Doubt

How should we think about weird things?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:24 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hypo: 2+2=4.

Xouper Denial: You can't prove it might not ever be something else.


Booboo is an expert at making straw men.

That "hypo" is not actually a hypothesis, it is merely a tautology derived from the axioms and definitions of arithmetic.

Too bad booboo cannot refute the argument I actually made. Instead he has to make up straw men to shoot down.

Yeah....thats true. But common sense and conservation of energy does not move you, so I tried a stupid syllogism.....which could as stated easily be another, or just a restatement, of the issue: "If Einstein is correct, then FTL is for Sy Fy."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Note: hyperinflation of space is not an object moving thru space. I know.... words can be tricky.


Tell that to the scientists who have been working on it.

I'm sure they will be impressed with your lack of knowledge of the subject.

I'm sure they will be impressed with your opinion that they are wasting their time working on it.

But go ahead and tell them anyway.

Let us know how that goes.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hypo: 2+2=4.

Xouper Denial: You can't prove it might not ever be something else.


Booboo is an expert at making straw men.

That "hypo" is not actually a hypothesis, it is merely a tautology derived from the axioms and definitions of arithmetic.

Too bad booboo cannot refute the argument I actually made. Instead he has to make up straw men to shoot down.

Yeah....thats true. But common sense and conservation of energy does not move you, . . .


Except the proposals for FTL do not violate either common sense or conservation of energy.

But if you are sincere, then I suggest you inform the scientists who have been working on it that they lack common sense and that what they are trying to do will violate conservation of energy.

I'm sure they will be impressed with your yuuuuge grasp of the subject.

But go ahead and tell them anyway.

Let us know how that goes.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:00 am

Well X: thats not what I said at all. Shirley with your mathematical and logical precision, you can do better than that?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:10 am

For grins.............if you do quote back word for word what I said to disprove what I said, then I say in X fashion: well.... THAT is not what I MEANT TO SAY!. See how easy it is to isolate one's self from ever admitting to error? Down right stupid easy.

but here is an example of what I meant to say.........IE..... how to expressly state what was misunderstood when you think it has been: my reference to conservation of energy was to anyone wasting their time with you waiting for a common sense position, or a contextualized one if you wish, to arise. I knew the ambiguity (more a private reference given the CONTEXT of what had already been written ((((Ie: the objective standard rather than the subjective fantasy)))) was there..... but let it ride. Of course, you picked up on the clear meaning of what I wrote.............just not what I meant by what I wrote. Whose error was what? Yes indeed: its the X factor at work.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:17 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well X: thats not what I said at all. Shirley with your mathematical and logical precision, you can do better than that?


Wait, what? Are my eyes deceiving me?

Would you repeat that?


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . THAT is not what I MEANT TO SAY!


Wait, what?

Where have I heard that before?

Are you saying I did not interpret your words correctly?

Well knock me over with a spoon.

I never thought I'd see the day when you pulled a xouper on me.

Well done, booboo.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:30 am

xouper wrote: You claimed FTL is impossible.
No Son. It was Jo 753 who claimed that the aliens were travelling faster than light. I asked for evidence that E=MC2 was wrong, from Jo 753.. You pretended to not be participating, but simultaneously stated.......
xouper wrote:"How do you know scientists won't find away around the speed of light?

I don't have to. The moment you wrote that, you made a claim that cannot be falsified. You ended Jo 753's claim not mine. :lol:

Are you getting it yet?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: You claimed FTL is impossible.

No . . .


Let me get this straight: You are not claiming that FTL is impossible.

Thank you for finally clearing that up.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:"How do you know scientists won't find away around the speed of light?

I don't have to. The moment you wrote that, you made a claim that cannot be falsified.


Wrong.

Sorry, but a question is not a claim.

In any case, it's a moot point now that you have stated you do not claim FTL is impossible.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:11 am

Back in 2014, it seems Matthew took the opposite side of this argument.

Starting here: viewtopic.php?p=403978#p403978

OlegTheBatty wrote:The technology argument, whether 'takes too long at sublight speeds' or 'no ftl', is really an argument from ignorance. Sure, we don't know, but aliens might.

Takes too long is anthropocentric. Bristlecone pines can live for thousands of years, so it is possible that an alien species could too. An alien specie might be able to survive thousands of years of suspended animation, cryogenics or some such. Because we can't, doesn't mean there isn't a they that can.

