NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just curious what the tech levels in NS are? I've come to understand that the following are as is:

MT: up to 2008
PMT: 2009 to 2020
FT: 2020+

Am I correct in these? I can't seem to find a sticky on it...

Its pretty subjective. The MT weaponry of the rl United States may be decades away for other nation. Plus, MT changes everyday.

Also, technology in 2020 will not be that far removed from today. Remember, most of the world's military arsenal has been operating since at least the 1980s (MiG-29, M1 and Challenger tank series) and early 1990s (Su-27?), with many things dating back to the 1970s (F-15, T-72), 1960s (F-14) and even 1950s (MiG-21, B-52). The most advanced technology coming out right now will probably still be in service in 2020, with sufficient upgrades. Given that an F-22 or an F-35 mounting a microwave gun or a turbine-powered laser does not really hold against the ubiquitous futuretech space fighter, I think those dates are somewhat off.

Probably a better way to estimate it is to use literary examples. Modern Tech would have things that one could read in Tom Clancy novels. Post-Modern or Near-Future Tech would be all the things we could do today but don't because they're too expensive or unfeasible at the moment, which you find in other military thrillers. Future Tech goes all the way up to Weber's Culture series. I know at least one person who has things based on General System Vehicles lying around... and that's nowhere near 2020 technology.

Didn't Ian M Banks write the Culture series?
As a rule, anything that doesn't break a known physical law, is probably not FT. I'm gonna take examples from SF here, so bear with me. Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' sequence is post modern/near future tech, cos it is a direct development from modern times (the timeline begins with a Mars landing in 2020, and ends somewhere in the 23rd century - 2213 I think). Another example of postmodern is Peter F Hamilton's 'Greg Mandel' series. However, Ian M Banks' Culture series of novels is very definitely FT, as it is set thousands of years in the future. The borderline (and exception to the above rule) is probably Alastair Reynolds' 'Inhibitiors' sequence, as although all the tech is firmly rooted in modern science, with a hinted at timeline going back to the 21st century, the level of technology and society is so different from today it is probably FT.

Bear in mind that I don't do any RP'ing, I just really like my SF!(did you guess?) As such, the RP'ers may have different opinions on this.

In my opinion, if you want hovercraft tanks and spaceplanes, with a bit of interplanetary travel on the side go for Postmodern/near future. If you want teleporters, hive minds, and galactic war, you're in FT territory, boyo.

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work. My own graviton jump drives actually exploit the laws of physics to allow FTL travel (to get an idea, imagine a dynamite-powered slingshot).

Oh, and here is a proper way of doing it:

Ancient Tech- Up to 1500 CE
Premodern- 1500-1900 CE
Modern- 1900-2020 CE
Postmodern- 2020-2100 (give or take, as with some cases Postmodern doesn't actually start until as late as 2060).
Future Tech- 1800-Whenever CE

There is a reason for that overlapping of future tech with others. The reason is that if you go with certain pieces of fiction, you have time travel as early as the 1800s and a lot of recent science fiction is taking place entirely in the current era and not some distant future. StarGate, which is very popular as a source of ideas on NS, is a prime example of this. Then you have nations such as my own, which timeline-wise actually start before the current era but technology-wise are millenia ahead. The FT nations with the oldest, timeline-wise, access to FT actually start before Earth even existed, though in some cases the Multiple Earth Phenomena (TM)(C)(R) helps deal with this.

As it stands, you can't stick FT in a timeline without dealing with the fact it overlaps multiple technology levels and the fact it may predate most of them. Which would be the greatest of ironies.

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.

Like the known physical law that it's impossible to travel faster than light, you mean?

Like the known physical law that it's impossible to travel faster than light, you mean?

You are aware, in the original formula it was a reflective asymptote, not a single-sided graph? And Einstein got rid of the other side - rather messily - only to later comment it may not have been the correct thing to do?

It is not a "known physical law", it is an accepted physical law. Very different thing - too many mathematical bits and pieces point out while light may not be able to move faster then light, there are no justifiable reasons other things cannot.

People used to assume if you went 60mph in a train, everyone would fly to the back and crush. That was wrong as well. Sorry, GMC, but I'll wager heavily on their being a way to move "Translight".

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work. My own graviton jump drives actually exploit the laws of physics to allow FTL travel (to get an idea, imagine a dynamite-powered slingshot).What are you doing here? You're obviously the physics genius that just replaced Einstein's relativity with something better! Come on, you cannot afford to hide this brilliant knowledge from the rest of the world! Show us!

Oh, or you're a complete idiot with delusions of grandeur.

As a rule, anything that doesn't break a known physical law, is probably not FT.Errr... I disagree. By definition, we don't know what the future will bring us. As such, 'futuretech' is a ludicrous term. Hence, why I tend to prefer 'Science Fiction' to 'Futuretech'. It prevents the above kind of utter wank 'But it's realistic!!!11' by simply admitting that you're bending various kinds of technological and physical (And even mathematical) limitations.

'Modern' on the other hand is quite simply everything we can do IRL. (Although we might not actually do it for practical purposes. But successful experiments are a necessity for some claim to be *modern*). And the likes of Sileetris, going with plasma cannons shooting half way to the moon as 'postmodern' are, quite simply, silly.

I'm just curious what the tech levels in NS are? I've come to understand that the following are as is:

MT: up to 2008
PMT: 2009 to 2020
FT: 2020+

Am I correct in these? I can't seem to find a sticky on it...Errr... There are no... Fixed definitions? None whatsoever?

'Sides, i believe this thread is for, say, II, not for gameplay.

It is not a "known physical law", it is an accepted physical law. Very different thing - too many mathematical bits and pieces point out while light may not be able to move faster then light, there are no justifiable reasons other things cannot.*Wonders how light *could* move faster than, well, light*

Now, care to point out this 'mathematical bits and pieces' rather than just claiming that they are there? Perhaps even including experimental evidence?

Very different thing - too many mathematical bits and pieces point out while light may not be able to move faster then light, there are no justifiable reasons other things cannot.

Extremely exotic subatomic particles that are only barely theorised to exist and macroscopic spacecraft are different things, y'know. Also, something that is mathematically postulated hardly fits DLE's 'will actually work' criteria since by definition we don't know if it'll work or not.

People used to assume if you went 60mph in a train, everyone would fly to the back and crush. That was wrong as well. Sorry, GMC, but I'll wager heavily on their being a way to move "Translight".

Explain how this applies to DLE's claim that he's out-thought the entire scientific community of this planet by inventing 'ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.'

And your example is wrong too, it was assumed they'd asphyxiate, and it was not generally accepted, IIRC, unless you can provide a citation to the contrary.

Doesn't matter how it all works. They're all plot devices, in the end. That's what's important, the story. Nobody got anywhere fast in the fiction world just by listing out fancy statistics and mathematical sums. Mainly because they're boring.

Ghargonia is future-tech. Though they were originally written to exist in our current, modern timeline, before NS even existed, they are aliens. With space ships. That fly around in space.

Doesn't matter how it all works...Mainly because they're boring.
:eek: How could you? How you get there is just as important as where you're going.

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work. My own graviton jump drives actually exploit the laws of physics to allow FTL travel (to get an idea, imagine a dynamite-powered slingshot).
I'm intrigued, do continue. Gravitons were postulated as a method of carrying gravtitational force, kind of like photons I think, and I think have been disproved/discarded/whatever. A dynamite powered slingshot sounds like (apart from great fun) a powerful catapult, which wouldn't be able to break the light barrier. I'll go into the physics if you want?

It is not a "known physical law", it is an accepted physical law. Very different thing - too many mathematical bits and pieces point out while light may not be able to move faster then light, there are no justifiable reasons other things cannot.(Bold mine) Yes there is, if you're talking about conventional matter, anyway. Tachyonic matter is, as GMC said, very much thoretical, it is not even certain that current models accept them.



As a rule, anything that doesn't break a known physical law, is probably not FT.

Errr... I disagree. By definition, we don't know what the future will bring us. As such, 'futuretech' is a ludicrous term. Hence, why I tend to prefer 'Science Fiction' to 'Futuretech'. It prevents the above kind of utter wank 'But it's realistic!!!11' by simply admitting that you're bending various kinds of technological and physical (And even mathematical) limitations.
Yeah alright. Like wormhole FTL isn't breaking a known physical law, but is definitely FT/Science fiction

:eek: How could you? How you get there is just as important as where you're going.

How technology works is very important in real life. But not in a story. It only matters that it does work. Stories filled with as much technobabble as some of the ones on NS are invariably dull.

Errr... There are no... Fixed definitions? None whatsoever?

'Sides, i believe this thread is for, say, II, not for gameplay.

Interesting. Yes I would have put it there but GAMEPLAY issues and this being a GAMEPLAY issue warranted me to put it here. If it should have been in II the mods would have surely moved it by now.

I play early Postmodern Tech in 2020. Actually, I play multitech, because my military power is medium-late Modern Tech, but my economic and social form is more of a Postmodern Tech. For god's sake, my government is a computer! Honestly! Not a good computer at that, it is Postmodern after all, but seriously, the computer is the middleman between the people's ideas and the actions that follow.

I play early Postmodern Tech in 2020. Actually, I play multitech, because my military power is medium-late Modern Tech, but my economic and social form is more of a Postmodern Tech. For god's sake, my government is a computer! Honestly! Not a good computer at that, it is Postmodern after all, but seriously, the computer is the middleman between the people's ideas and the actions that follow.

So what is medium-late Modern Tech and where does PMT start for you?

Interesting. Yes I would have put it there but GAMEPLAY issues and this being a GAMEPLAY issue warranted me to put it here. If it should have been in II the mods would have surely moved it by now.

That's what I thought when the GP forum was instituted, especially as the description was given. But as it has turned out, at least in my understanding, GP is for region invaders and discussion of aspects of the "game", and not discussions of RP matters.

edit: see this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301573

That's what I thought when the GP forum was instituted, especially as the description was given. But as it has turned out, at least in my understanding, GP is for region invaders and discussion of aspects of the "game", and not discussions of RP matters.

But shouldn't RP be included within the "game"?

But shouldn't RP be included within the "game"?

As I said, I thought so, but apparantly not.
See the sticky I linked. It says:
What the Gameplay Forum is for, in a general sense


Talk about regional politics, and why llamas are a cooler national animal than squirrels.


Compiled from the ideas of Qaaolchoura and others at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/v...ic.php?t=100826

The Gameplay Forum is neither another RP forum, nor a new Tech Forum, but rather, a forum for discussing puppets, parody nations, UN rankings, in-game empires, the issues surrounding region crashing, region hoppers, etc. That is to say a forum for those activities which exist in the NS World regional domain and are not truly role-play, but are semi-IC, and therefore fall into a sort of no-man's land between Technical, NationStates, Moderation, and General. A forum, essentially, for players of the NS World side of the game to discuss their technical maneuvres and the underlying politics.

The Gameplay Forum is therefore broadly for NS World issues, not Forum issues. This would include:

* Discussion of in-game technical maneuvres and the underlying politics, more specifically:
o Regional politics, inter-regional relations, rivalries and alliances.
o Discussion of and responses to events in NS World, such as diplomatic crises, etc.
o The merits, tactics and etiquette of region crashing and defending.
* Regional publicity and PR, in the form of, but not necessarily limited to:
o Region Directories / Recruitment.
o Regional Forum / Website Directory.
* Issues relating to nation and region configurations / customisable fields and ownership, such as:
o Discussion of witty or apt comments for mottos and other customisable fields.
o Showing off / discussing parody nations.
o Descriptions / discussion of puppets and about others' puppets.
o Description of non-RP-related national characteristics.
o Flag Services.
o Map Services.
* Discussion of methods that people use to occupy their time in the Game.
* Discussions about semi-IC themed regions.
* Discussions about region hopping (not just Bunny, there are plenty of region hoppers with much smaller, more focused circuits).
* Miscellaneous issues involving use of the NS World game engine.

But not forum-based role-play. If you have moved some UN nations into someone else's region and have assumed control, that belongs here. If you have sent some armoured divisions on their way to someone's nation's capital, that belongs in NS or II. This forum exists so that NS World players can have a semi-IC forum to themselves without RP, for which there are already two forums in existence.

It makes it pretty clear GP is not for RP.

(IMO there should be another OOC RP forum where discussion of these sorts of things should take place. It's been suggested several times, but so far nothing has been done, even though I understand some mods agree. Maybe it's time to suggest it again.)

As I said, I thought so, but apparantly not.
See the sticky I linked. It says:


It makes it pretty clear GP is not for RP.

(IMO there should be another OOC RP forum where discussion of these sorts of things should take place. It's been suggested several times, but so far nothing has been done, even though I understand some mods agree. Maybe it's time to suggest it again.)

Well interesting. I was not aware of that and that sticky must have slipped my radar. Maybe you are right though, it is time for a technical, OOC, RP forum.

So what is medium-late Modern Tech and where does PMT start for you?
For me, Postmodern Tech starts around 2020. Modern Tech for me would start at around 1960-70, and medium MT would be around 1990-2010. But I don't really know.

Modern tech in strategy games usually starts around WW1 and lasts until the 21st century, after that is usually known as the Information/Digital era.

So 2011 to 2020 would be late modern-tech?

Well interesting. I was not aware of that and that sticky must have slipped my radar. Maybe you are right though, it is time for a technical, OOC, RP forum.

Second from the top (at the moment).


And on the question at hand, I would allow as modern only those things that have been demonstrated to work. When I played modern I disallowed things that some players considered "modern" such as rail and ETC cannons and scramjet munitions.

Like the known physical law that it's impossible to travel faster than light, you mean?

Actually, that's a misconception. It's impossible to travel at the speed of light using current physics, but not faster than it. Then, when you consider the fact photon speeds are actually variable due to reasons I don't even pretend to want to look up, it becomes even more complicated because sometimes light itself travels faster than the speed of light. The ruse is how to bypass the light barrier without travelling at the speed of light itself.

Extremely exotic subatomic particles that are only barely theorised to exist and macroscopic spacecraft are different things, y'know. Also, something that is mathematically postulated hardly fits DLE's 'will actually work' criteria since by definition we don't know if it'll work or not.

If the particles exist, the devices will work, though the power and technological requirements alone require an extremely advanced civilization to pull off to begin with. Hell, my own nation justifies having the tech by stealing from the ruins of the people who actually invented it.

Explain how this applies to DLE's claim that he's out-thought the entire scientific community of this planet by inventing 'ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.'

Actually, I based a lot of it off of postulations about what could be done with gravitons if they exist. The idea is to take multiple graviton generators, which by the most conservative estimates require plasma to operate at all and matter/antimatter reactors to operate at anything resembling efficiency, and use them to coat the ship with a field of gravitons that warps space/time, then building up an unstable field of gravitons behind the ship and allowing the field behind the ship to lose integrity. The field itself has to be massive, so you also have to use the field of gravitons covering the ship to compensate for the resulting shockwave. More advanced versions incorporate antigravitons into the field behind the ship with a mass approximate to that of a large black hole.

It's based on how black holes warp space/time through their massive gravity. The problem is that anyone can tell you this requires millions of years to develop at best and possibly billions at worst.

For detecting this, all it requires is modern technology. The larger ships show up as massive sources of gravity while fully active, with the Graviton Destroyers detecting as the equivolent of a large planet. Because the gravity travels so fast, however, most people ignore the readings and move on. It should be noted that using those graviton fields in large natural sources of gravity, such as planetary atmospheres and around black holes, results in the graviton field being disrupted. The results are, well, pretty much the same as a submarine suddenly 5000 feet below crush depth.

What are you doing here? You're obviously the physics genius that just replaced Einstein's relativity with something better! Come on, you cannot afford to hide this brilliant knowledge from the rest of the world! Show us!

Oh, or you're a complete idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't even take antimatter into consideration, and we all know it exists. Nor does it rule out faster-than-light travel. All he decided to do was give science half of the bell curve and later on he was questioning the wisdom of that.

For inventing the tech: Why bother? Even if I did come up with a way to create gravitons right now and all of the technical plans to build those ships, I'm not sure if humanity can be trusted with the knowledge. After all, one of the first things they did with the Theory of Relativity is build a bomb. I may be able to trust individuals, but as a whole I doubt humanity is honestly civilized enough to handle the tech with the proper care and respect without accidentally blowing up Earth first.

I'm intrigued, do continue. Gravitons were postulated as a method of carrying gravtitational force, kind of like photons I think, and I think have been disproved/discarded/whatever. A dynamite powered slingshot sounds like (apart from great fun) a powerful catapult, which wouldn't be able to break the light barrier. I'll go into the physics if you want?

I have yet to see anything about them being disproved, but I do know that Dark Matter is more popular at the moment. Might have been discarded, much like the idea that giant squid can exist. If it turns out to exist, I already have a use for it.

To be fair, we have NO idea what exactly would happen to a ship at speeds faster than light. Special relativity predicts an imaginary number for both time dilation and mass dilation at and above C.

Most FT nations I've seen deal with this by warping space to make the distances shorter, rather than making the ship faster. Either that, or they use wormholes, transitions "through" space, or various other exotic predictions of quantum mechanics.

Second from the top (at the moment).


And on the question at hand, I would allow as modern only those things that have been demonstrated to work. When I played modern I disallowed things that some players considered "modern" such as rail and ETC cannons and scramjet munitions.

ETC guns, in a small nature (tank & artillery) are entirely feasible. Rail guns are still quite a few years of and scramjet is, at minimum 2009ish. I would allow ETC in MT but neither of the other two.

See here (http://www.powerlabs.org/emguns.htm). I find it interesting a lab is test-firing a railgun right now.

Also, here (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech_RailGuns%2C%2C00.html).

See here (http://www.powerlabs.org/emguns.htm). I find it interesting a lab is test-firing a railgun right now.

Also, here (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech_RailGuns%2C%2C00.html).

Yes and like ETC guns they're still in relatively small applications. To the point of having railguns on ships would be way off, ETC too for that matter. ETC on a tank wouldn't be bad. Railguns on a tank, don't know, could you build a power source small enough yet good enough?

Yes and like ETC guns they're still in relatively small applications. To the point of having railguns on ships would be way off, ETC too for that matter. ETC on a tank wouldn't be bad. Railguns on a tank, don't know, could you build a power source small enough yet good enough?

Maybe. Plutonium power cells are a possibility, but the tank would have to be heavily shielded against radiation. It's not something I'd use on the frontline.

Of course, keep in mind this is comming from a person who puts a railgun on some of his ships that fires antimatter in plasma form. Just to be extra evil.

Actually, that's a misconception. It's impossible to travel at the speed of light using current physics, but not faster than it.

Doing so would involve being a ridiculous exotic fringe-science subatomic particle that nobody has any reason to believe exists, having a mass of less than zero or applying a greater than infinite force to an object with mass.

If the particles exist, the devices will work, though the power and technological requirements alone require an extremely advanced civilization to pull off to begin with.

Um, no. The trick here is trying to get rules that only apply to subatomic particles to suddenly apply to multi-million ton macroscopic objects. As an example, while quantum theory postulates that it's possible for a subatomic particle to be in two places at once, it is not valid to claim you could scale up this effect to work on, say, a car.

Actually, I based a lot of it off of postulations about what could be done with gravitons if they exist. <snip>

Which means you're wanking just as much as everyone else, since nobody knows if they exist or not. Unlike someone who just says 'I have hyperdrive and it goes at $speed' you're just giving it a little more justification. That is nothing like your earlier claim that it 'will actually work.' All things being totally perfect, it might work.

Make up all the stuff you like, everyone does, but trying to play the realism card with FTL is just absurd. FTL is a plot device, plain and simple.

Why bother? Even if I did come up with a way to create gravitons right now and all of the technical plans to build those ships, I'm not sure if humanity can be trusted with the knowledge.

I'm sure that's the only thing on your mind when you don't out-think the entire human race, yes.

All he decided to do was give science half of the bell curve and later on he was questioning the wisdom of that.You do realise that not every mathematical possibility makes physical (Or technological) sense, yes? You get results, and then you discard the ones that make no sense whatsoever. Commonly done with, say, the results of quadratic equations when it comes to engineering problems (In this particular case, it would be chemical engineering).

And seeing as proposing faster-than-light physics makes no sense, since it has never been observed and isn't necessary for our current understanding of physics to work... Yeah.

For inventing the tech: Why bother? Even if I did come up with a way to create gravitons right now and all of the technical plans to build those ships, I'm not sure if humanity can be trusted with the knowledge. After all, one of the first things they did with the Theory of Relativity is build a bomb. I may be able to trust individuals, but as a whole I doubt humanity is honestly civilized enough to handle the tech with the proper care and respect without accidentally blowing up Earth first.Okay. so you are an idiot with delusions of grandeur. 'RAR! I AM MORE BRILLIANT THAN THE MANY THOUSANDS OF PHYSICISTS IN THE WORLD BUT I'M NOT SHARING MY WISDOM BECAUSE YOU'RE INFERIOR!!!11'

Guess what? Doesn't sound all that convincing.

Oh, and while I'm at it... Your brilliant theory suffers from things like, ya'know... Gravitons never having been found.

Of course, I would also love to see you RP the actual effects of your gravitic FTL drive... You know, on things like the planets you're kicking out of their orbit. Or, alternatively, the ship and its crew being instantly destroyed/ killed by the excessive gravity.

And while I'm at it... Ever noticed how black holes do not result in... Stuff... In their vicinity suffering from... FTL? Guess what your idea suffers from? Sure, you will warp space & time, thus fucking up, say, your home system, but annoyingly... No FTL. 'cept of course that you start with the things GMC mentioned... Zero mass, infinite energy, negative mass and or energy density (The latter having the problem on 1. working only over distances of a few atomic diameters and 2. being insignificant) and the likes... All very much silly and/ or unproven.

Now, I most certainly don't have problems with S/F nations having FTL capacities. I do however have a problem with certain... Individuals claiming it to be OMFG real.

The ruse is how to bypass the light barrier without travelling at the speed of light itself.

Well that's certainly an understatement. "I'm going to drive my car at 50mph without ever going 40mph."

You know, this whole argument is getting a bit pointless. Whether or not there is a method to travel faster than the speed of light doesn't really matter in NS, cos it's all in our minds anyway. What I do know, is that it's impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate through the speed of light, because as speed tends towards c, then momentum tends towards ininite. Momentum is usually modelled Mass x velocity, but for speeds close to c, momentum doesn't equal mv but p=E/c (where E = total energy of particle). So when you approach c, v doesn't increase, but p does. This is why relativistic railguns are so cool.

I have seen some SF about converting a spaceship to tachyonic matter (it was written by an astrophysicist so he should know what he was on about), but he made a point in a recent interview that it was very much speculation. I don't have a problem with DLE saying he's invented a way of going FTL, it's a perfectly plausible peice of technobabble, which is really all that is required for RP, and there's no proven reason why we can't go around the speed of light.

Doing so would involve being a ridiculous exotic fringe-science subatomic particle that nobody has any reason to believe exists, having a mass of less than zero or applying a greater than infinite force to an object with mass.

That's pretty much the idea. The entire thing doesn't work without the existance of two types of particles, one of which is antimatter in general, and the technological requirements of even attempting it are too many years for it to matter.

Um, no. The trick here is trying to get rules that only apply to subatomic particles to suddenly apply to multi-million ton macroscopic objects. As an example, while quantum theory postulates that it's possible for a subatomic particle to be in two places at once, it is not valid to claim you could scale up this effect to work on, say, a car.

Actually, this is using rules that apply to multi-million ton macroscopic objects (black holes) and altering them before applying them to other multi-million ton macroscopic objects. The ruleset already exists, and this basically abuses it to operate by creating an effect that is the opposite of a black hole, only at greater intensity. Even if gravitons don't exist, the general idea itself can later be used in other attempts to create FTL drives.

Which means you're wanking just as much as everyone else, since nobody knows if they exist or not. Unlike someone who just says 'I have hyperdrive and it goes at $speed' you're just giving it a little more justification. That is nothing like your earlier claim that it 'will actually work.' All things being totally perfect, it might work.

All things being perfect, it does work. The problem is getting it to work without it destroying the ship and killing everyone on board when working. Under normal circumstances, the described method of propulsion should destroy the ship itself if something, like the graviton field described as covering the ship, exists to take the full brunt of the method. Thus, the reliance on gravitons. The other main problem with such a system is the fact it has the energy requirements of a small sun when you start trying to apply it to larger ships. To be perfectly honest, I probably am wanking a bit when I try to justify putting it on ships 500 meters and longer, but at the same time the only people who do complain are people like yourself who just complain about FT in general and who fail to actually contribute anything useful while trying to make yourselves look superior through scorn.

