Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iscariot]

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not the one telling people how technology will be in one thousand years. That's you guys. You are telling me that in the future, we'll have a way to break the laws of thermodynamics with stealth, you are the guys trying to tell me that in the future we'll have a way to break the laws of conservation of momentum with reactionless drives.

All I am telling you is what I know to be impossible by the laws of physics TODAY. I'm not going to assume that the laws of physics will be broken, because there is NO REASON to think that. I'm sorry if I'm shattering your rosy visions of Star Wars-esque battles with science, science amassed through tens of thousands of hours of study and experiment, but understand that it is not I who is haughty, it is you, who think you know better than men smarter than either of us.

[arwan]

speaking of the science behind star trek. if one is intrested in such things this would be a good article by ABC to read

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/article/science-star-trek-close/story?id=10845680#.T0OzknrU18E

few snippets

Warp Speed

Not only would negative energy be needed for warp drive, he said, the amount of energy required for one spacecraft to travel that fast is greater than the amount of mass in the entire galaxy.

Time Travel

Stephen Hawking, Kraus said, famously countered the idea of time travel with the argument that "if time travel were possible, we'd already be inundated by tourists from the future."

The Transporter

But, Krauss said, not only is moving atoms difficult, but in order to vaporize a person, you'd have to heat him to 100,000 degrees. And he said the amount of energy released would be about 1,000 hundred-megaton nuclear weapons.

Alien Encounters

"If you get in touch with someone, they're at least at your level and, statistically, the chance that they'd be even within a thousand years of the same level is almost zero," he said. 'They're going to be way ahead of us. If there really were battles, if Bambi meets Godzilla, we're Bambi."

Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

So far, after more than 40 years, there has not been a peep. But SETI's technology is advanced enough that it can detect signals from up to 1,000 light-years away, which includes a zone with about one million stars. A signal could have been sent 1,000 years ago, before that civilization had any knowledge of Earth.

[SgtAlex86]

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not the one telling people how technology will be in one thousand years. That's you guys. You are telling me that in the future, we'll have a way to break the laws of thermodynamics with stealth, you are the guys trying to tell me that in the future we'll have a way to break the laws of conservation of momentum with reactionless drives.

All I am telling you is what I know to be impossible by the laws of physics TODAY. I'm not going to assume that the laws of physics will be broken, because there is NO REASON to think that. I'm sorry if I'm shattering your rosy visions of Star Wars-esque battles with science, science amassed through tens of thousands of hours of study and experiment, but understand that it is not I who is haughty, it is you, who think you know better than men smarter than either of us.

AAA but u are assuming... u clearly state that those laws WONT be broken while we say those laws MIGHT be broken there is difference ur statement is ABSOLUTE ours is not... and those "smarter men" have never stated those laws wont be broken.. because if they had they wouldnt be scientists every scientist admits he/she might be proven wrong one day that is one of the basic principles of science

[Iscariot]

Laws do not change. Laws describe observed phenonmenon, not why or how they come to be. Laws are the central tenets of scientific advance and if they could be broken then we would have not science at all.

I am not talking about clarifying theories, or proving theories wrong, which scientists do admit can happen. I am talking about LAWS. Breaking a law is no different than telling me the world doesn't exist, it's that flagrant.

I am operating under NO assumptions. Laws are LAWS. They CANNOT be broken. Any scientist that suggests that thermodynamics can be subjugated is a loon, and I heartily suggest you go about to your local university and ask all the science professors there whether they believe thermodynamics can be 'broken'.

[coylter]

Laws do not change. Laws describe observed phenonmenon, not why or how they come to be. Laws are the central tenets of scientific advance and if they could be broken then we would have not science at all.

I am not talking about clarifying theories, or proving theories wrong, which scientists do admit can happen. I am talking about LAWS. Breaking a law is no different than telling me the world doesn't exist, it's that flagrant.

I am operating under NO assumptions. Laws are LAWS. They CANNOT be broken. Any scientist that suggests that thermodynamics can be subjugated is a loon, and I heartily suggest you go about to your local university and ask all the science professors there whether they believe thermodynamics can be 'broken'.

Damn you don't understand science.
For a long time the law of gravity that newton came up with seemed like something set in stone. Any wise scientist will tell you that a theory is called a theory because it might change according to new evidence. How can you, very dumb earth monkey, with your very limited knowledge and perspective can you claim that the laws we have observed are set in stone and are truth all mightly. At best they work for the type of things we do with them. They have not shown their flaws yet.