We can't really even say it is unlikely, because we don't know that either.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Takes too long is anthropocentric.
Yep.
OlegTheBatty wrote:We can't really even say it is unlikely, because we don't know that either.
Yep.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:My only comment would be that if we're going to argue that the aliens cannot get here anyway, then we should do away with Fermi's paradox as that resolves it.
That's not what Oleg is saying. Oleg is making two points. Firstly, that, although humans think nothing can go faster than light, we may simply be wrong. Secondly, if faster than light is impossible, that we shouldn't judge the enormous distances as daunting for other alien life forms, based on our human perception. An alien may live for 3,000 years or may think really slowly, or may be able to hibernate and so on. Perhaps a very old alien species has adapted to space travel because it burns out a planet's resources quickly.

(If you think of popular films, the aliens in "Independence day" and "Oblivion" simply took the resources of a planet and moved on, suggestion continuous space travel)


Does Matthew still agree with what he posted in 2014?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know TM

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:40 am

Those criteria regarding slower than light travel may well apply to humans in the not too distant future. That is , some time in the next thousand years, which is not too much compared to the more than 300,000 years Homo sapiens has existed. When we are able to modify ourselves with gene therapy and genetic engineering, one of the first things we will do is to extend life span.

However, aliens here makes no sense. As I pointed out before, it should be possible to detect any major civilisation out to 100 light years from us. But flying saucers have only been observed since the 20th century (it was witches, demons, angels and monsters before that). Why should aliens suddenly arrive now ? After all, our radio signals would not yet have arrived at their planet since it has to be more than 100 light years away to remain undetected.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:54 am

xouper wrote: I never thought I'd see the day when you pulled a xouper on me.

Well done, booboo.

The point is: I did the exact opposite.

...............figures....... you : don't get it. Even with excellent examples from Matt and Myself on how to "audit one's self." Evidently, a skill/desire not in your repertoire. Can't learn new tricks?

give the dog a bone.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . However, aliens here makes no sense.


You may be right.

But I am going to go out on a limb here and ponder a hypothetical: If aliens show up tomorrow, you would probably find a way to make sense of it.

It's a lot easier to rationalize something after the fact.

At the moment, it escapes me what book I was reading that discusses that. (I'll probably remember two minutes after I hit the submit button.)

In the meantime, this might be interesting:

https://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rationalisation-reasoning-our-intuition-and-changing-our-minds/

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote: I never thought I'd see the day when you pulled a xouper on me.

Well done, booboo.

The point is: I did the exact opposite.


Do tell. I look forward* to seeing how you explain that.









______________________________________________________
* Footnote: Not really. I lied. It's rarely ever worth the bother trying to make sense of your blatherings.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:46 am

Ha, ha................why don't YOU explain how I pulled a Xouper? Can you get out of yourself enough to do that?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ha, ha...... Can you get out of yourself enough to do that?


No, of course not. I can check out any time I like, but I can never leave.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:36 am

xouper wrote: Let me get this straight
..... Jo 753 made the claim that aliens could go faster than the speed of light by magically changing into different things. Therefore Jo 753 destroyed his own hypothesis because it was not falsifiable. Matthew then asks Jo 753 if Jo 753 had found errors in E=MC2 and posts the Karl Popper falsifiability video, then Xouper steps in and demands to know how Matthew knows aliens haven't found away around E-MC2 therefore making the exact same mistake as Jo 753. You don't have a hypothesis if you can't fasify it.


xouper wrote: You are not claiming that FTL is impossible. Thank you for finally clearing that up.
The big hint was that Jo 753 claimed aliens could go faster than the speed of light and I asked for his evidence. You are the person who mindlessly parroted Jo 753 by saying "How do you know they can't?" :lol:


Jo 753 on the 28th of August wrote:And wut makes you think we are so smart that we can declare anything impossible after only a few hundred yirz uv contemplation? Its a virtual sertainty that there are beingz out there many timez smarter than us that hav had far more time to figure out wayz to exeed LS.

Matthew returns from overseas and on 18th September posts the video on Karl Popper's falsifiability to show that Jo 753's claim is not a viable hypothesis.
Matthew Ellard on the 21st of September wrote:The speed of light is only part of E=MC2 . The mass of the accelerated object increases as it accelerates and the amount of energy required to accelerate it increases. An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. It is not only a speed limitation but also an energy limitation. Have you found any errors in E=MC2

Jo 753 on the 23rd of September wrote:You hav probably red about sientists seriously considering wether the property uv mass can be modified. In other wordz, that it may not be an inherent property uv structure.