Keep in mind that, at one time, technology we had dictated a computer capable of calculating quantum physics equations would require a small city. Then, as time passed, the computers grew smaller and more powerful. Now, computers on average achieve what used to be impossible. At the same time, in another field, scientists achieve the impossible by working on ways to produce antimatter in large amounts without the extreme energy requirements, and so far they are not doing that bad in their attempts. In a third case, the once-impossible railgun has stepped from pure scifi to being almost a reality with the modern experiments in the technology in labs, meaning that someday we may actually see such tech in the hands of our soldiers. The point? Don't speculate on what is impossible with time unless you have a time machine, as you don't have the qualifications without one or a PhD in every possible field of science imaginable.

Make up all the stuff you like, everyone does, but trying to play the realism card with FTL is just absurd. FTL is a plot device, plain and simple.

Everything is, at some point or another, a plot device. That doesn't matter for the purposes of this conversation.

I'm sure that's the only thing on your mind when you don't out-think the entire human race, yes.

If you're going to make a sarcastic comment, make sure you actually have something to back it and know what you are talking about on the issue. You do not have, as far as I can tell, enough of the experience of dealing with me to know what you are talking about on that issue. We've had very limited interactions, and it's not because of your title or because of a personal opinion.

You do realise that not every mathematical possibility makes physical (Or technological) sense, yes? You get results, and then you discard the ones that make no sense whatsoever. Commonly done with, say, the results of quadratic equations when it comes to engineering problems (In this particular case, it would be chemical engineering).

The problem is that we cannot say for sure what makes sense and what doesn't without first gaining the technology level to actually check it out. To say it doesn't make sense with out current understanding of the universe is to say only Earth supports life in the universe despite the fact we have only spotted a handful planets at this time. Until we can actually achieve the technological level to try out ideas for FTL travel, we cannot say that it doesn't make sense to attempt it because we simply don't have the evidence to back it up. All we have is our pessimism and lack of actually attempting it.

And seeing as proposing faster-than-light physics makes no sense, since it has never been observed and isn't necessary for our current understanding of physics to work... Yeah.

And do you have the evidence to support that it doesn't make any sense? No. What you have is a case of having no evidence on the issue beyond a few primitive attempts that honestly cannot be called the definitive answer due to technology limitations. We simply don't have the technology or the experience on this issue to actually say whether or not it makes any sense.

And, in all actuality, FTL travel is a requirement of modern theories. With the model of the universe speeding up as it spreads out, eventually you'll get into the problem that it started at close to the speed of light and will surpass that as speed increases.

Okay. so you are an idiot with delusions of grandeur. 'RAR! I AM MORE BRILLIANT THAN THE MANY THOUSANDS OF PHYSICISTS IN THE WORLD BUT I'M NOT SHARING MY WISDOM BECAUSE YOU'RE INFERIOR!!!11'

Guess what? Doesn't sound all that convincing.

Actually, if I had the technology designs to create such now, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you on the issue. I'd be enjoying my Nobel Prize in the Bahamas with a couple of girlfriends. But the one thing I notice is that your defense of humanity isn't really that convincing either.

Oh, and while I'm at it... Your brilliant theory suffers from things like, ya'know... Gravitons never having been found.

Neither has half the items I use. If they are found to not exist, I simply write this idea off as impossible and rework my entire nation. Hell, it's not like I haven't had to do that before with pieces of technology. You should see my original Planet Buster idea and how badly it needed revising.

Of course, I would also love to see you RP the actual effects of your gravitic FTL drive... You know, on things like the planets you're kicking out of their orbit. Or, alternatively, the ship and its crew being instantly destroyed/ killed by the excessive gravity.

Actually, I solved the problem of that question with a sort of "integrity field" in the original design of how it works. Later ideas incorporate a form of shielding that takes the brunt of the effects, all the while warping space/time inside even further while travelling is going on.

And while I'm at it... Ever noticed how black holes do not result in... Stuff... In their vicinity suffering from... FTL?

Actually, we don't entirely know whether or not that is true. Theoretically, it can happen with the larger ones, but we need to get too close to find out.

Rest dealt with later due to time issues.

The problem is that we cannot say for sure what makes sense and what doesn't without first gaining the technology level to actually check it out. To say it doesn't make sense with out current understanding of the universe is to say only Earth supports life in the universe despite the fact we have only spotted a handful planets at this time. Until we can actually achieve the technological level to try out ideas for FTL travel, we cannot say that it doesn't make sense to attempt it because we simply don't have the evidence to back it up. All we have is our pessimism and lack of actually attempting it.Congratulations, you just left the realm of science (Where evidence has to be provided) and joined the realm of fairy tales.

And, in all actuality, FTL travel is a requirement of modern theories. With the model of the universe speeding up as it spreads out, eventually you'll get into the problem that it started at close to the speed of light and will surpass that as speed increases.Wow. You just managed to discard relativity in favour of Newtonian physics. Oddly enough, the relativistic factor (RF=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5) helps a little, here...

Of curse, in all technicality... According to at least some of the theories I'm aware of, the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light, in the first few moments. 'Course, the universe itself, not being an object inside... itself... Doesn't need to follow this problematic lightspeed limitation. You on the other hand, being inside this universe, do.

Neither has half the items I use. If they are found to not exist, I simply write this idea off as impossible and rework my entire nation. Hell, it's not like I haven't had to do that before with pieces of technology. You should see my original Planet Buster idea and how badly it needed revising.And fuck with your own continuity? Which is even more impossible?

Actually, I solved the problem of that question with a sort of "integrity field" in the original design of how it works. Later ideas incorporate a form of shielding that takes the brunt of the effects, all the while warping space/time inside even further while travelling is going on.Which is even less science based? Way to run away from the issue.

Actually, we don't entirely know whether or not that is true. Theoretically, it can happen with the larger ones, but we need to get too close to find out.In other words, never observed.

I get to the damn college and they're not prepared for me yet.

Continued from above:

Now, going by the planet portion of what you said that I had skipped: If a ship using these drives comes that close to a planet, it means someone fucked up and the entire crew is probably about to die. Scouting ahead is a definite requirement.

If the ship hits an object, it's best to just write it off.

Guess what your idea suffers from? Sure, you will warp space & time, thus fucking up, say, your home system, but annoyingly... No FTL. 'cept of course that you start with the things GMC mentioned... Zero mass, infinite energy, negative mass and or energy density (The latter having the problem on 1. working only over distances of a few atomic diameters and 2. being insignificant) and the likes... All very much silly and/ or unproven.

And all very fun to theorise about how to achieve without having it first. Part of the fun of this.

Now, I most certainly don't have problems with S/F nations having FTL capacities. I do however have a problem with certain... Individuals claiming it to be OMFG real.

Have you noticed I mentioned certain time problems with trying to invent it today? Mainly that, at my best guess, all of us will be long dead and humanity is likely to have already travelled to other star systems by then? It's not impossible under current theories, but at the same time I'm not going to pull a Star Trek and claim we can actually achieve it before we've already negated the necessity of trying. If gravitons turn out to exist and these drives ever are actually invented (naturally, they'll probably work totally differently from how I imagine them), they'll be more like luxury items for the rich than actually put into practical use. Mainly because by then they should have no practical applications not already covered a hundred times over. In other words, they are a nice postulation, but I don't expect them to actually be used.

Well that's certainly an understatement. "I'm going to drive my car at 50mph without ever going 40mph."

Which is the whole problem with this model. No matter how I look at it, I have to forcibly warp space/time in a severe way in order for it to work without running head-long into the Light Barrier and knocking itself out.

Congratulations, you just left the realm of science (Where evidence has to be provided) and joined the realm of fairy tales.

The greatest of ironies is in you saying that. Stop, read it again, and notice everything I said.

Wow. You just managed to discard relativity in favour of Newtonian physics. Oddly enough, the relativistic factor (RF=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5) helps a little, here...

Actually, I never stated under what set of physics I was working under. The last science paper I saw on the issue said the universe is speeding up as it expands, which does not prevent what I said from being true.

Of curse, in all technicality... According to at least some of the theories I'm aware of, the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light, in the first few moments. 'Course, the universe itself, not being an object inside... itself... Doesn't need to follow this problematic lightspeed limitation. You on the other hand, being inside this universe, do.

Congrats. You just took what I said and provided your own evidence for it. The problematic equation has to be followed, but nothing says we cannot try to find a way around it. Pretty much all FTL theories I bother to pay attention to are trying to deal with that issue.

And fuck with your own continuity? Which is even more impossible?

Actually, I just restart the nation. Do all from the beginning all over again. It's a bit of a problem to do, but I wouldn't be the first to do it. And this time around, I'll have a system for documenting tech developments in place.

Which is even less science based? Way to run away from the issue.

Actually, go back and read the design. The "integrity field" is a field of gravitons arranged in an unnatural pattern that warps space/time inside the field in a way so as to allow those inside the field not be affected by the speeds the ship is travelling. In effect, all you have is a graviton field pushing a graviton field. This deals with the excess gravity of the ship by putting it to use. Of course, it doesn't do a damned thing against weaponry. The shield itself is a result of my idea of turning graviton generators towards weaponry and the realization I needed something to protect the ships with. It's just another unnatural graviton field with some actual strength towards it.

The problem is these fields are not stable. Thus, they bleed gravitons all the time. Even worse, the shield loses part of the field every time it is hit by weapons or objects, requiring the shield generators to rapidly replace the lost gravitons. Anything stronger than the shield passes it with ease, and that does include a surprising number of weapons. As you can imagine, power requirements go up immensely during battle, turning a two-week fuel supply into a two-minute fuel supply. Needless to say, my ships can hit hard at first but cannot withstand a protracted battle without being forced to retreat for fuel.

I just called it an "integrity field" out of laziness.

In other words, never observed.

Never proven or disproven.

Well, even FT can do basis off MT or MT ideas. For example, the use of "Kraskinov Tubes" (as postulated by Dr. Sergei Kraskinov, a relativity expert at the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg). Pretty much MT relies on anything that does not violate "classical" Relativity, while FT generally relies on Quantum theory in relation to the newer extrapolations of relativistic science, to "circumvent" the presently known limitations of classical science.

So pretty much you can say...

Ancient relies on pre-scientific culture....

Past Tech is pretty much Newtonian physics...

Modern Tech is relativitis physics...

Post-Modern/Near-Future is mix of relativistic and/or quantum physics...

Future Tech is pure quantum physics or further...

And all very fun to theorise about how to achieve without having it first. Part of the fun of this.Doesn't help your claim that you found The Solution! (tm)

Have you noticed I mentioned certain time problems with trying to invent it today? Mainly that, at my best guess, all of us will be long dead and humanity is likely to have already travelled to other star systems by then? It's not impossible under current theories, but at the same time I'm not going to pull a Star Trek and claim we can actually achieve it before we've already negated the necessity of trying. If gravitons turn out to exist and these drives ever are actually invented (naturally, they'll probably work totally differently from how I imagine them), they'll be more like luxury items for the rich than actually put into practical use. Mainly because by then they should have no practical applications not already covered a hundred times over. In other words, they are a nice postulation, but I don't expect them to actually be used.You're evading. You claimed that you found out how to do it, today, with physics as we're currently understanding them. And you fail to provide evidence, instead you're textwanking dubious and not-at-all-formalised (I.e. A clear, mathematical definition as of how you're intending to do it without ripping physics a new one) 'theories'.

Which doesn't help your case.

Actually, I never stated under what set of physics I was working under. The last science paper I saw on the issue said the universe is speeding up as it expands, which does not prevent what I said from being true.Try... Working ones?

And again, you failed to actually rebute the fact that you're assuming Newtonian physics, which is seriously... Wrong.

Congrats. You just took what I said and provided your own evidence for it. The problematic equation has to be followed, but nothing says we cannot try to find a way around it. Pretty much all FTL theories I bother to pay attention to are trying to deal with that issue.Except that I didn't, since your 'theory' (Read: Bullshit) is based on completely different conditions.

The "integrity field" is a field of gravitons arranged in an unnatural pattern that warps space/time inside the field in a way so as to allow those inside the field not be affected by the speeds the ship is travelling.Gravity works... Omnidirectional, boy.

In effect, all you have is a graviton field pushing a graviton field.Except of course that Gravity != electromagnetism. Gravity has no repulsing force, only an attractive force. Sucks, huh?

<Further StarTrekesque techbabble ensues>Now, what exactly is so hard about admitting that you're bullshitting around with wish-it-would-be-possible technologies, rather than claiming to be based on 'OMFG REAL PHYSICS!!!11'? Does it really hurt your ego, admitting that you're not capable of igniting another revolution in the realm of science & technology?

Never proven or disproven.It has never been proven or disproven that Smurfs are hiding under your bed. They might just be very quiet and hide whenever you're looking under it.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/51826/0_23_175_papa_smurf.jpg
Papa Smurf's words of wisdom.

Seriously, ever even thought of the meaning of evidence in a scientific context? If you want to support a theory, provide evidence that it is correct. Just claiming "It hasn't been disproven!" isn't going to get you anywhere.

Actually, this is using rules that apply to multi-million ton macroscopic objects (black holes) and altering them before applying them to other multi-million ton macroscopic objects.

Right...Let's think for a moment of all the reasons why being like a black hole would be really bad. And has a black hole ever travelled faster than light? Has anything entering a black hole travelled faster than light?

The ruleset already exists, and this basically abuses it to operate by creating an effect that is the opposite of a black hole, only at greater intensity.

Have we ever seen a reverse black hole? Is it therefore valid to claim your method, which relies on one, is scientifically sound rather than silly but containing a lot of long words?

All things being perfect, it does work.

Sure, because scaling up fringe mathematical theory through science and all the way to engineering certainly isn't a horrific leap in logic or anything.

The problem is getting it to work without it destroying the ship and killing everyone on board when working. Under normal circumstances, the described method of propulsion should destroy the ship itself if something, like the graviton field described as covering the ship, exists to take the full brunt of the method. Thus, the reliance on gravitons.

'The reliance on particles that only exist in theory and have never been observed.' This does not get you 'will really work' points.

To be perfectly honest, I probably am wanking a bit when I try to justify putting it on ships 500 meters and longer, but at the same time the only people who do complain are people like yourself who just complain about FT in general and who fail to actually contribute anything useful while trying to make yourselves look superior through scorn.

Wow, you really don't read any of my stuff, do you? My criticism is of your ridiculous attempts to claim a method of FTL that 'really works,' not of futuretech in general or even FTL in general. Criticising FTL in general would be pretty stupid for me, since I RP with people who have it. Are you always this good at making strawmen? Or are you just confusing your position with mine?

The point being made here is that claiming a workable FTL system and claiming you are somehow apart from FTL nations who don't have ST: Voyageresque pseudoscience backing up their FTL-wank is silly. FTL is FTL, and as far as we are currently aware, is not possible on any scale above subatomic and might not even be possible there.

Keep in mind that, at one time, technology we had dictated a computer capable of calculating quantum physics equations would require a small city. Then, as time passed, the computers grew smaller and more powerful. Now, computers on average achieve what used to be impossible.

So? Are you trying to imply we should generalise that one day all current scientific barriers will be broken?

In a third case, the once-impossible railgun has stepped from pure scifi to being almost a reality with the modern experiments in the technology in labs, meaning that someday we may actually see such tech in the hands of our soldiers.

Nobody ever claimed railguns were impossible to build, you're just making shit up.

The point? Don't speculate on what is impossible with time unless you have a time machine, as you don't have the qualifications without one or a PhD in every possible field of science imaginable.

Wow, that's the most ludicrous argument I've heard in quite some time. I do not need a PhD in any science to realise that claiming a method of FTL that 'would really work' with our current scientific knowledge is totally obscene ego-stroking. By your logic, your claim to the contrary is equally invalid unless you have a time machine and can show me FTL is possible, in particular since the burden of proof is on you here.

Hilariously, this also means you don't understand the principle of the burden of proof. It is foolish to claim something is hard science if there is no evidence of its existence, that's why the graviton is not regarded as hard science!

Everything is, at some point or another, a plot device. That doesn't matter for the purposes of this conversation.

'Fraid it does, since tech for the sake of tech and tech as a plot device are different.

If you're going to make a sarcastic comment, make sure you actually have something to back it and know what you are talking about on the issue. You do not have, as far as I can tell, enough of the experience of dealing with me to know what you are talking about on that issue.

I have your 'Will actually work' comment, what more do I need? An AVI file of you typing it? Witness statements? How will getting to know you [cue song] change the fact that trying to categorise yourself separately from FTL nations just because you've got a totally theoretical excuse solely dependant on a type of particle nobody has ever observed is grotesquely arrogant and utterly absurd?

Never proven or disproven.

If something has never been observed and no effects that cannot be explained without its existence have been observed either, there is no logical reason to theorise it exists.

Doesn't help your claim that you found The Solution! (tm)

Actually, I never said that. I said my drives exploit the laws of physics. I didn't say they didn't require some theoretical or nonexistant particle to do so, just that they do.

Hell, if you look at the technology link in my sig, you'll see not everything I'm using pays that much attention to the laws of physics and that some of it is just thrown in because I liked the idea, wanted an alternative without actually bothering with the physics, or simply felt like using something I was already established as having without worrying too much about how it works.

You're evading. You claimed that you found out how to do it, today, with physics as we're currently understanding them. And you fail to provide evidence, instead you're textwanking dubious and not-at-all-formalised (I.e. A clear, mathematical definition as of how you're intending to do it without ripping physics a new one) 'theories'.

The math involved is simply beyond my level, to be perfectly honest. I was trying to dodge admitting that. All I did was come up with an idea that has not been proven impossible. The power requirements involved come from someone else taking a look at it before I started using it and putting forward their own guesses based on their knowledge. The rest has been cobbled together from various friends who I have gotten to look at it.

Which doesn't help your case.

My case is that the idea can work and should. I've already stated the device itself, if ever invented, will probably be unlike how I imagine it. That's based on my own observations of how technology changes over the years.

Try... Working ones?

And again, you failed to actually rebute the fact that you're assuming Newtonian physics, which is seriously... Wrong.

Newtonian physics doesn't involve trying to find ways around the Light Barrier of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That's pretty much what the design is about.

Except that I didn't, since your 'theory' (Read: Bullshit) is based on completely different conditions.

No, it's based on an idea using a theoretical particle and trying to find a way around the problems of attempting to go at the speed of light without scattering the ship across the entire universe in the process, both from problems of the drive itself and problems of what happens to matter as it approaches the speed of light.

Gravity works... Omnidirectional, boy.

Hence the word "unstable" in the description of the field. Also, hence the idea of the ship being able to travel FTL. I don't generally use the entirety of the effect ingame due to issues of fairness.

Except of course that Gravity != electromagnetism. Gravity has no repulsing force, only an attractive force. Sucks, huh?

The idea of a repulsing force for gravity comes from two ideas:

1) If a graviton field built up behind a ship of the type I'm talking about breaks apart, the particles are probably going to collapse inward for a bit before the entire thing flies apart. The particles flying outward could fly outward at close to the speed of light, close to approximately the same speed as gamma rays from an matter-antimatter reaction. The ship is merely caught in the shockwave and propelled forward.

2) Gravitons can, theoretically, have a particle on the opposite of the spectrum that has the opposite effect. Dark matter is just one of the latest ideas for this. Antigravitons are potentially the particle, but to know for sure requires finding gravitons and altering their wavelength towards the opposite of what they are.

Now, what exactly is so hard about admitting that you're bullshitting around with wish-it-would-be-possible technologies, rather than claiming to be based on 'OMFG REAL PHYSICS!!!11'? Does it really hurt your ego, admitting that you're not capable of igniting another revolution in the realm of science & technology?

The idea itself isn't actually that new. Some of the variations include putting a black hole in front of a ship for propulsion, forming an antigraviton version of a black hole to push a ship, and hundreds of others. Gravitons and antigravitons are a staple of scifi in general, and they have been included in the idea of propulsion more times than I care to count.

As for a revolution in technology: As I stated, at best this is something that will come around when it is not needed. At the very best. So, no, I don't have plans of a revolution. Just plans of using something that is possible.

It has never been proven or disproven that Smurfs are hiding under your bed. They might just be very quiet and hide whenever you're looking under it.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/51826/0_23_175_papa_smurf.jpg
Papa Smurf's words of wisdom.

Nah. That's where I keep my pet uranium rock. The smurfs prefer the closet, right next to Santa Clause and the boogeyman.

Seriously, ever even thought of the meaning of evidence in a scientific context? If you want to support a theory, provide evidence that it is correct. Just claiming "It hasn't been disproven!" isn't going to get you anywhere.

Here's the thing: If I was sure it was correct, I wouldn't be just using this here. I'd be checking to see if the idea had actually been submitted to NASA and, if not, actually submitting it. Until such a time as whether or not gravitons are dealt with as existing or not, this remains just a possibility that can use physics to its advantage within the limitations of it.

Right...Let's think for a moment of all the reasons why being like a black hole would be really bad. And has a black hole ever travelled faster than light? Has anything entering a black hole travelled faster than light?

Theoretically? Maybe, maybe not. It's quite possible the radiation that exists black holes is travelling faster than light, and it's possible the radiation isn't and is just escaping naturally. The fact I don't know whether or not is why I put in the phrase "altering them" in the post. I take the rules of a black hole, alter them by making the effect much bigger and opposite, and then use it.

Have we ever seen a reverse black hole? Is it therefore valid to claim your method, which relies on one, is scientifically sound rather than silly but containing a lot of long words?

Actually, it depends. For awhile, science believed a "white hole" was actually the opposite of a black hole or the other end of one, which led to the theory black holes could be used for travelling to other universes. Now, however, most of the "white holes" are known to be white dwarfs and not in any way related. This doesn't mean that the opposite of a black hole cannot exist, just that, like antimatter atoms probably going to be extremely rare.

Sure, because scaling up fringe mathematical theory through science and all the way to engineering certainly isn't a horrific leap in logic or anything.

Nope. It's a pretty common leap in logic. Sort of a case of having a goal and then working towards it. Even scientists pull it, with NASA's design for an antimatter ship that they know perfectly well won't be used anytime in the next century. If you want, I can provide a link to it, but it amounts as being close to pretty much how it works in Star Trek minus the dilithium and impossible physics.

'The reliance on particles that only exist in theory and have never been observed.' This does not get you 'will really work' points.

Actually, the basic idea is independent of the methods used to achieve it. The basic idea is to build up a massive unstable gravity field behind the ship and somehow have that gravity field suddenly "fly apart" to cause the ship to fly at FTL speeds or to build up a massive antigravity field behind the ship and use the antigravity to push the ship. Gravitons are merely used out of laziness.

Wow, you really don't read any of my stuff, do you?

Actually, I felt like ranting a bit. I have a problem with certain MT nations who feel like doing everything in their power to disprove FT without being bothered to try to help out in the realism area. On that part, I made the mistake of actually letting my emotions out of control for a bit. That's why I try to keep them under control in discussions.

My criticism is of your ridiculous attempts to claim a method of FTL that 'really works,' not of futuretech in general or even FTL in general. Criticising FTL in general would be pretty stupid for me, since I RP with people who have it. Are you always this good at making strawmen? Or are you just confusing your position with mine?

Actually, I quite suck at strawmen. I can never keep up the facade long enough to confuse the issue without turning around and screwing myself.

The point being made here is that claiming a workable FTL system and claiming you are somehow apart from FTL nations who don't have ST: Voyageresque pseudoscience backing up their FTL-wank is silly. FTL is FTL, and as far as we are currently aware, is not possible on any scale above subatomic and might not even be possible there.

Please, don't mention Star Trek. I'm still trying to get some of the bad taste out of my mouth from it.

FTL itself is quite possible for anything. The problem is getting anything to survive speeding up. To do that, you have to find a way to go around the laws of physics instead of breaking them. Since gravity itself is known for bending the fabric of the universe, and black holes are powerful enough to bend the fabric of reality enough to induce temporal distortions in the form of time dilation, that made me wonder if we cannot produce space distortions powerful enough to allow for FTL without somehow destroying the ship in the process. Thus, the graviton jump drive.

The only reason why FTL is considered impossible is the fact nothing is likely to survive it and the power requirements for it are, well, close to impossible. Being unable to actually travel at that speed, you have to find ways around it. Using the one force known to warp reality itself seemed like the next natural step.

I'll admit certain similarities to Star Trek, but that's because they did get one thing right: You have to find a way to bypass Einstein's equation. There's about only one way I can think of to do it that utilizes what is theorized to exist. Most ideas involving FTL and quite a few involving time travel keep that in mind when they are come up with.

So? Are you trying to imply we should generalise that one day all current scientific barriers will be broken?

Unless you have a design for a time machine in your back pocket that doesn't require hundreds of black holes, I don't think we have to worry about that.

Nobody ever claimed railguns were impossible to build, you're just making shit up

Actually, in that case I wasn't. Check my earlier posts under my DLE account, especially the links I posted. A couple of labs are currently test firing railguns.

Wow, that's the most ludicrous argument I've heard in quite some time. I do not need a PhD in any science to realise that claiming a method of FTL that 'would really work' with our current scientific knowledge is totally obscene ego-stroking. By your logic, your claim to the contrary is equally invalid unless you have a time machine and can show me FTL is possible, in particular since the burden of proof is on you here.

I was beginning to wonder if I had to point out to someone that [erfect opening. Been too quiet.

The one thing you have missed is this: I'm not trying to prove my method is actually going to work. I've already said it probably will be completely different than I have imagined it if it is ever actually put into use. What I am, however, trying to do is is say it is possible. Take a look at what I said and tell me if it is actually impossible under current physics, assuming gravitons exist, to do.

Hilariously, this also means you don't understand the principle of the burden of proof. It is foolish to claim something is hard science if there is no evidence of its existence, that's why the graviton is not regarded as hard science!

Actually, I never claimed the graviton is hard science.

'Fraid it does, since tech for the sake of tech and tech as a plot device are different.

Whether or not it is a plot device doesn't matter because any piece of tech can be a plot device, whether a radio in somsone's hand or an antimatter plasma railgun strapped to a 500-meter automated destroyer. In my case, it's tech for a plot device that I tried to have at least possible under modern physics to shut up those in the MT area who dislike FTL they consider impossible.

I have your 'Will actually work' comment, what more do I need? An AVI file of you typing it? Witness statements? How will getting to know you [cue song] change the fact that trying to categorise yourself separately from FTL nations just because you've got a totally theoretical excuse solely dependant on a type of particle nobody has ever observed is grotesquely arrogant and utterly absurd?

Actually, I thought you were reacting to my comment about humanity in general with that. I'm not known for my favorable opinion of my own species.

Actually, I don't categorize myself as different. I use a technology that does not exist to perform actions theoretically impossible and have weapons that modern scientists wouldn't be qualified enough to push the on button for. Nor am I the only one who keeps an eye towards physics when comming up with how it works. And theoretical particles are pretty much the norm for scifi, even more so when you start dealing with the temporal nations who use chronoton weaponry.

Now, I do dislike temporal tech, but that's more for aesthetic reasons than anything else. I don't like the idea of my history being changed, despite the fact it's happened already.

Getting to know me, you would realize I am very egotistical and use my own nation as an example in most cases. Not because I hold myself as different, but simply because I am familiar with my own nation the most. The arrogance involved is mostly an IC thing relating to the nation combined with how long I have worked to craft it.

If something has never been observed and no effects that cannot be explained without its existence have been observed either, there is no logical reason to theorise it exists.

Actually, there is. The logical reason to theorize it exists is to keep open the possibility you have not accounted for everything or do not have all of the necessary information. To assume you have all of the information availableand automatically discount it just because of the information you have is not only illogical, but unscientific.

Most people view science fiction as pure fiction. Such is not an absolutely truthful statement.

The principle of Warp Drive as found in some sci-fi genres can be found amongst the works of Theoretical Physicist, Doctor Miguel Alcubierre.

The concept of warp-gates, transwarp, SG-1's "StarGate" can all be found amongst the works and mathmatics of Theoretical Astrophysicist, Doctor Sergei Kraskinov.

Anti-gravitons, gravitons and all those are parts of sci-fi scope, are all fundamental parts of real theoretical science, String-Theory and Quantum mechanics... both which are comming closer and closer to reality in our present life contain these ideas.

We are likely, within the realm of Quantum Mechanics only decades from finding that theoretical switch, where we can manipulate gravity as easy as electro-magnetism.

What goes on behind the closed doors of research labs all over the planet. Would boggle the minds of many.

Tekania, I wish you hadn't posted that. I was planning on stringing them on a bit longer before bringing up the theories and who came up with what. I was hoping to have a grand-finale involving string theory, quantum theory, about a dozen physicists, and a bunch of other items.

Still, leave it up. I'll have to find some other way of pulling the finale or hope they don't notice.

I was planning on stringing them on a bit longer before bringing up the theories and who came up with what. I was hoping to have a grand-finale involving string theory, quantum theory, about a dozen physicists, and a bunch of other items.Heh. You assume that GMC and DA aren't aware of that sort of thing? You're not the only one to have an idea on theoretical physics; which should have been evident as they were mentioning theoretical physics in their rebuttals.

Of course, since you're familiar with string theory, why don't you use it for your FTL tech, as the FTL theories around string theory are far more "realistic" than your odd graviton manipulation. Granted, they're limited in where you can go (as you need to follow superstrings to go FTL), but you're the one wanting "realism".

Still, leave it up. I'll have to find some other way of pulling the finale or hope they don't notice.More than a little condesending there.

Oh, and in your earlier post, I believe the substance you wanted was dark energy, not dark matter. Dark matter is the super dense stuff, dark energy is the invisible force that makes up 80% (or so) of the known universe and is the engine that is currently ripping the universe apart.

The fact that it's just a stopgap measure to make equations work aside, of course.

And, Tekania, we're far closer to programmable matter (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465044298/qid=1112430991/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-7600045-5784601) using quantum devices than the direct manipulation of gravity.

Here's the thing: If I was sure it was correct, I wouldn't be just using this here. I'd be checking to see if the idea had actually been submitted to NASA and, if not, actually submitting it.

But what happened to your heroic desire to save humanity from it's own destructive urges? For shame!

Until such a time as whether or not gravitons are dealt with as existing or not, this remains just a possibility that can use physics to its advantage within the limitations of it.

Um, no. Otherwise, it's equally valid for me to have cavalry regiments of invisible pink unicorns. Can you disprove the invisible pink unicorn? Do you know your desk isn't really a shapeshifting alien or that I'm not some form of radically advanced but still annoying AI?

Theoretically? Maybe, maybe not. It's quite possible the radiation that exists black holes is travelling faster than light, and it's possible the radiation isn't and is just escaping naturally.

Hint: it's not travelling faster than light because it isn't possible.

The fact I don't know whether or not is why I put in the phrase "altering them" in the post. I take the rules of a black hole, alter them by making the effect much bigger and opposite, and then use it.

Under which principle I could claim to take the principle of the sun and reverse it to create a GIANT RADIANT FREEZING THINGY OF DOOM? It could cool stuff to –1,000,000 Kelvin. [Absolute zero is only a barrier if you stay there! I bypass it!]

Actually, it depends. For awhile, science believed a "white hole" was actually the opposite of a black hole or the other end of one, which led to the theory black holes could be used for travelling to other universes. Now, however, most of the "white holes" are known to be white dwarfs and not in any way related. This doesn't mean that the opposite of a black hole cannot exist, just that, like antimatter atoms probably going to be extremely rare.

Red Herring, as you rather helpfully pointed out yourself. The fact that white holes aren't inverse black holes hardly helps your case that inverse black holes can exist. In fact, it actually damages it!

Nope. It's a pretty common leap in logic. Sort of a case of having a goal and then working towards it.

Much like it would be valid for a caveman to determine that because he theorised the sun was a chariot driven by the Gods he would one day be able to hitch a lift in it? You know that theory is not enough to make your statement that the design 'would actually work,' right?

Even scientists pull it, with NASA's design for an antimatter ship that they know perfectly well won't be used anytime in the next century.

Do they claim that it 'will actually work?' Or do they make the valid statement that at present they don't see any theoretical problems with it but would need a massive program of testing to determine if the design was workable in the real world? By your logic because the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge was sound according to all understood methods of building at the time it should have worked perfectly. Did it?

Actually, the basic idea is independent of the methods used to achieve it. The basic idea is to build up a massive unstable gravity field behind the ship and somehow have that gravity field suddenly "fly apart" to cause the ship to fly at FTL speeds or to build up a massive antigravity field behind the ship and use the antigravity to push the ship. Gravitons are merely used out of laziness.

It's a shame that gravity isn't capable of doing that, really. As said, it has no repulsive force, other than the one you randomly made up.

The only reason why FTL is considered impossible is the fact nothing is likely to survive it and the power requirements for it are, well, close to impossible.

That plus the difficulties in navigation, the fact that a microscopic speck of dust ahead of you would hit you like an atomic bomb, the fact that macroscopic objects do not behave like subatomic ones, that fact that nobody's ever seen anything exceed the speed of light and there is no reason at present to believe anything can...

Actually, in that case I wasn't. Check my earlier posts under my DLE account, especially the links I posted. A couple of labs are currently test firing railguns.

How does the fact that labs are testing railguns change that nobody ever claimed they were impossible to begin with? You fail at reading comprehension.

The one thing you have missed is this: I'm not trying to prove my method is actually going to work.

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work

That wasn't you?

What I am, however, trying to do is is say it is possible. Take a look at what I said and tell me if it is actually impossible under current physics, assuming gravitons exist, to do.

But current physics does not assume the graviton exists, so the task is impossible.

Actually, I never claimed the graviton is hard science.

'Will actually work' means it will work as applied science [engineering]. You don't get much harder than that.

In my case, it's tech for a plot device that I tried to have at least possible under modern physics to shut up those in the MT area who dislike FTL they consider impossible.

Won't work because modern physics only theorises the existence of the graviton, it does not accept it.

Actually, I don't categorize myself as different.

Except, Grand Teton, that some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work

That wasn't you?

Actually, there is. The logical reason to theorize it exists is to keep open the possibility you have not accounted for everything or do not have all of the necessary information. To assume you have all of the information availableand automatically discount it just because of the information you have is not only illogical, but unscientific.

Try looking up 'appeal to ignorance.' YOUR claim is that your silly device 'will really work' simply because it cannot be totally disproved that it will not. That is the exact opposite of proper scientific enquiry, where if something cannot be shown to exist, it is assumed that it probably does not. This is why Einstein's laws fail to take invisible pink unicorns into account.


The principle of Warp Drive as found in some sci-fi genres can be found amongst the works of Theoretical Physicist, Doctor Miguel Alcubierre.

The concept of warp-gates, transwarp, SG-1's "StarGate" can all be found amongst the works and mathmatics of Theoretical Astrophysicist, Doctor Sergei Kraskinov.

Anti-gravitons, gravitons and all those are parts of sci-fi scope, are all fundamental parts of real theoretical science, String-Theory and Quantum mechanics... both which are comming closer and closer to reality in our present life contain these ideas.

Have some problem with the word theoretical meaning not applied? Which, by extension, means that none of this fits within the 'will actually work' bracket?

We are likely, within the realm of Quantum Mechanics only decades from finding that theoretical switch, where we can manipulate gravity as easy as electro-magnetism.

Appeal to ignorance. We could also be a billion years from it, assuming that such a theoretical switch actually exists at all. Also, our skills at manipulating electromagnetism aren't nearly as fine as you appear to believe.

I was hoping to have a grand-finale involving string theory, quantum theory, about a dozen physicists, and a bunch of other items.

Oh, don't worry. You can keep it for the finale when I explain the difference between a theoretical physicist and an engineer for the ninth time.

The principle of Warp Drive as found in some sci-fi genres can be found amongst the works of Theoretical Physicist, Doctor Miguel Alcubierre.Which 1. Requires negative energy densities and 2. has absolutely nothing to do with the warpdrives employed in science fiction. Most certainly nothing with ST's, anyway.

*Also loves the idea of a grand finale involving quantum theory. Spaceships the size of subatomic particles? Heh...*

Okay, I'm ending this. This wasn't supposed to go this far and the agreement was it would be a lot sillier than it was. Besides, I'm still trying to straighten up how much was made up on the spot and how much was from my notes.

That wasn't you?

Nope. I wouldn't have gotten that hissy with you unless I was going to post the evidence or had a general concern with how you are doing your job. I try to dodge pissing off mods unless I have a good reason for it. That's why I don't interact with mods in RP.

Congrats. You've just been the victim of one of the more complex April Fool's pranks. It didn't quite go as planned. But close enough.

Congrats. You've just been the victim of one of the more complex April Fool's pranks. It didn't quite go as planned. But close enough.

Posted on March 29th? Wow, lil' trouble operating a calendar there.

Posted on March 29th? Wow, lil' trouble operating a calendar there.

Started early this year due to setup.

Started early this year due to setup.Because you knew that GMC/ me would jump on it, of course.

Great to know a clairvoyant like you :)

Started early this year due to setup.

Guess the funny part happens next year. You're a patient man, DLE.

Having read through this monstrosity, I do see humor. The Moderators are stating "In the future, it will not be possible to (...) because right now our science says (...)", which is pomposity on a level of... Wow!

Einstein's theory shows a reflective asymptote, not a single sided asymptotal function.

If you consider E=mc^2 uses a constant (c), it does open some new possibilities.

We could also go into tachyons, string theory, all sorts of muddled ideas which have not as of yet been proven or disproven.

Or we could look at anyone else saying "we know all there is to know" in any form whatsoever (such as "our view of science (fill in the blank)") and ask them a few embarrasing questions modern science has yet to solve.

In short - y'all look silly to me, because you're arguing what will exist based on what is now understood to be true. Its the same sort of fixated arguement that's been seen a zillion times before - "Nothing less then a government can finance space flight", "No one can go faster then the speed of sound", "Nuclear power is impossible", "The nuclear bomb makes war impossible", etc etc etc. The similiarity - if you wait long enough, they're all proven wrong because they're based on ideas which are rooted in the presently understood - which remains limited and incomplete.

And how do I know this? Because way back in the dark ages, my physics professor told me in no uncertain terms we would never be able to see an atom as they were too small. Guess what? It took *cough* years, but we've seen one.

And that is why this is a rather good joke, entirely at your expense. Would you care to bet in - lets say, 100 years - FTL is still "impossible"?

<Idiocy>

Shame you didn't take the time to actually read the thread, or you'd have known in advance that your argument has certain discrepancies in regard to, say, the facts.

The claim was never that FTL is totally impossible under any circumstance, it was that with our current knowledge of science it is not valid to say this:

...some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.

Whoops, he said 'known physical laws,' didn't he? And that means he's stuck with present-day understanding of science. He imposed that condition, it was not myself or Der Angst who claimed that our modern understanding of science indicates the totality of available knowledge. Look:

Make up all the stuff you like, everyone does, but trying to play the realism card with FTL is just absurd.

Ie, claiming a method of FTL within the context of the 'known physical laws' [modern science] is absurd;

My criticism is of your ridiculous attempts to claim a method of FTL that 'really works,' not of futuretech in general or even FTL in general. Criticising FTL in general would be pretty stupid for me, since I RP with people who have it.[...] The point being made here is that claiming a workable FTL system and claiming you are somehow apart from FTL nations who don't have ST: Voyageresque pseudoscience backing up their FTL-wank is silly. FTL is FTL, and as far as we are currently aware, is not possible on any scale above subatomic and might not even be possible there.

Yes, 'as far as we are currently aware.' Real arrogant 'never be possible' claim there.

[...]claiming a method of FTL that 'would really work' with our current scientific knowledge is totally obscene ego-stroking.

So yes, the point is claiming with our modern science it can be called anything but wankery is just ridiculous. All told, looks like the only joke here is your reading comprehension skills. You have a nice strawman there, Vastiva, go snuggle it.

Maybe. Plutonium power cells are a possibility, but the tank would have to be heavily shielded against radiation. It's not something I'd use on the frontline.

Of course, keep in mind this is comming from a person who puts a railgun on some of his ships that fires antimatter in plasma form. Just to be extra evil.

Not only that but a destroyed tank = radioactive mess, definitely NOT what I want on the front line. And hell, it'd probably have so much lead shielding it'd weigh more than a M1A2 Abrams. Definitely not feasible.

Because you knew that GMC/ me would jump on it, of course.

Great to know a clairvoyant like you :)

I didn't know who would jump on it when I started it. GMC seemed likely, but at the same time I didn't know enough about him to say for sure.

Guess the funny part happens next year. You're a patient man, DLE.

I work in advertising. Patience is the only reason half of my coworkers are still alive.

Ie, claiming a method of FTL within the context of the 'known physical laws' [modern science] is absurd;

That's what I thought until I got the sheet of paper before me. Ya see, I was a college the past couple of days trying to get people interested in working for my corporation. While there, as a joke I handed the idea of my FTL drives to a physics professor. This morning, he handed it back to me. With corrections. Included in the note is that there is a basis in modern physics to not only allow my idea to work (with the corrections), but that it is likely to happen within the next thousand years as humanity advances in its understanding of the universe.

For one thing, he pointed me to a certain Russian scientist (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0311/0311041.pdf) who has postulated that it is possible for a particle with mass to be accelerated above the speed of light. In addition, he advised me to check out a certain MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/435007.asp?cp1=1) for current experiments in FTL transmission of light waves. Apparently, what I have is along the lines of the right idea.

Now, according to his corrections, I had the right idea with a field of gravity surrounding the ship. He suggests using that field itself as both a method of propulsion and particle stabilization. Using the gravity of the field as an artificial magnetic field to keep the particles in their usual positions or something like that. Then, the portion of the field at the front of the ship would have to be strongest, pulling the ship forward. Naturally, as the ship moves the field itself will also move. The power issue is solved by taking devices that already produce massive amounts of power and coupling them with devices that enhance that power in some way.

You'll have to excuse me for being vague, but that's about as much as I understood of it. It'll be a few days before I have the whole thing.

Not only that but a destroyed tank = radioactive mess, definitely NOT what I want on the front line. And hell, it'd probably have so much lead shielding it'd weigh more than a M1A2 Abrams. Definitely not feasible.

Actually, I was thinking you just shield around the portion where the plutonium cell is. You just use that blackbox material featured in airplanes over that to protect it. Of course, I'm not claiming it is viable for battle.

Which 1. Requires negative energy densities and 2. has absolutely nothing to do with the warpdrives employed in science fiction. Most certainly nothing with ST's, anyway.

*Also loves the idea of a grand finale involving quantum theory. Spaceships the size of subatomic particles? Heh...*

Negative energy densities are one of the actually discovered principles in Quantum Mechanics.

I didn't know who would jump on it when I started it. GMC seemed likely, but at the same time I didn't know enough about him to say for sure.



I work in advertising. Patience is the only reason half of my coworkers are still alive.



That's what I thought until I got the sheet of paper before me. Ya see, I was a college the past couple of days trying to get people interested in working for my corporation. While there, as a joke I handed the idea of my FTL drives to a physics professor. This morning, he handed it back to me. With corrections. Included in the note is that there is a basis in modern physics to not only allow my idea to work (with the corrections), but that it is likely to happen within the next thousand years as humanity advances in its understanding of the universe.

For one thing, he pointed me to a certain Russian scientist (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0311/0311041.pdf) who has postulated that it is possible for a particle with mass to be accelerated above the speed of light. In addition, he advised me to check out a certain MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/435007.asp?cp1=1) for current experiments in FTL transmission of light waves. Apparently, what I have is along the lines of the right idea.

Now, according to his corrections, I had the right idea with a field of gravity surrounding the ship. He suggests using that field itself as both a method of propulsion and particle stabilization. Using the gravity of the field as an artificial magnetic field to keep the particles in their usual positions or something like that. Then, the portion of the field at the front of the ship would have to be strongest, pulling the ship forward. Naturally, as the ship moves the field itself will also move. The power issue is solved by taking devices that already produce massive amounts of power and coupling them with devices that enhance that power in some way.

You'll have to excuse me for being vague, but that's about as much as I understood of it. It'll be a few days before I have the whole thing.

Negative mass propulsion... Is more or less what you are talking about. The system is currently under research within the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program" at NASA's Glenn Research Center. It's also called a Millis Drive (After the theoritician who did all the initial work, Marc Millis, in 1957).

Also, on note, while most FTL propulstion concepts rely on theory to "Break" the light barrier...

The velocity of light being a barrier is also just a theory. And not a fundamental scientific law.

Negative energy densities are one of the actually discovered principles in Quantum Mechanics.You intend to use the Casimir effect, which is based on distances of no more than a few atomic diameters and is still ludicrously minimal... How? Seeing as you're defending a 'It's possible with our current understanding' position, you need to know that...

And then there is this thing that the negative energy density does still have energy, so the 'negative' is somewhat missleading...

Negative mass propulsion... Is more or less what you are talking about. The system is currently under research within the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program" at NASA's Glenn Research Center. It's also called a Millis Drive (After the theoritician who did all the initial work, Marc Millis, in 1957).

Also, on note, while most FTL propulstion concepts rely on theory to "Break" the light barrier...

The velocity of light being a barrier is also just a theory. And not a fundamental scientific law.1. And it is currently unknown if such a drive is even physically possible. What part of the discussion being about it being currently realistic and possible didn't you understand? The entirety of it?

2. Unlike FTL theories, which are based on nothing but mathematical tricks, we have actual, experimental evidence for relativity, and thus, the light barrier, to be correct... You're beginning to sound like a creationist "Evolution is just a theory! You're lacking evidence! Nevermind me having none whatsoever while ignoril a billion years of fossils!"

Guess what? Not acceptable.

1. And it is currently unknown if such a drive is even physically possible. What part of the discussion being about it being currently realistic and possible didn't you understand? The entirety of it?

2. Unlike FTL theories, which are based on nothing but mathematical tricks, we have actual, experimental evidence for relativity, and thus, the light barrier, to be correct... You're beginning to sound like a creationist "Evolution is just a theory! You're lacking evidence! Nevermind me having none whatsoever while ignoril a billion years of fossils!"

Guess what? Not acceptable.

60 years ago, they had experimental evidence that the sound barrier could not be broken.

The same mathmatics used to demostrate that exceeding the speed of light is not possible, also indicate that under certain conditions exceeding such speed is. It's the same math.

There is only one fundamental fact proven by our years and years of scientific progress, nothing is certainly impossible. Which includes exceeding light speed. Special Relativity says the speed of light can not be exceeded, General Relativity says it can under certain circumstances.

Humans don't like barriers... And we always find ways around them.

1. And it is currently unknown if such a drive is even physically possible. What part of the discussion being about it being currently realistic and possible didn't you understand? The entirety of it?

Actually, Der Angst, you're the one who is off. The point is a question of "Is it realistic using today's understanding of physics?", not "Is it currently realistic and possible?" The difference between the two is being able to design FTL drives we may someday use in the future and actually building one today.

Keep in mind your arguement has been against the statement that using modern physics can eventually produce an FTL drive. Nowhere in the statement you innitially disagreed with was it mentioned that it is possible to build such a device today.

2. Unlike FTL theories, which are based on nothing but mathematical tricks, we have actual, experimental evidence for relativity, and thus, the light barrier, to be correct... You're beginning to sound like a creationist "Evolution is just a theory! You're lacking evidence! Nevermind me having none whatsoever while ignoril a billion years of fossils!"

Guess what? Not acceptable.

Okay, there are numerous problems with that.

1. Evolution is just a theory. At current, there is enough scientific evidence to suggest it is the most correct theory but not enough to actually prove it. After all, it isn't called evolutionary theory just because they like the word.

2. We also have actual, experimental evidence that making a machine that can fly is impossible. Remember that the next time you're on an airplane.

3. On the math comment, I call bullshit. Why? See your quote below.

You claimed that you found out how to do it, today, with physics as we're currently understanding them. And you fail to provide evidence, instead you're textwanking dubious and not-at-all-formalised (I.e. A clear, mathematical definition as of how you're intending to do it without ripping physics a new one) 'theories'.

Everything Tekania has said is part of our understanding of physics and backed by mathematics of people far more qualified to speak on the field than any of us. You wanted something that doesn't violate our understanding of physics and is backed by math, and then the moment someone starts mentioning real theories that are backed by mathematics you call them "tricks". Make up your mind, Der Angst.

There is only one fundamental fact proven by our years and years of scientific progress, nothing is certainly impossible.

Really? Can you make a steel car subdivide like a bacterium? Ford would have your babies if you could. Some things are impossible.

Further, it is not reasonable to assume that because there is no evidence in either direction about a phenomenon it can actually happen.

Humans don't like barriers... And we always find ways around them.

