason to question Einstein.

It's an hypothesis. To sum it up;

Faster than light communication is possible, through use of wormholes/mini-Aclubierre drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many of these physical discoveries are overturning basic laws like causality and conservation of energy?

The trick isn't to overturn these laws. The trick is to do something that achieves the desired outcome while obeying these laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an hypothesis. To sum it up; Faster than light communication is possible, through use of wormholes/mini-Aclubierre drives.

That's not an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis. It's useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis. It's useless.

Perhaps not. I believe it may be within the laws of physics. Therefore, its not completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eistein has been dead for 50 years. It is time to re-think some of his ideals. Last thing I need is another dark age from people who refuse to re-think.

But they have been trying to re-think some of his ideas. For about a hundred years now. And they have failed every single time. All they have managed to do is verify the accuracy of relativity to even more decimal places.

But that is not the point. :wink:

The point is: Einstein's work is keeping you from having your precious FTL communication, the meany. And yet again the same old fallacy rises from the grave.

This happens so regularly I added a page to my website about it. The relevant section can be found here

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/respectscience.php#id--"Maybe_A_Future_Scientific_Breakthrough_Will_Let_Me_Have_My_Way"

Perhaps not. I believe it may be within the laws of physics. Therefore, its not completely useless.

BZZZZZT! Not the right answer, thank you for playing!

If you read the about the scientific method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

you may be surprised to find that part of the mechanism is to diminish the effect of "belief", since it is counter-productive.

But before it was hijacked, this thread was about a shared future timeline.

There are some science fiction writers who play about with alternate timelines

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/althistory.php

Edited by nyrath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyrath replied to your argument, we can all go home now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis. It's useless.

.

:confused:

.

You build the device, you activate it. Works ? Good for you. Doesn't work ? Hypothesis falsified. Just tell me, how it could not be a testable hypothesis ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there's no 'the device' to be found in that statement. It just says it's possible, somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except there's no 'the device' to be found in that statement.
It's an hypothesis. To sum it up;

Faster than light communication is possible, through use of wormholes/mini-Aclubierre drives.

devices are marked red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are extremely generic descriptors. Say I have I have a prototype Aclubierre[sic] drive, and I turn it on, and nothing happens. Have I been able to disprove the statement above? Or do I just need to rejig the flux capacitor, or the lambda core, or just use a totally different design? A hypothesis needs to be able to make specific predictions to be testable, and that one simply doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really just speculation, you don't really need a hypothesis. Just chalk down your FTL drive to extreme conditions where Einstein's predictions don't match reality.

*cough cough* magic tachyons

Edited by Holo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this