Xouper on the 26th of September wrote:Just because no one knows how to build one (alcubierre warp drive) using today's technology does not mean it cannot be done with sufficiently superior technology.How do you intend to demonstrate that there will never be way around the limits of relativity?

Xouper on the 27th of September wrote:I am challenging your claim it will NEVER happen. You cannot possibly know that.
Xouper on the 28th of September wrote: That does not mean it cannot be done if sufficient technology exists some day or somewhere.


Richard Crist? You studied and teach logic. Do you agree with Karl Popper that a working hypothesis must be falsifiable?
1) Aliens have obtained light speed, No evidence exists ....prove me wrong
2) God may have created magic Leprechauns that pretend to be UFOs No evidence exists......prove me wrong

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:16 am

"♫.....Its hard to leave, when you can't find the door."

Great Song.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:43 am

To Xouper

If aliens showed up tomorrow, would I find a way to make sense of it?

Of course. You may have forgotten, but I previously indicated a way. Jo, of course, ignored it because it made sense and he sticks to nonsense.

If aliens showed up tomorrow, it is because they left their home planet a long time ago, say 2,000 years.

If humans in the next few hundred years develop advanced space travel (and we should), we will send out a number of robot probes to other star systems. Aliens should do the same. Such a probe might, several thousand years ago, have sent messages back to the alien home world saying come at once, we have a situation.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:37 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:You don't have a hypothesis if you can't fasify it.


I agree.

I haven't presented a hypothesis, so why do you keep harping on that point?

When I ask a question about someone's claim, that is because this is a skeptic forum where anyone is allowed to ask for evidence of claims made, regardless who makes them. And that includes claims you make.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: You are not claiming that FTL is impossible. Thank you for finally clearing that up.
The big hint was that Jo 753 claimed aliens could go faster than the speed of light and I asked for his evidence.


I'm going to interpret that as confirmation that you are not claiming FTL is impossible. Thanks. I withdraw my questions on that point. Carry on.


Matthew Ellard wrote: You are the person who mindlessly parroted Jo 753 by saying "How do you know they can't?" :lol:


Matthew, that cheap shot was uncalled for.

I did not parrot anyone, let alone "mindlessly". Your accusation is false and unfounded, and is an unnecessary derogation.

Please stop doing that and let's have a civil conversation, OK?

Please stick to the issues and leave out the personal attacks. Is that too much to ask?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Doubt

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:17 pm

The speed of light in a vacuum is very likely an absolute limit. Only massless particles can go that fast, and must go that fast. Things with non-zero rest mass need infinite energy to be accelerated to that speed. That is the state of knowledge at present, and there is no indication that there is a flaw. (Tachyons, if they exist at all, don't interact with stuff on this side of the ls barrier, so they don't matter.)

However, in thinking that lightspeed in a vacuum is the end of the story, you are assuming that travelling through the vacuum is the only way to get from A to B.

There is much about the fabric of space itself that is not known. It is not even known if dark energy exists or not. General Relativity requires it, so it is a popular notion, but there are competing theories which do not. The need for something undetectable like dark energy may be a flaw in GR.

If GR is flawed, the debunking, based on GR, of wormhole and other posited space warps may also be flawed.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Doubt

Postby Poodle » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:26 pm

Yes, I like the 'two dots on a sheet of paper' model too. Bend the sheet and the dots are much closer together across a dimension the sheet of paper doesn't have. Warp space through an extra dimension and step over. There's enough suggestion of extra 'wound-up' dimensions around for me to suspend my doubt on that score.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Confidencia » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:57 pm

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:You don't have a hypothesis if you can't fasify it.


I agree.

I haven't presented a hypothesis, so why do you keep harping on that point?

When I ask a question about someone's claim, that is because this is a skeptic forum where anyone is allowed to ask for evidence of claims made, regardless who makes them. And that includes claims you make.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: You are not claiming that FTL is impossible. Thank you for finally clearing that up.
The big hint was that Jo 753 claimed aliens could go faster than the speed of light and I asked for his evidence.


I'm going to interpret that as confirmation that you are not claiming FTL is impossible. Thanks. I withdraw my questions on that point. Carry on.


Matthew Ellard wrote: You are the person who mindlessly parroted Jo 753 by saying "How do you know they can't?" :lol:


Matthew, that cheap shot was uncalled for.

I did not parrot anyone, let alone "mindlessly". Your accusation is false and unfounded, and is an unnecessary derogation.

