Seriously thoughtful In science we Trust.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But see the important thing here is that the Scientific Method worked.

KennyC, I'm not complaining about the Scientific Method, although I believe the falsification method (Described by C.P.Snow) is the most effective variant. I'm complaining about Science being taken as Dogma, often by the very scientists themselves, who saintly insist that there is no Dogma in Science...

Ask just about any Physicist about the Ether...

[kennyc]

I understand and even agree, just don't want it to seem that that is par for the course.

At least Science has a method of detecting and correcting unlike true dogmas like religion as Harry said here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...8&postcount=98

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I understand and even agree, just don't want it to seem that that is par for the course.

At least Science has a method of detecting and correcting unlike true dogmas like religion as Harry said here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...8&postcount=98

But Kenny, when I point out an unexplored question in physics, HarryT and NYRath jump down my throat, because the result might conflict with their Dogma. ..

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But Kenny, when I point out an unexplored question in physics, HarryT and NYRath jump down my throat, because the result might conflict with their Dogma. ..

That's because you are not following the process.

It has nothing to do with dogma from what I see.

You and I also disagree on Global Warming, nothing to do with dogma that I see.

The science is clear.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But Kenny, when I point out an unexplored question in physics, HarryT and NYRath jump down my throat, because the result might conflict with their Dogma. ..

Not at all; I simply pointed out that you had not actually put forward a scientifically meaningful proposal, and therefore there was nothing to be taken seriously or otherwise.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all; I simply pointed out that you had not actually , and therefore there was nothing to be taken seriously or otherwise.

Could you please describe what you mean by "put forward a scientifically meaningful proposal"?

Is this an issue of form, content, or guild membership?

(When I first pointed this potential loophole out, it was in the context of providing a S/F writer a undisproven excuse for a FTL drive for a story, which seem to vastly offend several other people here.)

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by LCF

New inventions that would cut the money flow from powerful people get "lost". It's harder to do in the Internet age, but it's still the way things are.

This is demonstrably false - mp3s and mp3 players essentially dismantled the music publishing world as we know it. Attempts to make the mp3 player illegal quite notably failed.

I would be interested in counter-examples, of course.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I would be interested in counter-examples, of course.

Well, the Stonecutters hold back the electric car.

[Joebill]

Interestingly, there have been theoretical physicists that have come up with possible means to exceed the speed of light. Discovery science has documentaries that discuss this. They do point out that it will require some scientific breakthroughs to accomplish.

[Music&Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Could you please describe what you mean by "put forward a scientifically meaningful proposal"?

Seriously folks, let's get a grip. Music is where it's at! Here's my scientifically meaningful proposal for Ralph Sir Edward who lives in an outhouse, at least that's what his avatar looks like (no offense intended) and who's been posting here for so long his karma is off the chart.

A one-ee and a two-ee ... that's how Lawrence Welk started his band back in the dark ages. More musical sophisticates get beyond the 2/4 and 3/4 and 4/4 thing. Like, how about an odd-meter or two ?? 5/8 or 7/8 or alternating 3/4-6/8 with a 9/8 thrown in? Why is everyone so focused on contemplating what's up with the universe? Life is short and you're dead for a long time. Listen to music and chill out! Try something new! Forget the rolling stone-heads and the twangy gui-tar bands. How about some Igor Stravinsky or Ahmad Jamal? Or Steve Reich and Geri Allen.

You'll have to forgive me. I took all the math classes I could stand on the way to a degree in applied math. [burp] Hate to sound like a grouch, but debates about global warming I can get on CNN.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Interestingly, there have been theoretical physicists that have come up with possible means to exceed the speed of light. Discovery science has documentaries that discuss this. They do point out that it will require some scientific breakthroughs to accomplish.

As I understand it, the Theory of General Relativity does not say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, only that nothing can accelerate to that point. Tachyons, the hypothetical particles known to all fans of Star Trek, would move at superluminal speeds, but they would still be subject to the limitations imposed by the General Theory in that they could never decelerate to a slower than light speed.

Are there any physicists out there who could tell me if I got that right?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Are there any physicists out there who could tell me if I got that right?

Not a physicist or even a mathmagician, but you're right the detail that tachyons-- according to theory-- would always travel faster than light. From the math, the slower a tachyon moves the more energy is required, so energy needed to slow a tachyon to the speed of light asymptotically approaches infinity, just as accelerating a particle with a positive rest mass to light speed would take literally an infinite amount of energy. There are also minor issues like imaginary mass, negative energy, and backwards time travel-- myself, I suspect that they are a mathematical artifact and not a real thing.

Good writeup on wikipedia.

[Joebill]

I heard about tachyons and tardyons some years ago. We are basically in a Universe of tardyons ( sounds like being late to school... :-)

And that there is a barrier region where tachyons cannot slow down to, and tardyons cannot speed up to, the barrier of the speed of light.

I have read a few claims years ago that it sounds like the old Sound Barrier problem...

It isn't the same type of thing of course. A jet fighter doesn't get heavier, and closer to be an infinitely flattened plane, as it approaches the speed of sound.

I still see occasional claims that show me that some folks out there don't understand the Speed barrier and Light Barrier differences.

Haven't seen that here, just wanted to mention it happens.

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Joebill

And that there is a barrier region where tachyons cannot slow down to, and tardyons cannot speed up to, the barrier of the speed of light.

I have read a few claims years ago that it sounds like the old Sound Barrier problem...

It isn't the same type of thing of course. A jet fighter doesn't get heavier, and closer to be an infinitely flattened plane, as it approaches the speed of sound.

I still see occasional claims that show me that some folks out there don't understand the Speed barrier and Light Barrier differences.

Yes, sadly that is a very common misconception
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html#barrier

Almost always it comes up because that big bully Scientific Knowledge is telling the author/fan/whatever You Can't Do That.

You can't have a perpetual motion machine because the second law of thermodynamics forbids it. You can't have a starship with a FTL starsdrive because of that meany Einstein and the law of causality. And so on.

So these things come up as people desperately attempt to refute scientific theories they find inconvenient.

James Nicoll called this the SFnal Lysenkoist Tendency: when actual, tested science contradicts some detail in an SF story, attack the science.

[italianReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree, but that is a fault in the individual sicentist rather than in the "scientiific method". That is the fundamental difference between science and religion: science is based on evidence, and will change its views if the evidence contradicts the theory; religion is much less willing (or, alas, sometimes occasionally entirely unwilling) to do so.

You need to consider that the theology investigates a very different subject and that probably a "pseudo-scientific method" simply doesn't fit in that context.

Between science and theology there are surely several differences but I think that there is no contrast between the different "Truths" that they try to give us. Every "contender" does the best in its own field.