I mean we are scratching the surface of our "multiverse". There are worlds out there, with completely different rulesets as ours. Be them virtual or "real". What if you could just step in a different dimension where the laws of physics allow you to travel at unlimited speeds. We are *** monkeys, at best we know how to peel a banana and make it float around our planet.

[SgtAlex86]

Laws do not change. Laws describe observed phenonmenon, not why or how they come to be. Laws are the central tenets of scientific advance and if they could be broken then we would have not science at all.

I am not talking about clarifying theories, or proving theories wrong, which scientists do admit can happen. I am talking about LAWS. Breaking a law is no different than telling me the world doesn't exist, it's that flagrant.

I am operating under NO assumptions. Laws are LAWS. They CANNOT be broken. Any scientist that suggests that thermodynamics can be subjugated is a loon, and I heartily suggest you go about to your local university and ask all the science professors there whether they believe thermodynamics can be 'broken'.

false...
lets start with laws of relativity... been already broken...

[coylter]

Laws do not change. Laws describe observed phenonmenon, not why or how they come to be. Laws are the central tenets of scientific advance and if they could be broken then we would have not science at all.

I am not talking about clarifying theories, or proving theories wrong, which scientists do admit can happen. I am talking about LAWS. Breaking a law is no different than telling me the world doesn't exist, it's that flagrant.

I am operating under NO assumptions. Laws are LAWS. They CANNOT be broken. Any scientist that suggests that thermodynamics can be subjugated is a loon, and I heartily suggest you go about to your local university and ask all the science professors there whether they believe thermodynamics can be 'broken'.

false...
lets start with laws of relativity... been already broken...

Hell we are aware of things that currently break our understanding of reality. ie: black holes, the big bang, dark matter etc...

How quickly are people to cling to claims and want the believe them as complete truth. Is it so hard to always have a doubt? I mean i think its time in our history to realize that we've been fooled over a million time by ideas which we have stuck with as truth. Doubt is good people. Even in science....especially in science.

[Iscariot]

false...
lets start with laws of relativity... been already broken...

There is no law of relativity. There is a theory of relativity, which encompasses special relativity and general relativity, and to my knowledge, even that has not been disproven.

You need to retake high school physics. There is a difference between a theory and a law, and there's nothing stopping even theories from being fact.

Hell we are aware of things that currently break our understanding of reality. ie: black holes, the big bang, dark matter etc...

Break your understanding of reality. They don't break any theories, any laws. In fact, Einstein PREDICTED the existence of black holes through general relativity.

This is really sad. It's really, really, sad. I blame the American educational system, I can't believe that so many people are lacking in basic understanding of science.

[coylter]

There is no law of relativity. There is a theory of relativity, which encompasses special relativity and general relativity, and to my knowledge, even that has not been disproven.

You need to retake high school physics. There is a difference between a theory and a law, and there's nothing stopping even theories from being fact.

You are not understanding this right.

A law has a theory.

The law of gravity has the theory to prove it.
The laws of thermodynamics has theories behind it.


Theories are the proof that the law works.

The law of relativity breaks down at the quantum level, it stops making any sense.

[SgtAlex86]

There is no law of relativity. There is a theory of relativity, which encompasses special relativity and general relativity, and to my knowledge, even that has not been disproven.

You need to retake high school physics. There is a difference between a theory and a law, and there's nothing stopping even theories from being fact.

actually its one of the fundamental laws not theory... some other laws are based on it...
lemme find some random link to some random science release bout it...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783264/Speed-of-light-broken-an-experts-view.html
there ya go  
OHH LOOK its even on the wikipedia bout laws of science if u scroll down its 2nd that has the whole formula displayed ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

[Iscariot]

\
actually its one of the fundamental laws not theory... some other laws are based on it...
lemme find some random link to some random science release bout it...

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

You are not understanding this right.

A law has a theory.

The law of gravity has the theory to prove it.
The laws of thermodynamics has theories behind it.


Theories are the proof that the law works.

The law of relativity breaks down at the quantum level, it stops making any sense.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[coylter]

You are completely missing the point.

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

Certainty and myth

Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.

[Iscariot]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783264/Speed-of-light-broken-an-experts-view.html
there ya go 

There is still no conclusive evidence that says that what CERN discovered was the truth or a misread on the part of its instruments, and even if the speed of light had been broken, by the correspondence principle, all previous observations about scientific law and theory would remain true, meaning conservation of mass and energy would STILL EXIST.

[Iscariot]

You are completely missing the point.

You don't understand basic definitions.

[coylter]

You are completely missing the point.

You don't understand basic definitions.

Certainty and myth

Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.

Its the heart of science, its the beauty of it. If you don't get that, then you are as close minded as people who claimed the earth was flat and refused to see the evidences.