Can you solve the barrier of an un-auged human not being able to jump thirty feet into the air on Earth unassisted, then? Can you solve the barrier of not being able to run a one minute mile on foot?

Actually, Der Angst, you're the one who is off. The point is a question of "Is it realistic using today's understanding of physics?", not "Is it currently realistic and possible?" The difference between the two is being able to design FTL drives we may someday use in the future and actually building one today.

But that's not the question you asked. You said

...some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.

'Known physical laws' totally eliminates theoretical physics with no observation, because those are not regarded as hard science. If the graviton does not exist, your drive is utterly unworkable, and you can't know if it exists or not. Do you have any idea the look you'd get if you handed in a design to an aircraft company and told them it would work, but you couldn't tell if the wings would ever actually be invented and what shape they would be if they were?

Keep in mind your arguement has been against the statement that using modern physics can eventually produce an FTL drive. Nowhere in the statement you innitially disagreed with was it mentioned that it is possible to build such a device today.

...some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work.

If it works within known, modern physical laws [which it doesn't], it should be possible to build one with our current technology. But it doesn't.

1. Evolution is just a theory. At current, there is enough scientific evidence to suggest it is the most correct theory but not enough to actually prove it. After all, it isn't called evolutionary theory just because they like the word.

Oh dear... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

Same for gravity, conservation of energy, and so on. Theories with a basis in observed and well documented phenomena are not the same as claims based on an event not being an outright mathematical impossibility.

2. We also have actual, experimental evidence that making a machine that can fly is impossible. Remember that the next time you're on an airplane.

We have significantly more evidence that it is possible. Irrelevant.

Everything Tekania has said is part of our understanding of physics and backed by mathematics of people far more qualified to speak on the field than any of us.

Appeal to authority. We're not debating them, we're debating you. We are also not debating 'your physics professor,' so you can stop trying to appeal to his authority too.

You wanted something that doesn't violate our understanding of physics and is backed by math, and then the moment someone starts mentioning real theories that are backed by mathematics you call them "tricks". Make up your mind, Der Angst.

We want real theories backed up by experimental data and observation, since those are the only ones accepted as hard science. Scientific theories built purely on math with no observation are not 'the known physical laws,' they are edgy pseudoscience.

All told, looks like the only joke here is your reading comprehension skills. You have a nice strawman there, Vastiva, go snuggle it.

Well, as modern science knows of tachyons and such - can't explain them, but does know of them - I'll take your long speech as that of someone deprived of sleep, rather then outright rudeness.

So I'll stick with "Current theory and knowledge also acknowledges it could be flawed - and in fact knows where some of these flaws lie. As a result, this opens the possibility these flaws are actually methods by which FTL and the like can be achieved".

My thanks for your time.

Hilarious bullshit comparisons because I *really* don't get the point.1. They didn't, as projectiles (You know, the things coming out of a gun) broke the sound barrier.

2. Utterly wrong comparison (Not that I would expect any better from you). To transfer it to what DLE is claiming... He would claim that he is able to build a plane that can break the sound barrier. At november 22, 1783, one day after the montgolfiere started.

Which is ludicrous.

Oh, and 3. You're incapable of interpreting what I'm writing, yes? Neither me nor GMC claimed that it is definitely impossible to go FTL. But we don't know if or when it will happen. As long as relativity stays as one of the two major, accepted, and proven theories, claiming that you can construct an FTL drive with accepted physics is bullshit. Get it into your surprisingly stubborn head.

So, either argue that point or shut up, since you're not actually arguing the case. You're merely trying to hdie behind a wall of arguments that have nothing to do with the actually topic.

Actually, Der Angst, you're the one who is off. The point is a question of "Is it realistic using today's understanding of physics?", not "Is it currently realistic and possible?" The difference between the two is being able to design FTL drives we may someday use in the future and actually building one today.

Keep in mind your arguement has been against the statement that using modern physics can eventually produce an FTL drive. Nowhere in the statement you innitially disagreed with was it mentioned that it is possible to build such a device today.
And you still fail to provide either experimental evidence or to replace relativity with a theory that allows it. As long as you aren't doing that, all your other arguments are worthless.

2. We also have actual, experimental evidence that making a machine that can fly is impossible. Remember that the next time you're on an airplane.If you cannot find the fallacy in this argument, you're a lost cause.

Everything Tekania has said is part of our understanding of physics and backed by mathematics of people far more qualified to speak on the field than any of us. You wanted something that doesn't violate our understanding of physics and is backed by math, and then the moment someone starts mentioning real theories that are backed by mathematics you call them "tricks". Make up your mind, Der Angst.Where is the experimental evidence you need to verify a theory? So long as it doesn't exist, it is not generally accepted physcis.

Well, as modern science knows of tachyons and such - can't explain them, but does know of them - I'll take your long speech as that of someone deprived of sleep, rather then outright rudeness. Of course, except that it doesn't. They were proposed, a (long) while ago, but guess what? One decided to give up on the idea, because there is no experimental evidence whatsoever, nor is there a theoretical need for them to exist.

Amazing, huh?

But that's not the question you asked. You said



'Known physical laws' totally eliminates theoretical physics with no observation, because those are not regarded as hard science. If the graviton does not exist, your drive is utterly unworkable, and you can't know if it exists or not. Do you have any idea the look you'd get if you handed in a design to an aircraft company and told them it would work, but you couldn't tell if the wings would ever actually be invented and what shape they would be if they were?

I also used future tense. The problem you are having is the fact that a lot of the known physical laws are theories. The theory of gravity, theories about how stars work, theories about black holes, etc. And, yes, a lot of them are unproven, but accepted because they are the best possible explanation at this time. The engine design itself uses gravity as its method of propulsion, which is known, but uses a method to achieve it involving a theoretical particle. The general design behind how it works can be changed as you like as long as the basics remain the same. Hell, I named the damn thing before I even bothered with questions of how it works.

If it works within known, modern physical laws [which it doesn't], it should be possible to build one with our current technology. But it doesn't.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. Under that logic, we should be able to generate artificial gravity, build antimatter power cores in every city, arm every citizen with a railgun, and begin sending colonization teams to Mars right now. We have the understanding of the physics behind every one of those, but we don't have the technology to do so. Where are we currently at in those areas? We still can't produce antimatter for less energy than it takes to power a house for a year, are doing test firings of railguns, are decades away from the first manned trip to Mars, and cannot generate artificial gravity to save our souls.

Oh dear... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Which disproves what I said in what way?

Same for gravity, conservation of energy, and so on. Theories with a basis in observed and well documented phenomena are not the same as claims based on an event not being an outright mathematical impossibility.

And, at the same time, still just the best possible explanation people can come up with at the time. It's explaining the data at hand in the best possible way you have. At the same time, that does not rule out that evidence gained in the future will force an adjustment or complete abandonment of the theory. That is a fact of science the website you posted a link to conveniently left out.

We have significantly more evidence that it is possible. Irrelevant.

Very relevant. In the area of space travel, right now we are about two hours after the Wright brothers crashed their first airplane. We know it is possible, but we have no idea that someday those bicycle repairmen's experiment will lead to airplanes flying faster than the speed of sound and ships that fly in space. But what we do know is the airplane actually flew.

Appeal to authority. We're not debating them, we're debating you. We are also not debating 'your physics professor,' so you can stop trying to appeal to his authority too.

Not my physics professor. Just a guy I met at a college. And, by the looks of things, also completely wrong. Unless there is some unknown property of metal that keeps it from being ripped to tiny fragments when only two inches away from a gravity field the power of a black hole I am not aware of.

We want real theories backed up by experimental data and observation, since those are the only ones accepted as hard science. Scientific theories built purely on math with no observation are not 'the known physical laws,' they are edgy pseudoscience.

And on this you have shot your arguement in the foot. This is too great of an opening to miss.

You want theories backed by observation and experimentation? Well, on that we are both guilty of presenting a theory that doesn't have that. You present the theory we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which is based mostly on humanity's lack of technology to even attempt such and not on actual experiments to produce an FTL drive. What you have is a lack of evidence that supports your side.

Now, you want a theory based on observation? How about something from a US government website? (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99022.htm) And, just because I feel like it, the Nobel Prize website (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/illpres/discovery.html) has an article worth reading. Gravitons are merely a convenient way of explaining an observed phenomenon.

Robert Ehrlich, a George Mason University professor of physics, claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of tachyons, hypothetical faster-than-light subatomic particles first proposed in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and Sudarshan. The evidence, published in several articles in the Physical Review D during June and October 1999 consists of an explanation of certain properties of the high energy cosmic rays bombarding the Earth from space. Interestingly, such faster-than-light particles seem to be required by current 12 dimensional theories developed by physicists to unify all the forces of nature.

My, don't you look stupid.

And another one about gravitons and the theory behind their possible existance:


What about "Gravity Shielding" with spinning superconductors out of Finland/Russia?

For those of you who haven't heard about this, it was reported in 1992 that objects appeared to weigh less over a spinning superconductor. The experiments were performed in Finland by a Russian researcher named Podkletnov. There has not yet been a conclusive and credible test of this effect, but we're working on it.

It's still an open question. NASA is looking into this one directly. Specifically NASA Marshall Space Flight Center is attempting to duplicate the experiment to see if the claimed effect exists, and if it does, to determine what's really going on. These investigations took place in 1997. We are not aware of them having anything substantial to report one way or another.

To be fully open minded about such things, one has to be equally ready to accept that there is, and that there is NOT new effects being discovered here.

What is wrong and premature is to dub this effect a "Gravity Shield." It is better to call this an "anomalous weight change effect". We won't know for sure what it is until it has actually been confirmed and more fully analyzed. The original reports on this subject were unquestionably insufficient.

2. Utterly wrong comparison (Not that I would expect any better from you). To transfer it to what DLE is claiming... He would claim that he is able to build a plane that can break the sound barrier. At november 22, 1783, one day after the montgolfiere started.

Which has no supporting evidence beyond a few statements purposefully misconstrued.

You're incapable of interpreting what I'm writing, yes? Neither me nor GMC claimed that it is definitely impossible to go FTL.

The following proves you wrong:

Hint: it's not travelling faster than light because it isn't possible.

GMC had said it.

And you still fail to provide either experimental evidence or to replace relativity with a theory that allows it. As long as you aren't doing that, all your other arguments are worthless.

And you are not bothering to read all of my posts, as I posted a link in the same post I mentioned the physics professor in. Look for the underlined parts and click on them.

If you cannot find the fallacy in this argument, you're a lost cause.

Actually, the fallacy is assuming the arguement presented is a fallacy. It is, in fact, perfect truth. However, at the same time we know that evidence was wrong because someone else did an experiment that proved the evidence to be faulty.

Where is the experimental evidence you need to verify a theory? So long as it doesn't exist, it is not generally accepted physcis.

Congrats. You just disproved the Big Bang. Why? No experimental evidence to verify it. There is plenty of observed evidence, but according to you that doesn't matter.

The fallacy of your arguement is that it ignores another part of science: Observing. Black holes are, at this point, generally accepted as part of physics, but yet no experimental data confirms their existance (of course, we wouldn't survive the experiment that proved it, but that's a moot point). Nor is there any experimental evidence that shows how the insides of stars work, no experimental evidence to prove the Big Bang, and no experimental evidence to prove it is impossible to push a ship faster than the speed of light using modern physics.

I posted my evidence for gravitons in my reply to GMC. Check it.

And another one about gravitons and the theory behind their possible existance:

Personally, I think the observation of gravitational radiation from pulsars is a bigger clencher, as in that case it forces an explanation that goes into experimental ideas.

You present the theory we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which is based mostly on humanity's lack of technology to even attempt such and not on actual experiments to produce an FTL drive.You really don't know what a theory is, yes? For what GMC & I are pointing out isn't a theory, it's simply the fact[/i that the current laws of physcis do [i]not allow what you want them to allow. And unlike you, we're having actual evidence, all that is required for you to see it is to read our posts and, more importantly, to understand them. Again, for the thousands time: What you're proposing isn't backed by observations, and as such, not acceptable for 'Will really work'.

Even more ludicrousnessYou do know that the term experimental evidence refers to results that can be verified by way of duplicating the results? Which, incidentally, didn't happen?

Actually, the fallacy is assuming the arguement presented is a fallacy. It is, in fact, perfect truth. However, at the same time we know that evidence was wrong because someone else did an experiment that proved the evidence to be faulty.

2. We also have actual, experimental evidence that making a machine that can fly is impossible. Remember that the next time you're on an airplane.

That wasn't you? You proposed the idea that planes flying don't fly. You're wrong. GHence, why your example is utterly ludicrous and only there to make you look clever. You failed.

Congrats. You just disproved the Big Bang. Why? No experimental evidence to verify it. There is plenty of observed evidence, but according to you that doesn't matter.

The fallacy of your arguement is that it ignores another part of science: Observing. Black holes are, at this point, generally accepted as part of physics, but yet no experimental data confirms their existance (of course, we wouldn't survive the experiment that proved it, but that's a moot point). Nor is there any experimental evidence that shows how the insides of stars work, no experimental evidence to prove the Big Bang, and no experimental evidence to prove it is impossible to push a ship faster than the speed of light using modern physics.Semantics. You need an experiment to observe. Taking a telescope and pointing it at the sky is, in a way, an experiment. Shooting up a satellite to look for gamma rays is, in a way, an experiment.

And most importantly, you fail when it comes to providing evidence regarding your FTL particles. Where are they?

You really don't know what a theory is, yes? For what GMC & I are pointing out isn't a theory, it's simply the fact[/i that the current laws of physcis do [i]not allow what you want them to allow. And unlike you, we're having actual evidence, all that is required for you to see it is to read our posts and, more importantly, to understand them. Again, for the thousands time: What you're proposing isn't backed by observations, and as such, not acceptable for 'Will really work'.

DA, once again, make up your mind. You said:

And you still fail to provide either experimental evidence or to replace relativity with a theory that allows it. As long as you aren't doing that, all your other arguments are worthless.

Then you turn around and say that post. To be honest, I find that no matter how much evidence I post, you're going to continue changing your evidence requirements from one post to another to keep your side from being disproven. Hell, you've already done it twice.

Until you are ready to use a coherent set of requirements, I must simply say that I find you are incapable of proving your point. And, finally, I find it odd you keep going on about evidence and have yet to provide any yourself. I've already posted evidence on here. It's not my fault if you are unwilling to bother reading it without changing your evidence requirements. And, frankly, your requirements are unscientific in that they ignore an important part of science anyway.

That wasn't you? You proposed the idea that planes flying don't fly. You're wrong. GHence, why your example is utterly ludicrous and only there to make you look clever. You failed.

Actually, DA, reading comprehension and thinking about context helps in this. Try using them. I did say that quote, but the way you are taking it ignores the context and, as such, is your fault that you are not understanding how I can say the part about the evidence of planes not flying being wrong when I said such evidence exists. Considering your other tactics, I won't waste my time explaining the perfectly obvious to you.

Semantics. You need an experiment to observe. Taking a telescope and pointing it at the sky is, in a way, an experiment. Shooting up a satellite to look for gamma rays is, in a way, an experiment.

I'm sitting in my front yard, relaxing, when I see an apple fall out of the tree. That apple hits the ground and, based on that, I come up with a theory about motion. Going by what you are saying, sitting in my yard and relaxing is an experiment. I think I shall go perform an experiment in my living room right now.

And most importantly, you fail when it comes to providing evidence regarding your FTL particles. Where are they?

I'm not the one who mentioned FTL particles. But going by your constantly-changing requirements, posting it to you would be a waste of time anyway. You'd only find some way to twist your requirements around again to make it invalid.

...actually, I think he just likes yelling.

Fact: The original formulae by Einstein was a reflective asymptotal function. Which proposed objects moving faster then and slower then light.

Fact: There are formulae showing that bumblebees can't fly. They do anyway. Hence, the formulae is obviously in error - but it still exists.

DA - either you're talking about that which is proven, in which case most of your arguements are irrelevant, or that which is currently posited in which case you shot yourself in the foot. You can't have it both ways to suit yourself. Period.

Finally, as it has been proven that light moves "slower then light speed", it would be theoretically possible that light moves "faster then light speed" (such as when accellerating into a black hole). Therefore, "the speed of light" is not a constant, and is likely not a limitation of any sort, save a theoretical one which current science finds convenient.

Oh, yes, one more thing - DA, do stop ranting. The entire "assault on the other side" mannerism is juvenile.

...actually, I think he just likes yelling.

As it is, he has proven to me that he cannot hold an arguement without trying to twist and change the rules of said arguement to always be in his favor. On quite a few sites that is considered trolling. Not sure about this one, but it's still a cheap tactic.

Well, as modern science knows of tachyons and such - can't explain them, but does know of them - I'll take your long speech as that of someone deprived of sleep, rather then outright rudeness.

Tachyons are a type of theoretical particle that might exist. There is no firm observational evidence that they do. Also, this does not help DLE's case unless you're seriously suggesting it would be somehow possible to turn an entire object into tachyons and back at will.

Robert Ehrlich, a George Mason University professor of physics, claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of tachyons

What is wrong and premature is to dub this effect a "Gravity Shield." It is better to call this an "anomalous weight change effect". We won't know for sure what it is until it has actually been confirmed and more fully analyzed. The original reports on this subject were unquestionably insufficient.

Vastiva, seriously, can't you fucking read?

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. Under that logic, we should be able to generate artificial gravity, build antimatter power cores in every city, arm every citizen with a railgun, and begin sending colonization teams to Mars right now. We have the understanding of the physics behind every one of those, but we don't have the technology to do so. Where are we currently at in those areas? We still can't produce antimatter for less energy than it takes to power a house for a year, are doing test firings of railguns, are decades away from the first manned trip to Mars, and cannot generate artificial gravity to save our souls.

The fact that it's possible to build a working apparatus to test a concept based on real science does not equal building a commercially workable model of it. You're the one using the fallacy ['leap in logic'] here, not me. I am claiming if something obeys the known physical laws it should be possible to build an apparatus to test this. We have created antimatter in monstrous particle accelerators, we have built working railguns, we have sent objects to Mars, and we have generated artificial gravity forces . The fact that none of these technologies are mature enough for large-scale use is utterly irrelevant; they have all been proven in the lab.

And, at the same time, still just the best possible explanation people can come up with at the time. It's explaining the data at hand in the best possible way you have. At the same time, that does not rule out that evidence gained in the future will force an adjustment or complete abandonment of the theory. That is a fact of science the website you posted a link to conveniently left out.

If evolution was somehow disproved it would mean our entire understanding of biology was wrong. If conservation of energy was disproved our entire knowledge of [i]science is wrong, as is a massive amount of collected data. This is vastly different to claims based purely on the fact that something is not mathematically impossible.

You want theories backed by observation and experimentation? Well, on that we are both guilty of presenting a theory that doesn't have that. You present the theory we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which is based mostly on humanity's lack of technology to even attempt such and not on actual experiments to produce an FTL drive. What you have is a lack of evidence that supports your side.

Well, I have your outright misrepresentation of my position to say that, sure. I am saying, taking our current knowledge of hard science rather than extrapolating from pseudoscientific theories based on mathematical rather than experimental data, it is not valid to claim a method of FTL is plausible.

Your first link, well thanks, it helps me:

There is no direct evidence for gravitons to date.

I don't see how the second link really help you to prove anything. Perhaps you should try quoting and explaining rather than just randomly copy-pasting links and leaving me to work out your arguments for you.

Originally Posted by GMC Military Arms
Hint: it's not travelling faster than light because it isn't possible.

Are you claiming that it is possible for radiation exiting a black hole to travel faster than light?

Congrats. You just disproved the Big Bang. Why? No experimental evidence to verify it. There is plenty of observed evidence, but according to you that doesn't matter.

Red Herring, given that nobody has ever claimed to understand the precise workings of the Big Bang. Certainly, nobody has ever claimed, as you have, that it will one day be possible for us to replicate it simply because we have mathematical data on how it might have occurred!

Tachyons are a type of theoretical particle that might exist. There is no firm observational evidence that they do. Also, this does not help DLE's case unless you're seriously suggesting it would be somehow possible to turn an entire object into tachyons and back at will.

That statement I refuse to be in on except to state my case is for the use of gravity while Vastiva is arguing tachyons. I'm arguing a sublight particle, not a postlight particle.

Vastiva, seriously, can't you fucking read?

GMC, the same question can be asked of you. He said "possible" evidence, not "actual" evidence. Possible != actual.

The fact that it's possible to build a working apparatus to test a concept based on real science does not equal building a commercially workable model of it. You're the one using the fallacy ['leap in logic'] here, not me. I am claiming if something obeys the known physical laws it should be possible to build an apparatus to test it this. We have created antimatter in monstrous particle accelerators, we have built working railguns, we have sent objects to Mars, and we have generated artificial gravity forces . The fact that none of these technologies are mature enough for large-scale use is utterly irrelevant; they have all be proven in the lab.

Actually, you missed one item: Antimatter-matter reactors, which I mentioned as one of the four items. And centrifuges use centrifugal force generated by their rate of speed, generating the equivolent of gravity. The same principle applies to what space shuttles deal with when they go around the Moon at fast speeds. But that doesn't mean it's actually gravity, just a force equivolent to it.

If evolution was somehow disproved it would mean our entire understanding of biology was wrong. If conservation of energy was disproved our entire knowledge of [i]science is wrong, as is a massive amount of collected data. This is vastly different to claims based purely on the fact that something is not mathematically impossible.

Actually, our understanding of biology wouldn't change that much. Most of our understanding of biology doesn't require an understanding of evolution. And most parts of evolutionary theory would have to be accounted for in a new theory, meaning it's even smaller of a step. Likely, if it were disproven another that is similar but with only a few small changes would pop up in its place.

Also, conservation of energy and conservation of mass are laws, not theories. There is a big difference there.

Well, I have your outright misrepresentation of my position to say that, sure. I am saying, taking our current knowledge of hard science rather than extrapolating from pseudoscientific theories based on mathematical rather than experimental data, it is not valid to claim a method of FTL is plausible.

Nor is it valid to claim it is implausible, as hard science doesn't have any evidence on the matter.

Your first link, well thanks, it helps me:

Nor is there direct evidence for Evolution. There is evidence that, when put together, is best explained by the theory of evolution, but the actual process on a macro scale has not been directly observed. The same is true of the Big Bang, as it is a theory that explains the evidence at hand. The evidence for both of those may actually belong to different items and we may be misinterpreting them, but at current we do not have the evidence to say the theories themselves are true beyond being the best explanation we have. In this case, it's indirect evidence that makes it quite possible and, to date, the best explanation we have.

I don't see how the second link really help you to prove anything. Perhaps you should try quoting and explaining rather than just randomly copy-pasting links and leaving me to work out your arguments for you.

Actually, the second link was to show they were not making it up. I'm not too trusting of government sites.

Are you claiming that it is possible for radition exiting a black hole to travel faster than light?

On that one the only way we would know for sure is to actually measure the speed the radiation itself leaves at, and at this distance from any blackhole that really isn't possible. The last time I checked, the radiation itself is just released energy, which puts it in the massless category.

Red Herring, given that nobody has ever claimed to understand the precise workings of the Big Bang. Certainly, nobody has ever claimed, as you have, that it will one day be possible for us to replicate it simply because we have mathematical data on how it might have occurred!

Actually, GMC, it's not a red herring. Der Angst was arguing that only experiments proving something can make it accepted by general physics. The Big Bang itself is only observed and has not been replicated in any experiments due to technological reasons. Even if we could replicate it, doing so would be so incredibly stupid that we probably wouldn't. I never claimed that we can replicate it, just that it is something that doesn't have experimental evidence to support it but is accepted by general physics. I was talking to DA on that one, so you might want to have a talk with him on the issue.

That statement I refuse to be in on except to state my case is for the use of gravity while Vastiva is arguing tachyons. I'm arguing a sublight particle, not a postlight particle.

Correct. Vastiva's argument is that something can travel faster than light, so we should extrapolate that one day other things will be able to as well. This is a poor argument, since that does not follow.

GMC, the same question can be asked of you. He said "possible" evidence, not "actual" evidence. Possible != actual.

Then why bother posting it at all? It doesn't help his argument, any more than explaining the Bible helps to prove the existence of God. In order to accept 'possible' evidence in an argument about 'known physical laws,' you must first grant it the status of actual evidence. Or realise it's useless.

Actually, you missed one item: Antimatter-matter reactors, which I mentioned as one of the four items.

I believe matter-antimatter reactions have been observed; it is unnecessary to build a working reactor to judge that matter and antimatter will react to produce energy. It would be necessary to produce a working prototype if you wished to prove a MAM reactor was a practical concept, a requirement that has dogged fusion reactor research for a long time.

Actually, our understanding of biology wouldn't change that much. Most of our understanding of biology doesn't require an understanding of evolution.

Actually, without evolution biology is nothing more than natural history.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html

Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology. There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

And most parts of evolutionary theory would have to be accounted for in a new theory, meaning it's even smaller of a step. Likely, if it were disproven another that is similar but with only a few small changes would pop up in its place.

You are assuming evidence that disproved evolution [a true chimeric species such as a centaur, for example] would cause only a minor alteration?

Also, conservation of energy and conservation of mass are laws, not theories. There is a big difference there.

Yes, it's called 'evidence.'

Nor is it valid to claim it is implausible, as hard science doesn't have any evidence on the matter.

It's something called the Burden of Proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). In inquiry it is only logical to start from a position of scepticism, and if no evidence can be presented for the existence of an item the valid inference is that this is probably because it does not exist. Further evidence can alter this conclusion; however, in this case there has yet to be firm evidence produced.

For example, if I postulated the existence of invisible pink unicorns but could produce no evidence, the logical conclusion to draw is that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, until such time as anyone provides evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, while FTL might be rendered theoretically plausible by some future discovery, our current knowledge of science does not permit it.

Nor is there direct evidence for Evolution. There is evidence that, when put together, is best explained by the theory of evolution, but the actual process on a macro scale has not been directly observed.

Speciation has been observed, actually.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And also

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html

Further, we have used evolution ourselves to engineer such things as dozens of breeds of dog and massive Shire Horses that weigh over a ton. Comparing your half-assed theory to the colossal body of evidence in favour of evolution is nothing short of ridiculous.

The same is true of the Big Bang, as it is a theory that explains the evidence at hand. The evidence for both of those may actually belong to different items and we may be misinterpreting them, but at current we do not have the evidence to say the theories themselves are true beyond being the best explanation we have. In this case, it's indirect evidence that makes it quite possible and, to date, the best explanation we have.

None of this would allow us to replicate the Big Bang on the basis of mathematical understanding of it. No scientist would ever be arrogant enough to claim that a mathematically implied theory will inevitably result in a usable apparatus.

Actually, the second link was to show they were not making it up. I'm not too trusting of government sites.

Explain how a twin pulsar inevitably leads to gravitons existing. Include why the scientists involved did not therefore make that conclusion.

On that one the only way we would know for sure is to actually measure the speed the radiation itself leaves at, and at this distance from any blackhole that really isn't possible. The last time I checked, the radiation itself is just released energy, which puts it in the massless category.

So why should we believe it is moving faster than light?

Actually, GMC, it's not a red herring. Der Angst was arguing that only experiments proving something can make it accepted by general physics. The Big Bang itself is only observed and has not been replicated in any experiments due to technological reasons. Even if we could replicate it, doing so would be so incredibly stupid that we probably wouldn't. I never claimed that we can replicate it, just that it is something that doesn't have experimental evidence to support it but is accepted by general physics.

The Big Bang is accepted as a valid model by general physics because it best fits the observed data; however, this does not mean it can be replicated in a lab because we don't understand the conditions within it well enough. We HAVE made observations that support it; and furthermore, the Big Bang is a theory attempting to explain a fact [that the universe exists], not a speculative theory based purely on mathematics.

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html]

The same is not true of gravitons and theories relating to particles moving faster than light; there is no data that categorically supports the existence of the graviton, and it has never been observed, so has neither form of proof. However you claim the latter is possible and 'will actually work.' Not might, not could, will. To regard a change from unsupported theory to physical apparatus as a natural progression is obscene; observational evidence [as the Big Bang has in its favour] is enough to justify a theory, but it is not enough to classify an apparatus based on that theory as an engineering certainty as you have. Therefore, all the theoretical proof in the world will not assist with a claim that an FTL drive is possible to build and 'will actually work.'

Further, it IS a red herring; the origin of the universe has nothing to do with whether or not there is hard scientific evidence for the existence of gravitons. Your constant attempts to change the subject by arguing about the nature of terms like proof and theory do not change your original claim:

...some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that [don't] break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work

There it is again: 'will actually work' within the 'known physical laws.' Note that your attempt to separate law from theory actually leaves this position with no support at all; but even without that, there is nothing in accepted modern physics that implies it is plausible [note there is a big different between 'not mathematically impossible' and 'plausible'] to make a macroscopic object travel faster than the speed of light or that the graviton exists, let alone that we will have a method of harnessing and propagating gravitons with a sufficient degree of control to do what you want them to do. The best you have is a few mathematical postulations never demonstrated to be valid in experiments or rendered necessary by observation.

Actually, I was thinking you just shield around the portion where the plutonium cell is. You just use that blackbox material featured in airplanes over that to protect it. Of course, I'm not claiming it is viable for battle.

Really? That stuff protects against radiation?

Really? That stuff protects against radiation?

No. The lead it is covering protects against radiation. That stuff is to prevent the power cell from being ruptured during battle. We don't need a big radioactive mess on our hands just because someone with a rocket launchers got lucky.

Correct. Vastiva's argument is that something can travel faster than light, so we should extrapolate that one day other things will be able to as well. This is a poor argument, since that does not follow.

I don't entirely know that much on the subject or tachyons, so I can't say yay or nay to that. All I can say is that it is not my arguement.

Then why bother posting it at all? It doesn't help his argument, any more than explaining the Bible helps to prove the existence of God. In order to accept 'possible' evidence in an argument about 'known physical laws,' you must first grant it the status of actual evidence. Or realise it's useless.

Ask Vastiva. His reasons are his own.

I believe matter-antimatter reactions have been observed; it is unnecessary to build a working reactor to judge that matter and antimatter will react to produce energy. It would be necessary to produce a working prototype if you wished to prove a MAM reactor was a practical concept, a requirement that has dogged fusion reactor research for a long time.

The working prototype is what is required in this case. I specifically mentioned a reactor, which would mean we would have to actually build one. We have the knowledge, just not the technology to do so.

Actually, without evolution biology is nothing more than natural history.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html

I'm looking at it from a more practical angle. The angle is that if evolution is proven false, scientists still need to explain all of this data they have. They know the explanation was wrong and probably a couple key pieces of evidence, but they still have about 4,000 years worth of data at the least that cannot be refuted without changing the history of the world. So, they'll go back to the drawing board, devise a better theory, and put it forward. It'll stick around and become even more supported as evidence piles up until someone comes along and disproves it or it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Speaking of which, I just remembered an article I read about a computer simulating evolution. So even the challenge of "Can we observe it happening on a large scale?" is going to have an answer of "Yes."

You are assuming evidence that disproved evolution [a true chimeric species such as a centaur, for example] would cause only a minor alteration?

A true chimera can be explained by either genetic engineering or mutation from being around radiation. Even dragons can be explained by evolution, being evolutions of the larger dinosaurs, despite the fact they do not exist. Quite a few mythical animals can be explained using evolution, and one of them (Bigfoot) is actually the Holy Grail of evolutionary theory. If Bigfoot were proven alive, scientists could just point at it and say "There it is!" when asked for proof of human evolution from other primates.

I'm assuming that only a small, but key, piece of evidence is disproven or a piece of evidence is discovered that shows evolution as we understand it is not the cause of life changing as it has. In that case, evolution is disproven but the majority of the evidence remains, meaning that you have to come up with a new explanation for evidence you already have. Beyond a bunch of fanfare and people changing the arguements from evolution to the new topic, very little of the actual evidence will be affected and most of the common people will just have to adapt to the new name. Unless, of course, you can come up with some way that disproves nearly a billion years of fossil data. I know I can't without entering the realm of extreme scifi or extreme fantasy.

Yes, it's called 'evidence.'

The big difference is the Laws of science are basically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and can be relied on as long as the universe itself doesn't change. There may be portions of the universe where they do not apply, but that would mean we're either completely ignorant of the universe (a very high possibility) or that those areas are exceptions caused by unusual natural phenomena (an extremely likely possibility). In either case, they still apply in our solar system, which means we won't be abandoning them.

It's something called the Burden of Proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). In inquiry it is only logical to start from a position of scepticism, and if no evidence can be presented for the existence of an item the valid inference is that this is probably because it does not exist. Further evidence can alter this conclusion; however, in this case there has yet to be firm evidence produced.

For example, if I postulated the existence of invisible pink unicorns but could produce no evidence, the logical conclusion to draw is that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, until such time as anyone provides evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, while FTL might be rendered theoretically plausible by some future discovery, our current knowledge of science does not permit it.

In which case, I'll have to say that I cannot provide concrete proof due to the same reason you cannot disprove it. There isn't any that I am aware of. If there is evidence that supports it, it is in an avenue of exploration I am frankly not that interested in.

But, at the same time, I must say our current knowledge of science doesn't permit FTL drives to be considered impossible either. We know it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light by Einstein's Equation, but at the same time we know we cannot travel at the speed of light by that same equation. And, thus, we are back at the crux of the arguement. Some of us are searching for ways that will work under modern physics and have found a few we think will work, but can't prove they can work without building actual working prototypes using technology humanity doesn't have.

Speciation has been observed, actually.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And also

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html

Further, we have used evolution ourselves to engineer such things as dozens of breeds of dog and massive Shire Horses that weigh over a ton. Comparing your half-assed theory to the colossal body of evidence in favour of evolution is nothing short of ridiculous.

All of that is evidence explained by the theory of evolution, in this case backed up by evidence from their genetic codes. But, this is still not the evidence the theory needs to prove itself. This is evidence that, without the theory, still has a firm leg to stand on and can be incorporated into a new one at a later date. You need to separate the evidence the theory is explaining from the evidence supporting it. The two are not, despite science's claim, necessarily the same.

None of this would allow us to replicate the Big Bang on the basis of mathematical understanding of it. No scientist would ever be arrogant enough to claim that a mathematically implied theory will inevitably result in a usable apparatus.

Which is exactly the point I brought up later.

Explain how a twin pulsar inevitably leads to gravitons existing. Include why the scientists involved did not therefore make that conclusion.

Gravitational radiation itself proves that our current theories about gravity need to be seriously rewritten. The fact it exists points out that gravity is a very real phenomena and can possibly be harnessed in the future. Gravitons are used as a way to explain how gravitational radiation exists, explaining it away as a subatomic particle produced by natural phenomena. Even if it turns out to be just a form of energy, the energy is likely to be called gravitons for short because of ease of use of the term, much like how we refer to light as photons despite the fact light is really a wave in a constant state of flux between the particle and energy states of existence.

So why should we believe it is moving faster than light?

We shouldn't. But we shouldn't discount it, either. If the energy is moving at FTL speeds as it exits the black hole, it means we have to revise our understanding of energy to include that it can move at FTL speeds while preserving the thought nothing going slower than light can escape a black hole. If it's not, then we have to revise our understanding of black holes and that opens a whole new can of worms. Assuming the energy itself is travelling at FTL speeds is explainable by mathematics if someone cares to try and doesn't violate Einstein's Equation, plus it keeps science from spending the next 75 years pointing out that we have no evidence matter can escape black holes.

The Big Bang is accepted as a valid model by general physics because it best fits the observed data; however, this does not mean it can be replicated in a lab because we don't understand the conditions within it well enough. We HAVE made observations that support it; and furthermore, the Big Bang is a theory attempting to explain a fact [that the universe exists], not a speculative theory based purely on mathematics.

This is something you need to take up with DA, not me. I'm the one who was pointing that out to him.

[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html]

The same is not true of gravitons and theories relating to particles moving faster than light; there is no data that categorically supports the existence of the graviton, and it has never been observed, so has neither form of proof. However you claim the latter is possible and 'will actually work.' Not might, not could, will. To regard a change from unsupported theory to physical apparatus as a natural progression is obscene; observational evidence [as the Big Bang has in its favour] is enough to justify a theory, but it is not enough to classify an apparatus based on that theory as an engineering certainty as you have. Therefore, all the theoretical proof in the world will not assist with a claim that an FTL drive is possible to build and 'will actually work.'

Actually, the gravitational radiation from pulsars is evidence of gravitons. That energy has to be made of something, and whatever that is can likely be replicated in labs later.

Further, it IS a red herring; the origin of the universe has nothing to do with whether or not there is hard scientific evidence for the existence of gravitons. Your constant attempts to change the subject by arguing about the nature of terms like proof and theory do not change your original claim:

Which is you not bothering to take the quote in context. The origin of the universe does have something to do about whether or not experimental data proves items as existing to general physics.

And my original claim, while the basis of this arguement, was part of the setup of a joke that the ramifications for are still going on.

There it is again: 'will actually work' within the 'known physical laws.' Note that your attempt to separate law from theory actually leaves this position with no support at all; but even without that, there is nothing in accepted modern physics that implies it is plausible [note there is a big different between 'not mathematically impossible' and 'plausible'] to make a macroscopic object travel faster than the speed of light or that the graviton exists, let alone that we will have a method of harnessing and propagating gravitons with a sufficient degree of control to do what you want them to do. The best you have is a few mathematical postulations never demonstrated to be valid in experiments or rendered necessary by observation.

The position was intended to be supported, at the time I posted it, with the most silly and nonsensical explanations you can imagine. As you can see, the other party fell through on their end and tried for seriousness.

Is what I am saying possible under current physics? Only if you include the theoretical. Is it plausible under current physics? Probably not. Considering gravitational radiation, however, it is plausible gravitons exist, as they are a theoretical particle that can make up the radiation. In this case, there is a perfect slot in real physics into which they can fit and remain plausible by simply explaining an observed phenomenon.

The working prototype is what is required in this case. I specifically mentioned a reactor, which would mean we would have to actually build one. We have the knowledge, just not the technology to do so.

No, a working prototype is not required to prove that MAM reactions could be used to generate electricity. If you can prove coal burns to produce heat you can know it can be used to heat steam and drive turbines to generate power. If you want to prove the feasibility of a coal power station you would need to do more, but since you're trying to hold you FTL-wank to the standards of proof for a theory rather than a device, it's not a valid example.

A true chimera can be explained by either genetic engineering or mutation from being around radiation.

Then it wouldn't be a true chimera. A true chimera is one that is not the result of deliberate tampering. And since when does radiation cause DNA to suddenly express a large number of characteristics of a totally different species? I think someone needs to learn the difference between scientific journals and X-Men comics.

Quite a few mythical animals can be explained using evolution, and one of them (Bigfoot) is actually the Holy Grail of evolutionary theory. If Bigfoot were proven alive, scientists could just point at it and say "There it is!" when asked for proof of human evolution from other primates.

We already have that proof, we don't need any more. Only creationists believe there is no proof of transitions between apes and humans.

I'm assuming that only a small, but key, piece of evidence is disproven or a piece of evidence is discovered that shows evolution as we understand it is not the cause of life changing as it has.

Anything that disproved evolution totally would completely alter our understanding of biology. You apparently don't understand the difference between causing a revision of a theory and totally disproving it.

The big difference is the Laws of science are basically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and can be relied on as long as the universe itself doesn't change.

Laws are just theories with a lot of support. There's no actual difference other than semantics.

In which case, I'll have to say that I cannot provide concrete proof due to the same reason you cannot disprove it. There isn't any that I am aware of. If there is evidence that supports it, it is in an avenue of exploration I am frankly not that interested in.

Concession accepted.

But, at the same time, I must say our current knowledge of science doesn't permit FTL drives to be considered impossible either.

Doesn't matter, the burden of proof is on the side considering them to be an engineering certainty. You've already conceded you have no proof.

We know it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light by Einstein's Equation, but at the same time we know we cannot travel at the speed of light by that same equation. And, thus, we are back at the crux of the arguement. Some of us are searching for ways that will work under modern physics and have found a few we think will work, but can't prove they can work without building actual working prototypes using technology humanity doesn't have.

In which case you cannot claim it is workable and your FTL drive is the kind of good-natured wank that I have no problem with except when the terminally pretentious use phrases like 'will actually work' in connection with it.

All of that is evidence explained by the theory of evolution, in this case backed up by evidence from their genetic codes. But, this is still not the evidence the theory needs to prove itself. This is evidence that, without the theory, still has a firm leg to stand on and can be incorporated into a new one at a later date. You need to separate the evidence the theory is explaining from the evidence supporting it. The two are not, despite science's claim, necessarily the same.

We are not arguing over the theory of evolution. Further, the theory of evolution claims to explain an event, not postulate the inevitability of building an apparatus. The requirements of proof are DIFFERENT.

This is how you're trying to present your theory:

Gravitons may exist------------->Therefore someday we will be able to use them in FTL drives

But let's look again, because that isn't your theory at all.

Gravitons may exist THEREFORE gravitons certainly do exist THEREFORE we will certainly be able to harness them THEREFORE we will certainly be able to build an apparatus that uses them THEREFORE we will certainly be able to miniaturise this device to work on a starship

The issue here is all those extra 'therefore-certainly' parts you're trying to hide in your claim that FTL is plausible with modern physics.

Which is exactly the point I brought up later.

No, it's not. Your entire argument thus far revolves around judging a claim of engineering certainly to the same standards of proof as an explanatory theory for an event that is already known to have taken place. Your FTL claim is exactly the same as claiming with our current knowledge we can know for sure that one day we will be able to replicate the Big Bang in a lab.

Gravitational radiation itself proves that our current theories about gravity need to be seriously rewritten.

That's odd, your site says it's predicted by General Relativity.

The fact it exists points out that gravity is a very real phenomena and can possibly be harnessed in the future. Gravitons are used as a way to explain how gravitational radiation exists, explaining it away as a subatomic particle produced by natural phenomena.

The decrease appeared to be consistent with the amount of decrease predicted by general relativity from the radiation of gravitational energy. We believe that if gravitational energy is radiated, then it must be radiated in discrete quanta. These quanta would be "gravitons". There is no direct evidence for gravitons to date.

And why does it follow that if a phenomenon exists we can harness it? Has anyone proposed a Big Bang powered reactor, or that every child will one day own a snowglobe with a Pokegalaxy in it? 'Mine has spiral arms!'

We shouldn't. But we shouldn't discount it, either. If the energy is moving at FTL speeds as it exits the black hole, it means we have to revise our understanding of energy to include that it can move at FTL speeds while preserving the thought nothing going slower than light can escape a black hole.

No, we should not assume it is breaking the known laws of physics if we have not observed it. Your staggering ignorance of proper scientific inquiry is showing.

Actually, the gravitational radiation from pulsars is evidence of gravitons. That energy has to be made of something, and whatever that is can likely be replicated in labs later.

No, it's not. Your link says as much.

The decrease appeared to be consistent with the amount of decrease predicted by general relativity from the radiation of gravitational energy. We believe that if gravitational energy is radiated, then it must be radiated in discrete quanta. These quanta would be "gravitons". There is no direct evidence for gravitons to date.

And, again, why does it follow that we can 'likely replicate [it] in labs later?'

Which is you not bothering to take the quote in context. The origin of the universe does have something to do about whether or not experimental data proves items as existing to general physics.

Which isn't the question, because we're talking about engineering, not physics. You know that physics alone doesn't decide if a device can actually be built, right?

And my original claim, while the basis of this arguement, was part of the setup of a joke that the ramifications for are still going on.

And you're still claiming it's a joke when cornered even though it's clear the only joke is your ignorance of the difference between science and engineering.

The position was intended to be supported, at the time I posted it, with the most silly and nonsensical explanations you can imagine. As you can see, the other party fell through on their end and tried for seriousness.

So why are you still trying to 'win?' You know after 12pm the fool is you, yes?

No. The lead it is covering protects against radiation. That stuff is to prevent the power cell from being ruptured during battle. We don't need a big radioactive mess on our hands just because someone with a rocket launchers got lucky.

Wow I didn't even think of that. That stuff is REALLY strong. You know that gives me an idea! Thanks!

Another example of postmodern is Peter F Hamilton's 'Greg Mandel' series.Aside from agree-ing for the most part with what you raised Grand Teton, I'd also point out that the Night's Dawn Trilogy from the same writer is a good referance for some very future-tech stuff as well.

* Haven't read much of the Greg Mandel series, only The Nano Flower. Misspent Youth was a good Modern - Post Modern though.

Correct. Vastiva's argument is that something can travel faster than light, so we should extrapolate that one day other things will be able to as well. This is a poor argument, since that does not follow.

I'll choose to ignore the "can't you fucking read" statement you made earlier.
:rolleyes:

FTL is possible if something can go faster then light. Reason - this would prove the light barrier is not unbreechable, that there are things which do in fact go faster then light.

If something goes faster then "lightspeed", then lightspeed is not an "absolute" barrier. Simple logic.

In short, this arguement is effectively over with the statement of:


But, at the same time, I must say our current knowledge of science doesn't permit FTL drives to be considered impossible either. We know it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light by Einstein's Equation, but at the same time we know we cannot travel at the speed of light by that same equation. And, thus, we are back at the crux of the arguement. Some of us are searching for ways that will work under modern physics and have found a few we think will work, but can't prove they can work without building actual working prototypes using technology humanity doesn't have

Unless there is absolute proof none of these methods will work - without experimental data available - then there is the possibility some may work in some form. Therefore, modern physics does allow for FTL drives in some form, theoretically. End game, end set, end arguement.

FTL is possible if something can go faster then light. Reason - this would prove the light barrier is not unbreechable, that there are things which do in fact go faster then light.

Unless these things are macroscopic objects, it does not follow that a faster than light drive is a plausible feat of engineering. Don't you get it? Theory does not equal the ability to construct a device based on theory, and we should NOT assume a natural progression between one and the other!

If something goes faster then "lightspeed", then lightspeed is not an "absolute" barrier. Simple logic.

It does not, however, follow that other things may do so too. The fact that sand goes through a sieve does not mean that someday marbles will be able to as well.

Unless there is absolute proof none of these methods will work - without experimental data available - then there is the possibility some may work in some form.

Burden of proof fallacy. The burden lies with those who wish to prove that any of them do work, not that they don't. Did the engineers who designed the F-22 give it countermeasures in case it struck an invisible wall in mid-air? Does the aerospace industry give a shit about invisible flying walls, even though it can't disprove them?

The idea that if a theory cannot be totally disproven it is somehow automatically reasonable is preposterous. You share your line of reasoning with conspiracy theorists and creationists, congrats.

Therefore, modern physics does allow for FTL drives in some form, theoretically. End game, end set, end arguement.

Theoritically is not the same as actually, and theory does not equal engineering. As I said in my last post. The fact that modern physics might allow a particle to travel faster than light does not mean we can construct a functional apparatus that will allow a macroscopic object to do likewise.

Seriously, how much more do I have to do to explain this incredibly simple concept? Draw you a diagram in crayon?

Therefore, modern physics does allow for FTL drives in some form, theoretically. End game, end set, end arguement.It doesn't. Vague and non-working theories allow for it, by way of amazing and more or less ludicrous mathematical twists.

Let me explain: Modern, hard physics mean Plank's quantum theory and Einsteins Relativity.

String Theory (The thing with gravitons DLE needs) is not a part of this. It remains unproven (Unlike the two aforementioend theories), and is challenged by other theories (I.e. Quantumgeometry).

DLE's claim is that his drive will actually work. This cannot be proven with an unproven theory. In the decades of its existence, there has never been evidence that the string theory is correct. it is just a mathematical possibility.

And mathematics don't equal physics.

If Radiation leaving a black hole goes at FTL speeds <snip>And why exactly should it? Hawking radiation has been an object for (Theoretical) research for quite some time. I observe the distinct lack of claims that it exists at FTL speeds. Given that it is based on accepted theories (The ones that don't allow for FTL), it doesn't.

And for fucks sake. DLE. Is your mind really so warped that you can seriously claim that 'Because FTL velocities have never been observed, it is invalid to claim that FTL velocities are impossible, since the opposite has never been proven'? 'Tis is exactly what you did a few posts back. "You can't provide evidence that FTL is impossible under the known laws of physics (Nevermind relativity and a hundred years of experimental evidence saying otherwise), so it must be possible!"

I have to say... Your neurons are pretty much fucked.

If there was evidence, we would fucking know because it would be a first class sensation. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Fact: The original formulae by Einstein was a reflective asymptotal function. Which proposed objects moving faster then and slower then light.

Fact: There are formulae showing that bumblebees can't fly. They do anyway. Hence, the formulae is obviously in error - but it still exists.You really don't see the difference, do you?

One case is effectively disproven.

The other isn't.

Really... Your ability to find proper comparisons is severely... Lacking.

So, until you disprove it, you're basically, well, wasting hundreds of words to defend something that cannot be defended.

No, a working prototype is not required to prove that MAM reactions could be used to generate electricity. If you can prove coal burns to produce heat you can know it can be used to heat steam and drive turbines to generate power. If you want to prove the feasibility of a coal power station you would need to do more, but since you're trying to hold you FTL-wank to the standards of proof for a theory rather than a device, it's not a valid example.

But they are required to prove the entire device design works. It doesn't help to say, "Oh, MAM reactions produce electricity, so my design that just throws them together and hopes they don't breech the walls should work." Part of technology is having a feasible way of producing it or at least people willing to overlook it.

And considering what you have said before on this thread, I find it comical you're referring to it as "FTL-wank".

Then it wouldn't be a true chimera. A true chimera is one that is not the result of deliberate tampering. And since when does radiation cause DNA to suddenly express a large number of characteristics of a totally different species? I think someone needs to learn the difference between scientific journals and X-Men comics.

A true chimera is a species that is the combination of multiple species. The last time I checked mythology, it wasn't unusual for them to be the result of tampering, though in this case by the gods of whatever mythology. Tampering as a result of science isn't really that different.

And the radiation comment was keeping in mind something about genetics. A species doesn't just automatically dump all of the genetic data from its previous evolutionary forms. It keeps bits and pieces of that form in its genetic code, both active and inactive. A mutation that suddenly caused all of that genetic junk to activate would produce a truly horrific creature combining characteristics from multiple species and possibly even multiple animal classes.

We already have that proof, we don't need any more. Only creationists believe there is no proof of transitions between apes and humans.

And only those who follow science as though it is a religion believe it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Anything that disproved evolution totally would completely alter our understanding of biology. You apparently don't understand the difference between causing a revision of a theory and totally disproving it.

All you have to do to disprove a theory is prove that the explanation of the theory is too fundementally flawed to be anywhere close to accurate. We're talking "Giant squid doesn't exist" flawed. It doesn't mean the evidence itself is disproven, just that you have to find a new explanation for it.

Laws are just theories with a lot of support. There's no actual difference other than semantics.

Laws are theories that can only be disproved by altering how the universe works. Theories can be disproven by proving the explanation is wrong without necessarily having to alter how the universe works. That's a pretty big difference.

Doesn't matter, the burden of proof is on the side considering them to be an engineering certainty. You've already conceded you have no proof.

Actually, not necessarily true. There are those who would argue the person challenging the claim is the one who has the burden of proof, as they are trying to disprove the claim itself. All the challenged has to do is prove the other side cannot prove it false. Under those rules, I have already won the arguement, as you cannot disprove my claim without the evidence I would need to prove it. Thus, by being unable to disprove the claim, you would have failed your burden of proof and, as such, have failed to disprove the claim.

In which case you cannot claim it is workable and your FTL drive is the kind of good-natured wank that I have no problem with except when the terminally pretentious use phrases like 'will actually work' in connection with it.

I can claim anything I want, but no one said I can actually prove everything I claim.

We are not arguing over the theory of evolution.

We are arguing unproven theories.

Further, the theory of evolution claims to explain an event, not postulate the inevitability of building an apparatus.

Guess what the theory of gravitons does?

The requirements of proof are DIFFERENT.

This is how you're trying to present your theory:

Gravitons may exist------------->Therefore someday we will be able to use them in FTL drives

But let's look again, because that isn't your theory at all.

Gravitons may exist THEREFORE gravitons certainly do exist THEREFORE we will certainly be able to harness them THEREFORE we will certainly be able to build an apparatus that uses them THEREFORE we will certainly be able to miniaturise this device to work on a starship

The issue here is all those extra 'therefore-certainly' parts you're trying to hide in your claim that FTL is plausible with modern physics.

Actually, if you check the past posts, you would find your second statement of what I am arguing is untrue. At least they got that part right.

No, it's not. Your entire argument thus far revolves around judging a claim of engineering certainly to the same standards of proof as an explanatory theory for an event that is already known to have taken place. Your FTL claim is exactly the same as claiming with our current knowledge we can know for sure that one day we will be able to replicate the Big Bang in a lab.

How is that any different from NASA claiming they can someday build a spaceship using MAM reactions to power it despite the fact they do not have access to the necessary materials?

That's odd, your site says it's predicted by General Relativity.

Which does not contradict the idea of it also being made of gravitons.

And why does it follow that if a phenomenon exists we can harness it? Has anyone proposed a Big Bang powered reactor, or that every child will one day own a snowglobe with a Pokegalaxy in it? 'Mine has spiral arms!'

Actually, yes. Some Zero Point Modules actually work by having a Big Bang inside them and drawing the energy from the expanding universe. Micro-Big Bangs have also been utilized in weaponry in scifi before. Hell, my own designs for scifi include a nation using ships so powerful they have to utilize Big Bangs just to power their engines, though mostly as a joke. And the "Pokegalaxy" has been postulated too many times for me to count, and not just by scifi writers. So, yes, all of those have been proposed.

No, we should not assume it is breaking the known laws of physics if we have not observed it. Your staggering ignorance of proper scientific inquiry is showing.

I wouldn't really try to talk about that if I were you. You have already shown you are ignorant of how science works yourself. A large part of scientific inquiry involves proposing an explanation and then trying to see if the explanation is the right one to go with. Then you go get the evidence, check the evidence out, and if wrong revise and try again. That's standard scientific procedure and is taught to gradeschoolers.

No, it's not. Your link says as much.



And, again, why does it follow that we can 'likely replicate [it] in labs later?'

Ironically, my link says it is indirect evidence. I notice you left that part out. As for why we are likely to at some point replicate it in labs: The radiation results from an observed phenomenon that can be replicated on the small scale. It'll take extremely powerful nuclear reactors to replicate, but nothing says we can't try.

Which isn't the question, because we're talking about engineering, not physics. You know that physics alone doesn't decide if a device can actually be built, right?

You do understand the word "context", right? Going by your comments, you apparently don't. Here's a definition for you to consider.

Main Entry: con·text
Pronunciation: 'kän-"tekst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave -- more at TECHNICAL
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING
- con·text·less /-"tekst-l&s/ adjective
- con·tex·tu·al /kän-'teks-ch&-w&l, k&n-, -ch&l/ adjective
- con·tex·tu·al·ly adverb

If you did understand context, you would know why your challenge to my use of it was a mistake on your part. You're the one providing the interpretations you disagree with, not me.

And you're still claiming it's a joke when cornered even though it's clear the only joke is your ignorance of the difference between science and engineering.

If you can't even see why that is so horribly bad as an arguement, I won't be able to explain it to you because I'll be laughing too hard. If you're trying to be taken seriously, comments like that don't help.

On second thought, I will explain it to you. You do know that engineering is part of science, right?

So why are you still trying to 'win?' You know after 12pm the fool is you, yes?

Ah yes, the direct flame. Still, not as bad as DA pulled, so I'll let this one slide.

To not understand why I am continuing this is to prove I have the advantage. The longer we argue, the more mistakes you make and the more mistakes you make, the harder it is to back your position. It's a case of allowing you to argue yourself into a hole you can't dig yourself out of. Much like how Der Angst has buried himself.

Let me explain: Modern, hard physics mean Plank's quantum theory and Einsteins Relativity.

String Theory (The thing with gravitons DLE needs) is not a part of this. It remains unproven (Unlike the two aforementioend theories), and is challenged by other theories (I.e. Quantumgeometry).

DLE's claim is that his drive will actually work. This cannot be proven with an unproven theory. In the decades of its existence, there has never been evidence that the string theory is correct. it is just a mathematical possibility.

And yet, those are accepted as part of modern physics. Theories about how items work are also part of modern physics because they are part of our understanding of the universe. The theories change as our understanding grows. That's science in action.

And mathematics don't equal physics.

Tell that to Einstein.

And why exactly should it? Hawking radiation has been an object for (Theoretical) research for quite some time. I observe the distinct lack of claims that it exists at FTL speeds. Given that it is based on accepted theories (The ones that don't allow for FTL), it doesn't.

And here is where you have accepted the burden of proof, as you cannot prove that modern theories rule out FTL travel. You can prove they rule out travel at the speed of light, but not FTL.

The possibility that radiation travels at FTL speeds was only brought up as a possibility due to the nature of black holes and the nature of a lack of evidence we have to the contrary. We're far enough away from any black hole that to say definitively on what speed the radiation is travelling at is to show more ego than science. Science can give you a good guess, but we need to actually travel to a black hole to get the answer.

And for fucks sake. DLE. Is your mind really so warped that you can seriously claim that 'Because FTL velocities have never been observed, it is invalid to claim that FTL velocities are impossible, since the opposite has never been proven'? 'Tis is exactly what you did a few posts back. "You can't provide evidence that FTL is impossible under the known laws of physics (Nevermind relativity and a hundred years of experimental evidence saying otherwise), so it must be possible!"

Actually, relativity doesn't rule out FTL. It rules out travelling at the speed of light, but not faster. That's what we've been trying to get you to understand, and so far your selective ignoring of parts of posts you don't like has prevented you from understanding that. And saying we have a hundred years of experimental evidence must be proven, as I see no evidence on the issue that doesn't result from a lack of technology.

And, once again, I find you using another tactic to attempt to twist the arguement your way. As much as you may try to ignore past posts and try to twist the arguement, the fact remains that you have no case and cannot prove it. Also, I notice you dodged the evidence question, which means you don't have any.

I have to say... Your neurons are pretty much fucked.

And you're even resulting to direct attacks. As of this moment, don't even bother to reply. You have no evidence or arguement worthy of consideration and this comment proves it. If you did, you wouldn't have to result to such an attack.

If there was evidence, we would fucking know because it would be a first class sensation. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Which, if you bothered to read my posts instead of just pulling a random quote and making up what you feel like, makes you look especially bad.

Fact: There are formulae showing that bumblebees can't fly. They do anyway. Hence, the formulae is obviously in error - but it still exists.

Yes. Of course, they're incorrect (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp). I suppose I could come up with a formula to "prove" that's you're a lung fish with a tendancy to sing songs from Anything Goes in Old High German. Doesn't mean such a theory would be accepted or particularly useful.

The persistence of the bumblebee myth also highlights a misunderstanding about science, models, and mathematics. The real issue isn't that scientists can be wrong. The real issue is that there's a crucial difference between a "thing" and a mathematical model of the "thing."

Amazingly fitting, no?

What urban legend will you quote next? That the Mormons own Coke? (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp)

Actually, not necessarily true. There are those who would argue the person challenging the claim is the one who has the burden of proof

Provided the claim is widely accepted as true.

When plate tetonics were first postulated, the burdon was on the one saying they existed. As science now accepts them, the burdon is on people saying they don't exist.

Established science says FTL is impossible regardless of the technology base. The burdon lies squarely on your shoulders. Furthermore, Mr. Sagan would probably like to point out "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". FTL being feasable within the current laws of physics is a pretty extraordinary claim. Thus far, your proof has been, "It hasn't been proven false".

Under those rules, I have already won the arguement, as you cannot disprove my claim without the evidence I would need to prove it. Thus, by being unable to disprove the claim, you would have failed your burden of proof and, as such, have failed to disprove the claim.

DLE, seriously. This is just sad. When semantics failed, you called it a joke. When that didn't wash, you went back to semantics. You cannot shift the burdon of proof with grammatical slight-of-hand. And your continued insistance that people prove a negative is growing tiresome.

A large part of scientific inquiry involves proposing an explanation and then trying to see if the explanation is the right one to go with. Then you go get the evidence, check the evidence out, and if wrong revise and try again. That's standard scientific procedure and is taught to gradeschoolers.

So where's the part where you gather no evidence, perform no experiments, and demand that everyone prove a negative, which is what you've been doing this whole thread.

To not understand why I am continuing this is to prove I have the advantage. The longer we argue, the more mistakes you make and the more mistakes you make, the harder it is to back your position.

Only because of your utter inability to admit when you're wrong.

Actually, relativity doesn't rule out FTL. It rules out travelling at the speed of light, but not faster.

Aside from that niggling problem of needing to go the speed of light (even it for the briefest of attoseconds) en route to going faster than the speed of light.

Now, it's been a good 10 years since I took physics, but don't you run into nasty things like imaginary numbers when exceeding c in most equations?

But they are required to prove the entire device design works. It doesn't help to say, "Oh, MAM reactions produce electricity,

Can you fucking read? I said they produce heat! Don't you know the difference between heat and electricity?

...so my design that just throws them together and hopes they don't breech the walls should work." Part of technology is having a feasible way of producing it or at least people willing to overlook it.

MAM reactors are theoretically possible if the reaction of matter and antimatter produces energy. This is true. MAM reactors are not inevitable because we have not solved problems of containment, safe storage of antimatter and so on.

Also, it's nice you agree with me that you're full of shit, since you have conceded that in order to prove something 'will actually work' it must be built.

some FT nations are looking at ways of FTL travel that doesn't break the known physical laws simply by finding convenient ways around them that will actually work

In order to prove your FTL drive 'will actually work' you must, according to your standard of proof for an MAM reactor, build one and test it. Since you cannot do that, you original claim is clearly <drum roll> bullshit.

A true chimera is a species that is the combination of multiple species. The last time I checked mythology, it wasn't unusual for them to be the result of tampering, though in this case by the gods of whatever mythology. Tampering as a result of science isn't really that different.

You really don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, do you? A true chimeric species would be one that was not the result of genetic tampering by outside sources, that is what the true part refers to. What you are talking about is a fake chimeric species.

And the radiation comment was keeping in mind something about genetics. A species doesn't just automatically dump all of the genetic data from its previous evolutionary forms. It keeps bits and pieces of that form in its genetic code, both active and inactive. A mutation that suddenly caused all of that genetic junk to activate would produce a truly horrific creature combining characteristics from multiple species and possibly even multiple animal classes.

Introns. The most likely result of activating introns would be a lethal mutation, and since no species has ever been half of one species and half of another there would be no DNA that could create anything stable. And, again, you're referring to a false chimeric species. A real chimeric species would be one that was not the result of human action or silly X-Men style mutations. Have we ever seen radiation produce such an effect anyway?


And only those who follow science as though it is a religion believe it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You are a creationist, aren't you? Find 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in the quote

We already have that proof, we don't need any more. Only creationists believe there is no proof of transitions between apes and humans.

Bigfoot is not necessary to prove evolution because ape-human transitional fossils already exist. How does that equate to the claim that evolution is utterly unshakeable that you seem to have read in my last post? How the FUCK does any form of warped logic connect this to your actual point?

All you have to do to disprove a theory is prove that the explanation of the theory is too fundementally flawed to be anywhere close to accurate. We're talking "Giant squid doesn't exist" flawed. It doesn't mean the evidence itself is disproven, just that you have to find a new explanation for it.

This would either require knowledge that the evidence was tampered with in some way or was being catastrophically misinterpreted, or the observation of a species with no clear ancestors or a true chimera. The sheer body of evidence for evolution would mean refuting it would make everything we know about biology wrong.

Laws are theories that can only be disproved by altering how the universe works. Theories can be disproven by proving the explanation is wrong without necessarily having to alter how the universe works. That's a pretty big difference.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Wait, I don't see 'altering the universe' there, do you? Why not check that entire link for it?

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

It seems there is no difference but simplicity, and you're just pulling definitions out of your ass. And once again, dividing 'law' and 'theory' totally obliterates any kind of support your FTLwank may ever have had.

Actually, not necessarily true. There are those who would argue the person challenging the claim is the one who has the burden of proof, as they are trying to disprove the claim itself. All the challenged has to do is prove the other side cannot prove it false. Under those rules, I have already won the arguement, as you cannot disprove my claim without the evidence I would need to prove it. Thus, by being unable to disprove the claim, you would have failed your burden of proof and, as such, have failed to disprove the claim.

Seriously, you have no idea how to logically approach something. The valid position in inquiry is ALWAYS one of scepticism. Do you believe fighter jets should worry about invisible flying walls? Do you believe that with no evidence for the invisible pink unicorn it is valid to presume that we will one day be able to ride them? Do you believe it is scientifically reasonable to appeal to divine intervention despite that such theories cannot explain anything?

Your attempt to redefine scientific inquiry to the point where your asinine 'theory' is inevitable simply because it cannot be totally disproved is so at odds with proper scientific method that it's difficult to believe. It is at odds with the principle of the burden of proof and the principle of parsimony and involves multiple leaps in logic to go from untestable theory to practical device.

Further, being possible to disprove is one of the major tests of a scientific theory; since you acknowledge your theory is impossible to disprove, you also acknowledge it is useless.

I can claim anything I want, but no one said I can actually prove everything I claim.

Actually, you did. Your endless attempts to redefine your original claim are starting to become tiresome.

We are arguing unproven theories.

No, we are arguing engineering certainties. Again, your monolithically arrogant portrayal of your stupid theory as equal to one with an actual basis in observation and experimental data may be valid in your mind, but it isn't valid anywhere else. Can your theory make predictions that can be tested by experiments? The Big Bang theory can. Evolution can. Your admission that your FTL 'theory' is impossible to test or refute means it is not a real theory at all.

Guess what the theory of gravitons does?

Look, let's put this very, very simply.

The theory of gravitons postulates that gravitons exist. It is NOT generally accepted because of a lack of observational evidence and an inability to test it.

It does not postulate that gravitons can be harnessed.

It does not postulate that you can invert a black hole.

It does not postulate that a device using gravitons is an engineering certainty.

THEREFORE:

It does not support you!

Is that simplistic enough for you?

Actually, if you check the past posts, you would find your second statement of what I am arguing is untrue. At least they got that part right.

It is exactly true. You are arguing that because a theory does not rule out the existence of something completely we will one day be able to harness it and miniaturise the device that harnesses it to fit inside a spaceship. That is what creating a method of FTL travel that 'will actually work' means.

How is that any different from NASA claiming they can someday build a spaceship using MAM reactions to power it despite the fact they do not have access to the necessary materials?

Have they claimed it is totally inevitable as you have? Should we assume they are actually right? Stop appealing to authority.

Actually, yes. Some Zero Point Modules actually work by having a Big Bang inside them and drawing the energy from the expanding universe. Micro-Big Bangs have also been utilized in weaponry in scifi before. Hell, my own designs for scifi include a nation using ships so powerful they have to utilize Big Bangs just to power their engines, though mostly as a joke. And the "Pokegalaxy" has been postulated too many times for me to count, and not just by scifi writers. So, yes, all of those have been proposed.

Do you know the difference between fiction and reality?

I wouldn't really try to talk about that if I were you. You have already shown you are ignorant of how science works yourself. A large part of scientific inquiry involves proposing an explanation and then trying to see if the explanation is the right one to go with. Then you go get the evidence, check the evidence out, and if wrong revise and try again. That's standard scientific procedure and is taught to gradeschoolers.

Science does not postulate engineering inevitability based on nothing more than unconfirmed theories. That's what you're doing.

Scientific enquiry generally begins by stating a hypothesis based on available data from past experiments. The hypothesis is then tested by comparing it to real-life data. If the hypothesis fits the data it is regarded to be correct, if not it is regarded to be incorrect.

Here is the problem: all you have is your hypothesis that you rubbishdrive 'will actually work.' There IS no data for you to analyse, so it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion. If in a scientific experiment the phenomenon you describe in your hypothesis cannot be shown to occur at all, would you claim your hypothesis was correct anyway?

Ironically, my link says it is indirect evidence. I notice you left that part out. As for why we are likely to at some point replicate it in labs: The radiation results from an observed phenomenon that can be replicated on the small scale. It'll take extremely powerful nuclear reactors to replicate, but nothing says we can't try.

Nothing says we will succeed, either. Burden of proof fallacy. And indirect evidence means it is not direct evidence. Indirect gets you 'might actually work,' not 'will actually work.'

If you did understand context, you would know why your challenge to my use of it was a mistake on your part. You're the one providing the interpretations you disagree with, not me.

How does this change that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the existence of gravitons, and that a scientific theory has a lower threshold of proof than a claim that a device can actually be built and will work?

If you can't EXPLAIN the context rather than quoting a dictionary definition of it, you should just give up now.

If you can't even see why that is so horribly bad as an arguement, I won't be able to explain it to you because I'll be laughing too hard. If you're trying to be taken seriously, comments like that don't help.

On second thought, I will explain it to you. You do know that engineering is part of science, right?

Fallacy of Division. Engineering is applied science as opposed to theoretical science. Your childish semantics don't change that. If science and engineering are totally identical, why are they regarded as different fields with different qualifications and training standards? Could it be because they're actually different?

Or are you honestly trying to state that building a device that works is inevitable even if the concept it is based on is unproved and could for all anyone knows be completely false? The Tacoma Narrows bridge was build based on all the knowledge of bridge design at the time and yet it collapsed. By your diseased logic, that collapse was impossible!

Ah yes, the direct flame. Still, not as bad as DA pulled, so I'll let this one slide.

I repeat: You do know that after 12pm the fool is you?

To not understand why I am continuing this is to prove I have the advantage.

In the weird fantasy world you inhabit where if something cannot be disproved it is a reasonable theory, perhaps you do. To people who don't think that, you're holed and taking on water. Fast. Still, the oil slick is kinda pretty.

The longer we argue, the more mistakes you make and the more mistakes you make, the harder it is to back your position.

As opposed to your position, which you can only back with bullshit arguments about mathematical probabilities when we're arguing if something can be built and 'will actually work.'

Established science says FTL is impossible regardless of the technology base.

Improbable is the word you are looking for. Not impossible. Unless you assume science says the cashmir effect and wormholes can not exist.

Provided the claim is widely accepted as true.

Once again, not necessarily.

When plate tetonics were first postulated, the burdon was on the one saying they existed. As science now accepts them, the burdon is on people saying they don't exist.

Established science says FTL is impossible regardless of the technology base. The burdon lies squarely on your shoulders. Furthermore, Mr. Sagan would probably like to point out "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". FTL being feasable within the current laws of physics is a pretty extraordinary claim. Thus far, your proof has been, "It hasn't been proven false".

Actually, I was referencing some of the following:

http://www.transtatorindustries.org/FTL.html (this one is questionably trustworthy)
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000B02DD-3A2D-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html (recommended by http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm)

The above really isn't that much in the way of evidence, as it all relies entirely on math and playing around with the fabric of the universe.

DLE, seriously. This is just sad. When semantics failed, you called it a joke. When that didn't wash, you went back to semantics. You cannot shift the burdon of proof with grammatical slight-of-hand. And your continued insistance that people prove a negative is growing tiresome.

Actually, my continued insistance has been that people cannot prove the negative for the same reason I cannot prove the positive. And you must consider the dates in question for the parts labelled as a joke.

So where's the part where you gather no evidence, perform no experiments, and demand that everyone prove a negative, which is what you've been doing this whole thread.

For evidence, I have provided links over the past couple of pages. For experiments, I've already explained that one. For the proof, I've argued only that it cannot be proven impossible and have not really tried that hard to argue it can be proven possible.

Only because of your utter inability to admit when you're wrong.

Uh-huh. Hack, seriously, this is something we both know you cannot prove. And something I know I can prove the opposite of. In fact, I think I'll do that just now.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8530044&postcount=34

Oops. Looks like you're wrong on that one.

I may be an ass, but I do have the honor to admit when I am completely wrong on a topic. And on this one I have admitted I cannot prove it.

Aside from that niggling problem of needing to go the speed of light (even it for the briefest of attoseconds) en route to going faster than the speed of light.

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. Which is why it requires basically altering the rules of reality by curving space/time itself to work. Then, the physics themselves change. Which is why I decided to use gravity in the first place.

Now, it's been a good 10 years since I took physics, but don't you run into nasty things like imaginary numbers when exceeding c in most equations?

If the recent experiment in firing a photon at 300 times the speed of light proves to be replicated and not just an experiment violated by an unaccounted for variable, then no. If so, then maybe.

I believe the differentiation is between the principles of special relativity. That is, nothing can exceed the speed of light locally. That is, irregardless of your frame of reference, you would not be able to exceed the speed of light in your refference.

The present theory going into virtual "FTL" concepts, is the alteration of refference, to circumvent the effective FTL.

For example, amongst ST's Warp-Drive, the same as Alcubierre's warp-bubble, the person inside the effected local region of space is traveling at speeds slower than "c" in their refference, but the space-time, that is the local region itself, is flatened to make "c" in the locality faster than "c" outside of the locality.

Special relativity is not universal. It is only applicable to local regions of observation. FTL is virtual in these cases, as the object is moving "faster" in this medium of space-time, than would be allowed in the normal medium of space-time. In effect, the system is using the results of relativity against itself (much as a gravitational slingshot uses the effects of gravity against itself).

Now, as of this moment we do not have any engineering know-how on how to create a controled alteration of space-time to do these, however, it is certain, within EXCEPTED SCIENCE, that such alterations would cause the effects we want. Thus, the anti-FTL'ers in this thread are confusing ENGINEERING with SCIENCE, stating that since we do not know how to ENGINEER a way to do this, it is thus impossible. (An absurd claim). With present engineering capabilities, we do not know how to build a system that can move an object faster than the speed of light in our observational frame. This is not to say that doing such is impossible, only improbable scientifically, based on present knowledge.

The same occurs amogst Wormhole FTL'ers... The ship never locally exceeds light-speed. But in the universal frame it does, in that the time it takes object "A" to go between points "X" and "Y" is shorter than it takes a light particle traveling the same distance in normal space-time.

So, can a ship with such theoretical "Drives" travel faster than light? The answer is both yes and no, depending on the frame you are speaking of.

An object inside Alcubeirre's warp-bubble, would be traveling slower than the speed of light INSIDE the bubble, but faster than the speed of light OUTSIDE the bubble. The answer is YES and NO...

It both is and isn't exceeding light speed.

Can you fucking read? I said they produce heat! Don't you know the difference between heat and electricity?

You said, and I quote:

No, a working prototype is not required to prove that MAM reactions could be used to generate electricity. If you can prove coal burns to produce heat you can know it can be used to heat steam and drive turbines to generate power.

That is true of coal, which releases heat as energy. It's not true of MAM reactions, which release energy and massive amounts of radiation caused by the matter and antimatter instantly converting each other to pure energy.

MAM reactors are theoretically possible if the reaction of matter and antimatter produces energy. This is true. MAM reactors are not inevitable because we have not solved problems of containment, safe storage of antimatter and so on.

They are theoretically possible because of a bunch of mathematics based on actual particles that exist, which were first theorized about because of mathematics (specifically, Einstein's Theory of Relativity).

Also, it's nice you agree with me that you're full of shit, since you have conceded that in order to prove something 'will actually work' it must be built.

Actually, once I entered the arguement seriously, I have argued a position you have been restating quite often. All I have argued is that FTL is theoretically possible, not actually possible, ever since the Der Angst post that drew me in.

In order to prove your FTL drive 'will actually work' you must, according to your standard of proof for an MAM reactor, build one and test it. Since you cannot do that, you original claim is clearly <drum roll> bullshit.

It was intended to be. Your point?

You really don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, do you? A true chimeric species would be one that was not the result of genetic tampering by outside sources, that is what the true part refers to. What you are talking about is a fake chimeric species.

Actually, I'm getting the feeling I know more about what I am talking about than you do.

http://www.ethicsandmedics.com/0407-1.html

A true chimera, if you are talking about the actual creature, would require genetic engineering to exist. If you are talking about a true chimera as in a species that is naturally a combination of traits, I just point you at the duck-billed platypus. It's a chimera of traits that results from it being an evolutionary stepping-stone, and thus making it perfectly explainable.

Introns. The most likely result of activating introns would be a lethal mutation, and since no species has ever been half of one species and half of another there would be no DNA that could create anything stable. And, again, you're referring to a false chimeric species. A real chimeric species would be one that was not the result of human action or silly X-Men style mutations. Have we ever seen radiation produce such an effect anyway?

Radiation produce such an effect? Maybe, but I'm not putting my money either way on that one. We know radiation can cause strange cell mutations, in some cases causing unusual growths. If used on a fetus in the right amounts of the right type, it could result in a chimera. I'm just not willing to test that hypothesis myself, as I frankly don't see the reason to try something like that.

Also, to be perfectly honest, I find the X-men mutations shouldn't have happened. The age of the people involved makes them too old, meaning the mutational effect should have produced enough stress to kill them outright. At best, we should have seen people fall over dead for no apparent reason.

You are a creationist, aren't you? Find 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in the quote

You get that just from my posts? Pity. I was enjoying this, in a degree, up until this point. To be honest, I'm half-and-half. I believe in creation, but I believe it was done through all of the principles of science and that it works exactly as science says. And I believe that someday we'll figure out how the Big Bang actually happened, thus allowing us to figure out how it happened. To be honest, I'm of the personal opinion the universe is closer to 17 billion than to whatever-thousand I've heard from Creationism.

As for my comment: I was being an ass. I've met quite a few people who don't believe in Creationism and yet can't bring themselves to believe in evolution. Then there are people like me who believe both. It's all of the lovely shades of grey that plague the world.

Bigfoot is not necessary to prove evolution because ape-human transitional fossils already exist. How does that equate to the claim that evolution is utterly unshakeable that you seem to have read in my last post? How the FUCK does any form of warped logic connect this to your actual point?

Actually, it was what you said about "only creationists" believing evolution doesn't have enough evidence that got to me. The only reason Bigfoot is such of a Holy Grail is that Bigfoot is supposedly still alive. Having fossils is fine, but fossils can be faked. Having living proof is an entirely different matter and it's very hard to fake a living being.

As for my point: My point has been that theories are just the best explanation we have at this time. How it relates to my other points is something I'll save for a bit, as I have a wrap-up post I'm planning.

This would either require knowledge that the evidence was tampered with in some way or was being catastrophically misinterpreted, or the observation of a species with no clear ancestors or a true chimera. The sheer body of evidence for evolution would mean refuting it would make everything we know about biology wrong.

Actually, not even a true chimera would be evidence enough. All a true chimera shows is that some animal has, through a twist of fate, some really fucked-up genes. It could be easily written off as a random mutation gone horribly wrong, or even as a transitory species between two animal kingdoms (such as reptile and mammal). In those cases, it may actually be more evidence for evolution than against it.

All it requires is proving that there is some fundemental aspect of how life changes that we have not dealt with and that forces us to abandon the theory. Like, let's say we discover diseases are actually the method od evolution and that our genes only change because we are constantly fighting off infection. In that case, we are forced to seriously adjust how we understand evolution to happen and yet the majority of our understanding of it doesn't change.

Wait, I don't see 'altering the universe' there, do you? Why not check that entire link for it?

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

It seems there is no difference but simplicity, and you're just pulling definitions out of your ass. And once again, dividing 'law' and 'theory' totally obliterates any kind of support your FTLwank may ever have had.

Well, that proves I should have checked that further. Honestly thought I was right, as the last time I checked my definition was correct. Sometimes I get behind in these areas.

Seriously, you have no idea how to logically approach something. The valid position in inquiry is ALWAYS one of scepticism. Do you believe fighter jets should worry about invisible flying walls? Do you believe that with no evidence for the invisible pink unicorn it is valid to presume that we will one day be able to ride them? Do you believe it is scientifically reasonable to appeal to divine intervention despite that such theories cannot explain anything?

Actually, I was pointing out that there are different methods of how people look at such inquiries. Depending on the rules of the arguement and the context, stating I can build an FTL drive using two soda bottles, a piece of chewing gun, and some rocks I found in my backyard would either require me to prove it by actually doing so, me to lambast you for daring to challenge it, or you to prove I can't.

An example of the first is if I pop into a science forum and claim I discovered a way to make light particles travel 300 times the speed of light. An example of the second is if we are playing a game that involves heavy-future setting and extreme FTL. An example of the third is as Hack posted or if I choose to RP an FT nation on NS without bothering with the physics aspect and you disagree with the possibility of it.

Your attempt to redefine scientific inquiry to the point where your asinine 'theory' is inevitable simply because it cannot be totally disproved is so at odds with proper scientific method that it's difficult to believe. It is at odds with the principle of the burden of proof and the principle of parsimony and involves multiple leaps in logic to go from untestable theory to practical device.

You forgot a few items there. It is also at odds with the rules of proper ettiquette, the rules of decency, and in a few cases totally ignores physics in favor of just arguing semantics. However, that's really not the entirety of the problem, as I'm not on the same position as my first post was.

Further, being possible to disprove is one of the major tests of a scientific theory; since you acknowledge your theory is impossible to disprove, you also acknowledge it is useless.

Actually, it's not impossible to disprove ever. Just impossible to disprove right now. To disprove it, you have to either prove that gravitational radiation is pure energy or prove that gravity cannot work in attempts to make FTL drives.

Actually, you did. Your endless attempts to redefine your original claim are starting to become tiresome.

I'm not on the same position as my original claim. I thought I made that perfectly clear. Which is part of why I have spent this discussion puzzled as to why you keep bringing it up.

No, we are arguing engineering certainties. Again, your monolithically arrogant portrayal of your stupid theory as equal to one with an actual basis in observation and experimental data may be valid in your mind, but it isn't valid anywhere else. Can your theory make predictions that can be tested by experiments? The Big Bang theory can. Evolution can. Your admission that your FTL 'theory' is impossible to test or refute means it is not a real theory at all.

Actually, it's very easy to test, once we have the tech. You build one and try to see if it works. If it doesn't, the theory is wrong.

Look, let's put this very, very simply.

The theory of gravitons postulates that gravitons exist. It is NOT generally accepted because of a lack of observational evidence and an inability to test it.

Testing it requires generating gravitational radiation and examining it to see if it is made of particles or energy. That, of course, is the "currently impossible" part. The observational evidence at this time amounts to gravitational radiation existing, and that's only indirect evidence. So, yeah, pretty much correct.

It does not postulate that gravitons can be harnessed.

No, that was me.

It does not postulate that you can invert a black hole.

Actually, that's the theory of white holes. Which has been pretty much disproven.

It does not postulate that a device using gravitons is an engineering certainty.

No, that's pretty much just about every piece of science fiction on the planet.

THEREFORE:

It does not support you!

Is that simplistic enough for you?

The indirect evidence provides a little support, as all you have to do it prove that gravitons exist inside the radiation and find a way to utilize them. Even if they don't exist, the radiation itself has to be utilized. Small change from one item to another, but it works.

It is exactly true. You are arguing that because a theory does not rule out the existence of something completely we will one day be able to harness it and miniaturise the device that harnesses it to fit inside a spaceship. That is what creating a method of FTL travel that 'will actually work' means.

Nope. I haven't been arguing that for quite awhile. I've been arguing it's possible, not that it's going to happen.

Have they claimed it is totally inevitable as you have? Should we assume they are actually right? Stop appealing to authority.

They already have allowed designs to be seen by the public. What do you think?

The pointing out of authority doing it is to say that complaining about leaps of logic in the use of scientific theories really isn't valid when you consider scientists are doing it. As long as that is happening, you have to argue against more than just a single person. After all, they are supposed to be the role models for how to deal with science.

Do you know the difference between fiction and reality?

Do you understand the word "scifi" means "science fiction?" You said, and I quote,

And why does it follow that if a phenomenon exists we can harness it? Has anyone proposed a Big Bang powered reactor, or that every child will one day own a snowglobe with a Pokegalaxy in it? 'Mine has spiral arms!'

and I answered the question. Don't complain just because you don't like how I answered it.

Science does not postulate engineering inevitability based on nothing more than unconfirmed theories. That's what you're doing.

NASA does.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter2.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm

They have no proof it will work but are talking about trying it anyway.

Scientific enquiry generally begins by stating a hypothesis based on available data from past experiments. The hypothesis is then tested by comparing it to real-life data. If the hypothesis fits the data it is regarded to be correct, if not it is regarded to be incorrect.

It depends on the hypothesis. Sometimes, the hypothesis has no supporting evidence from earlier experiments and is being tried to see if it will actually work at all. Sometimes these are just based on mathematical equations that says they will work.

Here is the problem: all you have is your hypothesis that you rubbishdrive 'will actually work.' There IS no data for you to analyse, so it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion. If in a scientific experiment the phenomenon you describe in your hypothesis cannot be shown to occur at all, would you claim your hypothesis was correct anyway?

If in an experiment it cannot be shown to occur at all, I mark that down and experiment a few more times. If all of the attempts fail, I write it off as being unprovable at this time and move on to the next item. But I don't simply shelve it as disproven.

Nothing says we will succeed, either. Burden of proof fallacy. And indirect evidence means it is not direct evidence. Indirect gets you 'might actually work,' not 'will actually work.'

"Might actually work" is pretty much my standpoint. "Will actually work" requires more effort, more money, and more years than I care to commit to it.

How does this change that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the existence of gravitons, and that a scientific theory has a lower threshold of proof than a claim that a device can actually be built and will work?

That's for you to prove, as you made the connection. This is an issue on your end, not mine.

If you can't EXPLAIN the context rather than quoting a dictionary definition of it, you should just give up now.

I explained the context. You ignored it. I quoted the dictionary definition because you ignoring the explanation of the context led me to conclude you didn't know what the word meant. Try reading my past posts.

Fallacy of Division. Engineering is applied science as opposed to theoretical science. Your childish semantics don't change that. If science and engineering are totally identical, why are they regarded as different fields with different qualifications and training standards? Could it be because they're actually different?

Engineering can actually involve both. NASA's antimatter ship is using theoretical science as a basis for engineering applied science. They lack the experimental proof the ship will actually work, and yet they are designing it anyway. Sound familiar?

And you're still claiming it's a joke when cornered even though it's clear the only joke is your ignorance of the difference between science and engineering.

Was that not you?

You had separated science and engineering, and in your comment there you put engineering as part of science by having it be a type of science. So, which is it? Are the two entirely different, or is one part of the other?

Or are you honestly trying to state that building a device that works is inevitable even if the concept it is based on is unproved and could for all anyone knows be completely false? The Tacoma Narrows bridge was build based on all the knowledge of bridge design at the time and yet it collapsed. By your diseased logic, that collapse was impossible!

Are you honestly unaware of the number of times it has been said on my side that disproving the existance of gravitons means the device doesn't work?

I repeat: You do know that after 12pm the fool is you?

I repeat: You do know what a direct personal attack is, right? You should.

In the weird fantasy world you inhabit where if something cannot be disproved it is a reasonable theory, perhaps you do. To people who don't think that, you're holed and taking on water. Fast. Still, the oil slick is kinda pretty.

The advantage, m'dear, is that you're continuing to post and you're continuing to make certain mistakes, such as using direct ad hominim attacks in an arguement. I'm not planning on trying to get you in trouble, but as it stands you could easily get in it right now. I suggest you calm a bit and regain control before posting, as you cannot afford to lose control. Especially not in a public forum. Just keep in mind this is just a discussion and in the long run it doesn't matter. And, no, I'm not trying to be condescending with this.

As opposed to your position, which you can only back with bullshit arguments about mathematical probabilities when we're arguing if something can be built and 'will actually work.'

Actually, that's what you're continuing to argue. I'm not. Thus, the fundemental difference in how we're approaching the subject. I had thought I had made the segue into a different viewpoint perfectly clear.

I don't fully understand how Tech is handled.

I don't fully understand how Tech is handled.

Tech is handled in relation to the modern real world. If right now were 1930, anything involving nuclear power would be future tech. If right now were 3099, anything involving gasoline would be past tech or even ancient tech. In other words, it's all relative.

I don't fully understand how Tech is handled.

Ancient Tech = Sling-shots, bows and spears.

Past Tech = Pretty much iron/industrial age. Tanks, early prop planes, maybe some early jets... Think Pre 1950's

Modern Tech = Take a look around. M1 Abrams Tanks, F-18 Hornets, nuclear arsenals and the like.

Near-Future/Post-Modern Tech = Take all the newest crap in research, and make it normal everyday items. Could be stuff like Fusion Reactors, Quantum Computers, Newtonian space-battles, using ion drives and rocketry.

Future Tech = Watch Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek and Star Wars, and you have most of the concept of Future Tech down.

_____________________________________

On a further note:

CRoT uses wormhole like technology for its FTL drive systems, think of Sergei Kraskinov's theories.

While it may only take seconds to travel several hundred light-years... My ships never exceed 60% light-speed in the process.

Modern FTL theories all rely on the principle that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Then they try to figure out ways to make the line straight.

Ancient Tech = Sling-shots, bows and spears.

Past Tech = Pretty much iron/industrial age. Tanks, early prop planes, maybe some early jets... Think Pre 1950's

Modern Tech = Take a look around. M1 Abrams Tanks, F-18 Hornets, nuclear arsenals and the like.

Near-Future/Post-Modern Tech = Take all the newest crap in research, and make it normal everyday items. Could be stuff like Fusion Reactors, Quantum Computers, Newtonian space-battles, using ion drives and rocketry.

Future Tech = Watch Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek and Star Wars, and you have most of the concept of Future Tech down.

Note that the above is not entirely accurate. StarGate, for example, is very FT and yet uses MT technology in most aspects. To get a better idea, just assume it's something that is an unproven theory about relativity today being treated as though it is real.

How do you know your Tech?

How do you know your Tech?

You decide which technology level you are going with. I chose Future myself, but wouldn't necessarily advise it.

And you do that how?

And you do that how?

By choosing one and RPing it.

Also, conservation of energy and conservation of mass are laws, not theories. There is a big difference there.


Just to tell you, I was with you right up until here. But now, it seems, you've demostrated ignorance of a very basic concept in science.

You see, there really is no difference "truth"-wise between laws and theories. Laws are simply theories that were around during the middle to late 19th century when the end-game classical physicists thought they knew everything. So, they went around slapping the label of "law" on any theory that seemed to govern a fundemental enough concept.

Just to tell you, I was with you right up until here. But now, it seems, you've demostrated ignorance of a very basic concept in science.

You see, there really is no difference "truth"-wise between laws and theories. Laws are simply theories that were around during the middle to late 19th century when the end-game classical physicists thought they knew everything. So, they went around slapping the label of "law" on any theory that seemed to govern a fundemental enough concept.

That issue has already been dealt with. Before commenting, please read the entire arguement. And note that no one is perfect or has the time to check every minor detail.

Established science says FTL is impossible regardless of the technology base.


Improbable is the word you are looking for. Not impossible. Unless you assume science says the cashmir effect and wormholes can not exist.

Wormholes also allow for time travel, black holes create time dilation locally... there appears to be much modern technology gives a "maybe" to - and it's only "maybe" because it's "we aren't sure yet".

We could discuss string theory (pick one) and show how altering local space-time would allow FTL with no real problem - but realisticly, there's no real point in continuing the topic. Both sides are firmly entrenched, and the "it cant be done" side will be proven wrong, guaranteed.

Now, as of this moment we do not have any engineering know-how on how to create a controled alteration of space-time to do these, however, it is certain, within EXCEPTED SCIENCE, that such alterations would cause the effects we want. Thus, the anti-FTL'ers in this thread are confusing ENGINEERING with SCIENCE, stating that since we do not know how to ENGINEER a way to do this, it is thus impossible. (An absurd claim). With present engineering capabilities, we do not know how to build a system that can move an object faster than the speed of light in our observational frame. This is not to say that doing such is impossible, only improbable scientifically, based on present knowledge.

Tekania, seriously, go back to sleep. If we do not know a way to engineer an FTL drive it is impossible to claim that it 'will actually work.'

That is true of coal, which releases heat as energy. It's not true of MAM reactions, which release energy and massive amounts of radiation caused by the matter and antimatter instantly converting each other to pure energy.


Basic thermodynamics indicates that part of that energy will be heat.

Actually, once I entered the arguement seriously, I have argued a position you have been restating quite often. All I have argued is that FTL is theoretically possible, not actually possible, ever since the Der Angst post that drew me in.

No, you are lying. Your initial statement was that an FTL drive will actually work. Either concede that you were wrong to claim that or we can carry this on.

It was intended to be. Your point?

You haven't been honest enough to concede that your initial statement was totally ridiculous?

Actually, I'm getting the feeling I know more about what I am talking about than you do.

Yes, arrogance does appear to be a character trait of yours. Unfortunately, arguing semantics isn't going to change what a true chimeric species is. A Platypus is NOT a chimera, it is a species in itself with a clear line of evolutionary descent. I am talking a real species that combines the traits of two or more species and has no obvious line of descent, like a centaur, minotaur or Naga; a creature with fully formed traits of animals that are incapable of interbreeding. We have never discovered such a creature; if we had, evolution would have had to be revised to accommodate it.

Radiation produce such an effect? Maybe, but I'm not putting my money either way on that one. We know radiation can cause strange cell mutations, in some cases causing unusual growths. If used on a fetus in the right amounts of the right type, it could result in a chimera. I'm just not willing to test that hypothesis myself, as I frankly don't see the reason to try something like that.

In other words you're pulling evidence out of your ass again.

Actually, it was what you said about "only creationists" believing evolution doesn't have enough evidence that got to me. The only reason Bigfoot is such of a Holy Grail is that Bigfoot is supposedly still alive. Having fossils is fine, but fossils can be faked. Having living proof is an entirely different matter and it's very hard to fake a living being.

Anyone who believes the fossil record is faked is likely to think a living specimen is faked too.

Actually, not even a true chimera would be evidence enough. All a true chimera shows is that some animal has, through a twist of fate, some really fucked-up genes.

The entire point of the 'true' part would be that it was clearly NOT through some random twist of fate; a true chimeric species rather than a single organism would disprove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. SPECIES. As in a large group of individuals that are genetically stable enough to produce offspring.

It could be easily written off as a random mutation gone horribly wrong, or even as a transitory species between two animal kingdoms (such as reptile and mammal). In those cases, it may actually be more evidence for evolution than against it.

Is there a transition between horse and human, as per the example I gave of a centaur? Why, no!

All it requires is proving that there is some fundemental aspect of how life changes that we have not dealt with and that forces us to abandon the theory. Like, let's say we discover diseases are actually the method od evolution and that our genes only change because we are constantly fighting off infection. In that case, we are forced to seriously adjust how we understand evolution to happen and yet the majority of our understanding of it doesn't change.

Actually, it does. This is because overturning evolution means that our understanding of the evidence that proves it is wrong or the evidence is wrong; this means that there is something hugely wrong with the methods of inquiry used to examine it, and so on. Overturning evolution would be an event with staggering consequences for biology and possibly all of science.

An example of the first is if I pop into a science forum and claim I discovered a way to make light particles travel 300 times the speed of light. An example of the second is if we are playing a game that involves heavy-future setting and extreme FTL. An example of the third is as Hack posted or if I choose to RP an FT nation on NS without bothering with the physics aspect and you disagree with the possibility of it.

Guess what? Your 'will actually work' claim, made OOC, gets you set of circumstances number one. Welcome to square one, kiddo.

However, that's really not the entirety of the problem, as I'm not on the same position as my first post was.

Right, so you chose to concede without being honest enough to just say so?

Actually, it's not impossible to disprove ever. Just impossible to disprove right now. To disprove it, you have to either prove that gravitational radiation is pure energy or prove that gravity cannot work in attempts to make FTL drives.

How do you know that gravitational radiation is either energy or quanta? For all we know, it could be fucking magic!

I'm not on the same position as my original claim. I thought I made that perfectly clear. Which is part of why I have spent this discussion puzzled as to why you keep bringing it up.

Because we were demanding you defend your original claim, not try to defend our claim that it's impossible to know if FTL will be possible or not but it isn't valid to claim it will with our current understanding of science. If you have conceded you cannot defend your original claim, this discussion is over.

Actually, it's very easy to test, once we have the tech. You build one and try to see if it works. If it doesn't, the theory is wrong.

And until that time, it is impossible to test. And since we do not know if that technology will ever exist, it may always be.

The indirect evidence provides a little support, as all you have to do it prove that gravitons exist inside the radiation and find a way to utilize them. Even if they don't exist, the radiation itself has to be utilized. Small change from one item to another, but it works.

How do you know they can ever be harnessed? Oh, wait, you've abandoned that position without saying so. My mistake.

Nope. I haven't been arguing that for quite awhile. I've been arguing it's possible, not that it's going to happen.

Again, without simply conceding your original statement was wrong. Changing your position without saying so isn't the most honest debating technique in the world, y'know.

They already have allowed designs to be seen by the public. What do you think?

George Lucas' design for the Death Star can be seen by the public too. So can concept cars that companies never intend to seriously build. That's EXACTLY what NASA's designs are, concepts based on current understanding. It is unlikely that any real MAM powered spacecraft will look the same, simply because a lot of components are best guesses rather than precisely engineered.

The pointing out of authority doing it is to say that complaining about leaps of logic in the use of scientific theories really isn't valid when you consider scientists are doing it.

And are they doing it because they honestly believe the design is absolute workable, or just presenting their best guess?

Do you understand the word "scifi" means "science fiction?" You said, and I quote <snip> and I answered the question. Don't complain just because you don't like how I answered it.

And why does it follow that if a phenomenon exists we can harness it?

'Because science fiction says so?' Please, that's the most pathetic excuse for a rebuttal you've pulled so far. Flash Gordon is science fiction, does this mean it's possible to build a Lightning Field? Would Brian Blessed actually be able to fly?

NASA does.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter2.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm

They have no proof it will work but are talking about trying it anyway.

NASA is possibly only a few decades away from developing an antimatter spacecraft that would cut fuel costs to a fraction of what they are today.

Whoops, looks like they're not obscenely arrogant enough to claim it is a certainty. And the weird thing is that all the designs are referred to as 'concept' or 'artist's concept' in those links. Could it be because they're concept sketches and not practical designs at all?

It depends on the hypothesis. Sometimes, the hypothesis has no supporting evidence from earlier experiments and is being tried to see if it will actually work at all. Sometimes these are just based on mathematical equations that says they will work.

Wrong, every hypothesis makes assumptions based on past experiments; most notably, all science assumes the laws of thermodynamics.

If in an experiment it cannot be shown to occur at all, I mark that down and experiment a few more times. If all of the attempts fail, I write it off as being unprovable at this time and move on to the next item. But I don't simply shelve it as disproven.

If in repeated tests a phenomenon described in a hypothesis cannot be shown to occur it is logical to assume it does not occur. Further evidence can cause revision of this, but this is why we do not believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

"Might actually work" is pretty much my standpoint. "Will actually work" requires more effort, more money, and more years than I care to commit to it.

Sadly, it's what you said in your first post and never conceded.

I explained the context. You ignored it.

THAT explaination? Christ, my rebuttal addressed it specifically!

Actually, GMC, it's not a red herring. Der Angst was arguing that only experiments proving something can make it accepted by general physics. The Big Bang itself is only observed and has not been replicated in any experiments due to technological reasons. Even if we could replicate it, doing so would be so incredibly stupid that we probably wouldn't. I never claimed that we can replicate it, just that it is something that doesn't have experimental evidence to support it but is accepted by general physics.

You were wrong. It IS a red herring because there is a lower standard of proof for a theory to explain an event that has already happened and a claim that a device can be built that will do something that has never been observed. Further, the Big Bang HAS been proven in experiments, by comparing the predictions of the theory to observed real-life data.

Engineering can actually involve both. NASA's antimatter ship is using theoretical science as a basis for engineering applied science. They lack the experimental proof the ship will actually work, and yet they are designing it anyway. Sound familiar?

Those are concept designs. As in not practical. As in do not prove your point.

You had separated science and engineering, and in your comment there you put engineering as part of science by having it be a type of science. So, which is it? Are the two entirely different, or is one part of the other?

Science and engineering are separate fields with separate job requirements, training and qualifications. The process of design and the process of scientific inquiry are likewise different. I was pointing to your clear ignorance of this fact. Your juvenile semantic wankery is starting to get tiresome.

Are you honestly unaware of the number of times it has been said on my side that disproving the existance of gravitons means the device doesn't work?

Are you honestly unaware of the number of times it has been said on my side that since there is no clear proof of gravitons existing they do not need to be disproved because they have never been proven to begin with?

I repeat: You do know what a direct personal attack is, right? You should.

Do you know that after 12pm on April Fool's day the one who plays the trick is said to be the fool? For the third time?

The advantage, m'dear, is that you're continuing to post and you're continuing to make certain mistakes, such as using direct ad hominim attacks in an arguement.

Yay, you don't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Here's a clue, stupid; that wasn't an ad hominem. Ad hominem is REPLACING an argument with an insult, and I have never presented an insult as an entire rebuttal. Try again.

Especially not in a public forum. Just keep in mind this is just a discussion and in the long run it doesn't matter. And, no, I'm not trying to be condescending with this.

You're succeeding admirably.

Actually, that's what you're continuing to argue. I'm not. Thus, the fundemental difference in how we're approaching the subject. I had thought I had made the segue into a different viewpoint perfectly clear.

Without conceding your original statement was invalid? Yeah, right.

Both sides are firmly entrenched, and the "it cant be done" side will be proven wrong, guaranteed.

Yes, I'm sure the side that claimed that in your head will. Unfortunately, out here in the real world, nobody has claimed FTL is impossible at some future date, only that it is not currently plausible within our understanding of science and it is therefore unreasonable to postulate that it will certainly occur in the future.

At present, we have no reason to believe it is possible for a macroscopic object to exceed the speed of light. There is therefore no valid line of argument based on this data that can result in FTL travel for macroscopic objects being possible in the future. However, since our knowledge is not the totality of knowledge, future discoveries or acceptance of theories that are currently unproved and unaccepted may alter this.

This means that while it is not valid for us to claim FTL is possible now and it is certainly not valid for you to make the absurd claim that a macroscopic object travelling faster than light is inevitable, it is also not valid to claim it is impossible.

HOWEVER

If a claim that something is possible within 'known physical laws' and 'will really work' is made, the claim is obviously invalid because the known physical laws do not currently support a macroscopic object being able to move faster than light. They certainly do not support the explanation presented by DLE involving a particle that has never been shown to exist. Such a drive fails the 'hard science' test invoked by the phrase 'will really work.'

Basic thermodynamics indicates that part of that energy will be heat.

To be honest, I haven't seen anything mentioned in the articles I have looked about the release of heat. There has been plenty about the release of gamma radiation and the leftover, but not heat. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that what I have read doesn't mention it.

The source I use the most states:

When antimatter comes into contact with normal matter, these equal but opposite particles collide to produce an explosion emitting pure radiation, which travels out of the point of the explosion at the speed of light. Both particles that created the explosion are completely annihilated, leaving behind other subatomic particles. The explosion that occurs when antimatter and matter interact transfers the entire mass of both objects into energy.

That's from the How Stuff Works site. An explosion doesn't necessarily mean heat, so I never bothered to consider it.

No, you are lying. Your initial statement was that an FTL drive will actually work. Either concede that you were wrong to claim that or we can carry this on.

The initial statement was wrong and idiotic. If I'm going to claim the honor, I should exercise it.

You haven't been honest enough to concede that your initial statement was totally ridiculous?

I was hoping I wouldn't have to directly and that what I had said was enough to say it. I can see I was wrong on that issue.

Yes, arrogance does appear to be a character trait of yours. Unfortunately, arguing semantics isn't going to change what a true chimeric species is. A Platypus is NOT a chimera, it is a species in itself with a clear line of evolutionary descent. I am talking a real species that combines the traits of two or more species and has no obvious line of descent, like a centaur, minotaur or Naga; a creature with fully formed traits of animals that are incapable of interbreeding. We have never discovered such a creature; if we had, evolution would have had to be revised to accommodate it.

Okay, this is a question I must ask: Where are you getting your definitions for these terms from? I have honestly never seen them before and, as such, would like to read the material before I continue so that I have an idea as to the base of your arguement and where my standing on the issue is.

In other words you're pulling evidence out of your ass again.

Nope. That would require effort. What I posted was pretty much pure conjecture and random bits of trivia.

Anyone who believes the fossil record is faked is likely to think a living specimen is faked too.

If they honestly believe that, I must wonder how they explain not flying off the Earth. If they say flat, an expensive airplane trip should hopefully deal with it.

The entire point of the 'true' part would be that it was clearly NOT through some random twist of fate; a true chimeric species rather than a single organism would disprove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. SPECIES. As in a large group of individuals that are genetically stable enough to produce offspring.

See above about the terms.

Is there a transition between horse and human, as per the example I gave of a centaur? Why, no!

True.

Actually, it does. This is because overturning evolution means that our understanding of the evidence that proves it is wrong or the evidence is wrong; this means that there is something hugely wrong with the methods of inquiry used to examine it, and so on. Overturning evolution would be an event with staggering consequences for biology and possibly all of science.

Or, it could just prove that we did not have all of the evidence at hand and made a false explanation. In which case, how much of a change in understanding do you think it would be?

Guess what? Your 'will actually work' claim, made OOC, gets you set of circumstances number one. Welcome to square one, kiddo.

And I believe I proved my point about burden of proof being variable. My side seems to believe its on yours and your side believes its on mine. I'm willing to admit my original claim was pure bullshit.

Right, so you chose to concede without being honest enough to just say so?

I thought my comments at the top of page 4 made it clear that I was switching away from that viewpoint and why I wasted time stating it.

How do you know that gravitational radiation is either energy or quanta? For all we know, it could be fucking magic!

If it's magic, I want to know when I can use it to cast fireballs.

Because we were demanding you defend your original claim, not try to defend our claim that it's impossible to know if FTL will be possible or not but it isn't valid to claim it will with our current understanding of science. If you have conceded you cannot defend your original claim, this discussion is over.

This discussion was, I thought, over when I said this:

Okay, I'm ending this. This wasn't supposed to go this far and the agreement was it would be a lot sillier than it was. Besides, I'm still trying to straighten up how much was made up on the spot and how much was from my notes.

Then I moved on.

And until that time, it is impossible to test. And since we do not know if that technology will ever exist, it may always be.

And it may be proven wrong by some twist of the universe not yet accounted for.

How do you know they can ever be harnessed? Oh, wait, you've abandoned that position without saying so. My mistake.

It's based off the assumption that, at some time, we will be able to somehow trap the radiation (that's pretty much what is almost required to test for particles or energy) and deal with it. Or find a way to cause the radiation to happen. Both of those are, at this time, required for actually testing the radiation itself.

Again, without simply conceding your original statement was wrong. Changing your position without saying so isn't the most honest debating technique in the world, y'know.

I thought my post on page 4 made it obvious.

George Lucas' design for the Death Star can be seen by the public too. So can concept cars that companies never intend to seriously build. That's EXACTLY what NASA's designs are, concepts based on current understanding. It is unlikely that any real MAM powered spacecraft will look the same, simply because a lot of components are best guesses rather than precisely engineered.

Can't refute that.

And are they doing it because they honestly believe the design is absolute workable, or just presenting their best guess?

Best guess.

'Because science fiction says so?' Please, that's the most pathetic excuse for a rebuttal you've pulled so far. Flash Gordon is science fiction, does this mean it's possible to build a Lightning Field? Would Brian Blessed actually be able to fly?

You asked if anyone had ever postulated using Big Bangs in that method and I answered you. Under the wording presented, my answer is valid.

Whoops, looks like they're not obscenely arrogant enough to claim it is a certainty. And the weird thing is that all the designs are referred to as 'concept' or 'artist's concept' in those links. Could it be because they're concept sketches and not practical designs at all?

Did I say they were practical? I said they were designs.

Wrong, every hypothesis makes assumptions based on past experiments; most notably, all science assumes the laws of thermodynamics.

Every hypothesis tested under certain branches of science. That's not true of all of science, due to some relying entirely on mathematics to prove a hypothesis. But those are the wilder theories.

If in repeated tests a phenomenon described in a hypothesis cannot be shown to occur it is logical to assume it does not occur. Further evidence can cause revision of this, but this is why we do not believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

And why science believed the giant squid didn't exist and coelocanths were extinct. It's not the perfect idea and often gets science's legitimacy questioned by those who don't trust it.

Sadly, it's what you said in your first post and never conceded.

Meh. Already covered earlier. This is long enough without wasting time on it.

THAT explaination? Christ, my rebuttal addressed it specifically!

Maybe I should explain it again...

You were wrong. It IS a red herring because there is a lower standard of proof for a theory to explain an event that has already happened and a claim that a device can be built that will do something that has never been observed. Further, the Big Bang HAS been proven in experiments, by comparing the predictions of the theory to observed real-life data.

That's observation and comparison, not experimentation. And, yes, I am trying very hard to keep the three separated for a reason, which I do not want to state.

Also, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Note that in this case it was introduced in relation to an arguement DA made due to being related, in that the relationship was that he said experiments only can prove something and I countered with a theory that is not proven by experiments. The original topic was not abandonned, but in this case it was introduced by you as part of your topic when it is not related to the discussion we were having, making it potentially a red herring on your part.

Those are concept designs. As in not practical. As in do not prove your point.

The "Sound familiar?" question was a nod to my first post. In this case, they are taking engineering ideas and applying them to a concept design just to get an idea of how they think the basics of the system will work.

Science and engineering are separate fields with separate job requirements, training and qualifications. The process of design and the process of scientific inquiry are likewise different. I was pointing to your clear ignorance of this fact. Your juvenile semantic wankery is starting to get tiresome.

And I was pointing out you contradicted yourself by calling the two different and then including engineering as a type of science. And the semantics in this case were not really intentional.

Are you honestly unaware of the number of times it has been said on my side that since there is no clear proof of gravitons existing they do not need to be disproved because they have never been proven to begin with?

And are you honestly aware of the fact that is not currently disputed and hasn't been for quite some time?

Do you know that after 12pm on April Fool's day the one who plays the trick is said to be the fool? For the third time?

Clearer. Doesn't look like you're attempting a direct attack as much.

Yay, you don't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Here's a clue, stupid; that wasn't an ad hominem. Ad hominem is REPLACING an argument with an insult, and I have never presented an insult as an entire rebuttal. Try again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

In this case, you're completely wrong. Personal attacks are also known as a form of ad hominem attacks (yay! got the spelling right!), meaning that my claim you have been making them is true, especially when you consider you made one in the quote I am replying to with this.

You're succeeding admirably.

And that is why I try not to give advice to my opponents about their actions. They always take it the wrong way if the intentions are not to insult.

Without conceding your original statement was invalid? Yeah, right.

See previous statements on this issue. Hell, next post let's just wrap them up into one to save us both time.

By choosing one and RPing it.

It would help if we knew more.

It would help if we knew more.

Check the various stickied threads throughout the site. Start with the ones on this forum. I would help you more if I knew exactly what you are looking for.

Check the various stickied threads throughout the site. Start with the ones on this forum. I would help you more if I knew exactly what you are looking for.

1. How to change Techs.
2. Exactly what we would be getting into.

1. How to change Techs.
2. Exactly what we would be getting into.

You need someone better equipped to deal with this than myself for this issue. I'll try to find someone by tomorrow night.

To be honest, I haven't seen anything mentioned in the articles I have looked about the release of heat. There has been plenty about the release of gamma radiation and the leftover, but not heat. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that what I have read doesn't mention it.

Well, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that if energy is released at least some of it will degrade to heat. In any form of atmosphere, the massive energy release from an MAM reaction would likely superheat the air around it anyway.

Okay, this is a question I must ask: Where are you getting your definitions for these terms from? I have honestly never seen them before and, as such, would like to read the material before I continue so that I have an idea as to the base of your arguement and where my standing on the issue is.

By chimeric species, I mean one which is naturally like the one found in legend; a combination of parts of different completely distinct animals, as the mythological creature had the head of a lion, the body of a goat and a snake for a tail. Were such a species found to exist, combining a large number of totally dissimilar traits from unrelated species and yet in itself able to reproduce normally and not the result of obvious tampering, the theory of evolution would be totally unable to explain its origin.

Or, it could just prove that we did not have all of the evidence at hand and made a false explanation. In which case, how much of a change in understanding do you think it would be?

One would still have to explain how hundreds of scientists interpreted a massive volume of evidence completely incorrectly. Take a look at that link about theory / law again and see what it says about overturning one of the major theories.

And I believe I proved my point about burden of proof being variable. My side seems to believe its on yours and your side believes its on mine. I'm willing to admit my original claim was pure bullshit.

In which case this discussion is over, since I never had any intention of proving FTL was beyond the realm of scientific possibility.

I thought my comments at the top of page 4 made it clear that I was switching away from that viewpoint and why I wasted time stating it.

I either didn't see them or didn't understand that was your meaning.

If it's magic, I want to know when I can use it to cast fireballs.

Thursday.

This discussion was, I thought, over when I said this: <snip> Then I moved on.

Ah. The fact that you did not end it would be what confused me there.

And why science believed the giant squid didn't exist and coelocanths were extinct. It's not the perfect idea and often gets science's legitimacy questioned by those who don't trust it.

It is, however, the only rational way to approach inquiry. And, as you note there, the negative statements were revised in light of new evidence.

That's observation and comparison, not experimentation. And, yes, I am trying very hard to keep the three separated for a reason, which I do not want to state.

Ahem:

Natural experiments

Sometimes controlled experiments are prohibitively difficult, so researchers resort to natural experiments. Natural experiments take advantage of predictable natural changes in simple systems to measure the effect of that change on some phenomenon.

Much of astronomy relies on experiments of this type. It is clearly impractical, when trying to prove the hypothesis "suns are collapsed clouds of hydrogen", to start out with a giant cloud of hydrogen, and then perform the experiment of waiting a few billion years for it to form a sun. However, by observing various clouds of hydrogen in various states of collapse, and other implications of the hypothesis (for example, the presence of various spectral emissions from the light of stars), we can collect the experimental data we require to support the hypothesis.

An early example of this type of experiment was the first verification in the 1600s that light does not travel from place to place instantaneously, but instead has a measurable speed. Observation of the appearance of the moons of Jupiter were slightly delayed when Jupiter was far from Earth, as opposed to when Jupiter was closer to Earth; and this phenomenon was used to demonstrate that the time delays were consistent with a measurable speed of light.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_experiment]

Yep, would seem that observation and comparison is a type of experimentation.

Note that in this case it was introduced in relation to an arguement DA made due to being related, in that the relationship was that he said experiments only can prove something and I countered with a theory that is not proven by experiments.

But, as I've just shown, your definition of experiment is wrong and the Big Bang is proven by experiments. So yes, Red Herrings all round.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

In this case, you're completely wrong. Personal attacks are also known as a form of ad hominem attacks (yay! got the spelling right!), meaning that my claim you have been making them is true, especially when you consider you made one in the quote I am replying to with this.

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims.

Which is exactly what I said. The ad hominem is 'you are an idiot, therefore you are wrong,' attacking the one presenting the claim and not the claim itself, then acting as if the claim has been refuted because of the attack. It is NOT 'Your arguments are incorrect [evidence] therefore you are an idiot.' The crux of the ad hominem is the word substitutes; the fact that a personal attack is present at all does not necessarily mean it is an ad hominem.

Quoting Stardestroyer.net's definition of the difference:

Remember: any logical proposition has a premise and a conclusion. If it does not have both premise and conclusion, it is not a logical proposition, therefore it cannot be fallacious. For example, the statement "you are an idiot therefore you are wrong" is a classic ad-hominem fallacy, but the statement "you are an idiot" on its own is not fallacious, because it makes no conclusion based on this claim. It's certainly considered rude, but it's not a fallacy. Remember: fallacy definitions are irrelevant when dealing with statements that do not purport to draw conclusions from premises, so don't be too hasty in your attempt to slap a fallacy name on something your opponent has just said.

And yet, those are accepted as part of modern physics. Theories about how items work are also part of modern physics because they are part of our understanding of the universe. The theories change as our understanding grows. That's science in action.
And how exactly does this prove your point? You claim that you can create a form of FTL that does actually work. 'Actually work' means that it has to work within the boundaries of physics proven by experiments and/ or observation (As 'Actually work' simply cannot include ideas that have yet to be proven). String theory is not inside those boundaries.

Your argumentation is fucked.

Of course, you could claim that your FTL drive would work if String Theory is actually correct and if those mathematical twists are actually working.

But you didn't.

Tell that to Einstein.Oh, he would agree, if he was still alive

But, to elaborate your hilarious rhetorics... I have a given mass (1kg). I remove two kg of this mass.

Mathematics say that -1 kg remain.

Physics say that I can't remove more than I have.

Looks like mathematics really don't equal physics.

And here is where you have accepted the burden of proof, as you cannot prove that modern theories rule out FTL travel.Odd. Last I checked, the vast majority of physicists tends to disagree. FTL has never been observed. Under the current set of laws, there is no need for it to be possible.

And, to come back to the actual point you made, to prove your point that your FTL works, you need evidence that it is possible.

The option that it might be possible, just as smurfs hiding under your bed are possible, is not enough.

The possibility that radiation travels at FTL speeds was only brought up as a possibility due to the nature of black holes and the nature of a lack of evidence we have to the contrary.Hawking radiation being based on our current set of laws, for which we have overwhelming amounts of proof, this allowing for extrapolation, doesn't count?

Also, I notice you dodged the evidence question, which means you don't have any.As Hack pointed out, I don't need to prove something that is widely accepted as current 'state of the art'.

You have to disprove said state of the art.

Or, hey, please, prove me that you're notPapa Smurf. Photos are not accepted, as you could use *some* photo. Coming over so I can see you face to face isn't accepted either, as you could send someone else.

In fact, you cannot prove that you're not Papa Smurf, so you are Papa Smurf.

Sure, it is... Unlikely, but since it isn't impossible, it must be true.

I'm willing to admit my original claim was pure bullshit.AH! There we have it. I guess I will be satisfied with that.

1. How to change Techs.
2. Exactly what we would be getting into.

1. How to change techs... Generally, to be at least partially realistic, you want to start small. Small fleets (obviously a nation with 100 million population, cannot own a fleet of planet sized vessels).

2. Decide your technology. There is a virtual buffet of options.

FTL, for example will fall within several "types":
- "Warp Drive", the process by which the locality of the ship is altered to change the speed of light, and allow the ship to exceed the speed of light in normal space. (Star Trek, Alcubierre Bubble)

- "Gate" or "Wormhole" based, where virtual tubes of spacial deformity are created to create a direct "line" between two or more points in normal space, to shorten the transit distance between the two points. (StarGate, Kraskinov Tube, Warp-Gate, Transwarp Gate)

- Hyperspace or dimentional, where the ship completely leaves normal space, and enters into a seperate spatial realm, where the distance is closer, or the speed of light is greater. (Hyperspace, Dimentional Gate, etc.)

- "Jump" Drives, where space is folded to place two points on top of one another, and punch through the spatial barrier. Jumping between two distant points in space.(Star Blazers, Robotech, Macross).

Most operate within special relativity. A carrier wave enveloped in a warp-bubble, will still be able to exceed the speed of a vessel traveling in that bubble... The carrier will be traveling at "c" within the field of the bubble, while the ship is still limited to less than "c" inside the bubble. A radio signal sent through a wormhole will reach the other end, since it will be traveling at "c" inside the wormhole, faster than a ship, since the ship is limited to less than "c" in the locality inside the wormhole.

And you want to set limits. No magic and wanking going on. And never exceed those limits. For example: I use "Wormhole" based FTL technology. While this does present advantages, I have set time constraints for the formation of the wormhole for transit. I also used nanite based regenerative armor, but have cemented standards of destruction and regeneration. And if you loose a ship in a battle, don't go pulling the ship out for another later. Measure your losses. And a vessel cannot be in two places at once, so don't go having the USS Exter fighting in two seperate RP's

What is the best way to go about this?

What is the best way to go about this?

I'd say, pick some technology, build a couple ships using it, field a few crews, and get involved in some small RP's.

I meant what the best way is to start, as I'm new to this.

I meant what the best way is to start, as I'm new to this.

Well, much of it is up to you. You'll need to decide your technology first.

NS RP's are "Open RP's" that is, you are pretty much in complete control of your own forces. The easiest thing to do, is to merely borrow from some existing sci-fi genre, like StarWars or Star Trek... Plenty of people with them around.

What's a good example of how to become an FTL nation?

bump

What's a good example of how to become an FTL nation?

Do you mean as someone who is a good example already to model after? If that's what you mean, then folks like Ma-tek, Sentient Peoples, Sketch, Steel Butterfly, Menelmacar, Melkor Unchained, Der Angst, Scolopendra, Lunatic Retard Robots, etc...

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of good FT nations to use as an example. See here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Tech_level) for a brief discussion on this.

*bump for the gypsy*

No, what's a good example of an RP to become an FT nation.

No, what's a good example of an RP to become an FT nation.


You mean an rp that shows a person going from modern tech (or perhaps post modern tech) into future tech? Sorry, I don't know offhand.

bump

Pretty much all of the believable RPs I have seen that have done that have been one of four things:

1) Some supergenius discovers a method of FTL travel, much like how Einstein discovered relativity.

2) The nation has been working on it for centuries to begin with.

3) You find some ancient piece of technology, like a StarGate or a jump engine, that allows you to achieve it.

4) You manage to contact an already-advanced nation and get them to agree to advance you.

... or you get a FT nation to sell you a book they consider "minor", and you munch the hell out of it...

:D

This is quite informative.