Please stop doing that and let's have a civil conversation, OK?

Please stick to the issues and leave out the personal attacks. Is that too much to ask?


It probably is, so I wouldn't bank on it. Have you ever known a fifth grader to be civil much less intelligent?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:40 pm

Confidencia wrote:Have you ever known a fifth grader to be civil much less intelligent?


Matthew has shown in other threads that he can behave with civility and intelligence when he wants to.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:53 am

Warping space does not change the limitation of the speed of light. Warping space is a totally different issue....which I doubt is possible. It is in fact an argument from ignorance..... or an argument just totally made up because bending a piece of paper is very visual and easy to understand.......but how is three dimensional space applicable to a sheet of paper?==>outside a visually based imagination. I have ZERO understanding of extra dimensions or string theory or the math/concepts behind it although I did find the "shadow effect" from one dimension to another to allow conceptualization of a fourth dimension to be quite striking....but again it was a play to my visual imagination....more an optical illusion than the demonstration of anything that might exist.........

Of course...always be open to changing what we know.....but accept some limits in the meantime. It helps focus the energies and resources to where real advancements can be made.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:06 am

Such work as has been done, using math and theory, suggests that warping space would require humongous amounts of energy and is probably not possible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:27 am

I've never seen any "work" on this theory. Work.....not to include armchair theorizing. Was there anything? Laser beams at midnight sort of stuff?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:04 am

Good point, Bobbo. And correct. There was no empirical work. Just math and theory.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:21 am

Poodle wrote:Yes, I like the 'two dots on a sheet of paper' model too.


One problem is that "we" may be in the wrong dimension to allow this. In ten dimensional string theory / M-Theory the other seven dimensions are smaller than "ours" and although we only perceive the large three dimension and time, ... we and our physics exist and are defined by all ten dimensions and time.

That's possibly "the rub". When we talk about ourselves we are talking about things that need to operate in all ten dimensions simultaneously. To leap from "one dot on a sheet of paper to another dot" would probably require leaping ten different dimension's information at the same time.

One of the theories for the start of the universe is the "crossing Brane(s)" theory from string theory/ M-Theory. It is not that two connected dots take us somewhere else in the 3D universe but rather to another upwards dimension and all the smaller dimensions reboot.........like the big bang did.
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:26 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've never seen any "work" on this theory. Work.....not to include armchair theorizing. Was there anything? Laser beams at midnight sort of stuff?

Definitely maybe!!!!!

"Will the LHC be able to test String Theory?
Definitely maybe."

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/w ... 9e6be00e1f

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've never seen any "work" on this theory. Work.....not to include armchair theorizing. Was there anything? Laser beams at midnight sort of stuff?


Yes, there has been some empirical work on "warping" space.

See for example:

https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html wrote:
Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

. . . The only problem is, previous studies estimated the warp drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.

But recently [Harold White of NASA's Johnson Space Center] calculated what would happen if the shape of the ring encircling the spacecraft was adjusted into more of a rounded donut, as opposed to a flat ring. He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about [700 kg].

Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.

. . . White and his colleagues have begun experimenting with a mini version of the warp drive in their laboratory.

They set up what they call the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer at the Johnson Space Center, essentially creating a laser interferometer that instigates micro versions of space-time warps.


Sidebar — Notice that the suggestion to "oscillate the intensity" seems similar to what Asimov proposed in the short story I linked to earlier in this thread, as a way to overcome the "error" made by Prosser when he said it was impossible. If you think inside the box, as Prosser did and as other people do, then you will miss finding a way around the problem.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp-field_experiments

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:"Will the LHC be able to test String Theory? Definitely maybe."
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/will-the-lhc-be-able-to-test-string-theory-869e6be00e1f


That was from 2015. See update below from Horgan.

You seem to be a big fan of String Theory. (And I don't mean that in a bad way. ;) )

And you seem to be a big fan of Popper and falsifiability. Me too.

So please explain how String Theory is falsifiable? Thanks.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/String_theory wrote:Because string theories as they now stand make few predictions and often lack the ability to be tested with falsifiable experiments, some doubt that they have any relevance to physics at all.


Scientific American wrote:
Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong

Physicist, mathematician and blogger Peter Woit whacks strings, multiverses, simulated universes and “fake physics”

By John Horgan on April 27, 2017

Horgan: Do you still think string theory is “not even wrong”?

Woit: Yes. My book on the subject was written in 2003-4 and I think that its point of view about string theory has been vindicated by what has happened since then.

Experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider show no evidence of the extra dimensions or supersymmetry that string theorists had argued for as "predictions" of string theory.

The internal problems of the theory are even more serious after another decade of research.

These include the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory.


Do you know of any more recent results from the LHC that could falsify String Theory?


I've read Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory", (2006).

And Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics", (2006).

I highly recommend both.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Doubt

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:54 am

Xouper: thanks for the link. "Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say" I thought it was off point and just armchair until the reference to actively measuring whatever they were with "a laser interferometer that instigates micro versions of space-time warps. That last bit still bothers me....just "what" were they measuring? I can piss into a bucket and call that an investigation into space-time warps.........but is it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: thanks for the link. "Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say" I thought it was off point and just armchair until the reference to actively measuring whatever they were with "a laser interferometer that instigates micro versions of space-time warps. That last bit still bothers me....just "what" were they measuring? I can piss into a bucket and call that an investigation into space-time warps.........but is it?


I'm not entirely clear what they are trying to measure, specifically, so I don't have enough certainty in my understanding to explain it further.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer wrote:The White–Juday warp-field interferometer is an experiment designed to detect a microscopic instance of a warping of spacetime. If such a warp is detected, it is hoped that more research into creating an Alcubierre warp bubble will be inspired. A research team led by Harold "Sonny" White in collaboration with Dr. Richard Juday[1][2] at the NASA Johnson Space Center and Dakota State University are conducting experiments, but results so far have been inconclusive.


There are some nice images in the above wikipedia article, and you may find the answer to your question somewhere in there. Or maybe not.

Perhaps you could email NASA Johnson Space Center or Dakota State University for a layman's explanation.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:41 am

Even with Xoupers references, we are still in the million to one against realm.

And yes, string theory has not yet left the sphere of speculation. Intelligent speculation maybe, but without empirical testing, about as much use as mammaries on a bull.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Even with Xoupers references, we are still in the million to one against realm.


I'm not going to bother asking how you determined those odds, because either you mean it figuratively and not literally, or you merely pulled a number out of thin air.

Instead I will ask, are you going to tell those scientists not to waste their time researching this because in your opinion it is essentially impossible?


Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . But the thing is that a million to 1 against is pretty damn close to saying impossible. So I really think Xouper is just being difficult.


Are you going to tell those scientists you think they are "just being difficult" because in your opinion it is "pretty damn close to impossible"?


Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . If someone asks me to be less than sure in my statements, when the element of doubt is very small, my view is that this puts them in the wrong.


Are you going to tell those scientists they are "in the wrong" to even consider researching this because in your opinion " the element of doubt is very small"?

I'm just trying to figure out here why you keep objecting to what these scientists are doing.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:And yes, string theory has not yet left the sphere of speculation. Intelligent speculation maybe, but without empirical testing, about as much use as mammaries on a bull.


Do you have an opinion whether String Theory meets Matthew's requirement for falsifiable?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Doubt

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:47 pm

Xouper

Scientists throughout history have researched stuff that is impossible. Even the great Isaac Newton wasted years on pointless alchemical research. Nothing unusual there.

String theory is currently not falsifiable. The people working in that area are struggling hard to find a way, but so far without success.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26363
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Doubt

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:27 pm

xouper wrote: Do you have an opinion whether String Theory meets Matthew's requirement for falsifiable?


I never said String Theory / M-Theory met my requirements for falsifiability for a working hypothesis. Has someone held it out a new final version as a working hypothesis?

I thought String Theory / M-theory was a work in progress after early versions were falsified mathematically. .

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Do you have an opinion whether String Theory meets Matthew's requirement for falsifiable?


I never said String Theory / M-Theory met my requirements for falsifiability for a working hypothesis.


Thank you for clarifying that that you are not presenting a hypothesis.

This sets the precedent that it is acceptable to you to discuss issues that are not a hypothesis.

In other words, you are fine with discussing things that are conjecture or speculation.

Thus, the next time you object that I bring up a scientific example based on speculation, or that I did not present a hypothesis, I will say, "so what", you do it all the time when you bring up String Theory.

So, thank you, Matthew, for setting that precedent.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubt

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:10 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Scientists throughout history have researched stuff that is impossible. Even the great Isaac Newton wasted years on pointless alchemical research. Nothing unusual there.


What is your objection then to scientists researching the possibility of FTL?

Why do you accuse me of "being difficult" for citing such scientists?


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest