PDA

View Full Version : Campaign for real science



Three PhDs
August 19th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick of going into threads hoping to discuss and debate matters scientific only to see people talking complete technobabble and worse so talking like it's real and authoratitive. Can we have some sort of consesnsus here so threads aren't ruined by people putting forward their own unscientific ideas with no backing as fact?

Eoin
August 19th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick of going into threads hoping to discuss and debate matters scientific only to see people talking complete technobabble and worse so talking like it's real and authoratitive. Can we have some sort of consesnsus here so threads aren't ruined by people putting forward their own unscientific ideas with no backing as fact?
hmmm... i got the impression that GW was to discuss differant opinions on SG and to have a little fun, guess im wrong

Esquin
August 19th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Most of our technobable, or that of Owen Macri and myself is actually correct. Whether you udnerstand it or not isn't really our problem we see questions we answer them and yes we will use terms which relate to the science behind stargate be it real or fictional science. If you want to debate a scientific matter be prepared to read the jargon that goes with it.

aAnubiSs
August 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM
Trust me, Three PhDs(Bose) usually knows what he's talking about.

And yes much(most) here in technobabble :(

Eoin
August 19th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Most stuff in here is technobabble because 1: Its a show and people tend to go by what science is in the show whether they understand it or not.
2:most of the science in the show is not real( and is SCIENCE FICTION!!!), which means everyone does not understand it completly or just not understand it atall.

People have the right to express their opinions whether true or not.

aAnubiSs
August 19th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Just because one doesn't understand something 100% that doesn't "allow" one to make up some technobabble to explain it.

It's supposed to have connections to real science. Otherwise it'd be called fiction, or fantasy. But it's called SCIENCE Fiction.

An opinion is not a theory is not the truth.

PrimalAscended
August 19th, 2005, 06:29 PM
I enjoy alot of the discussions on here, particularly the more "fiction" related science fiction aspects as they are more fun........

And seeing as a heck of alot of Stargate "science" is based on theoretical science (and therefore may not be 100% correct) and has no practical application as yet, its fun talking techno with a touch of babble. Of course that's only my opinion. If I wanted to talk real "non science fiction" science I'd find somewhere else to talk about it, but seeing as I personally don't then GateWorld it is for me.

Eoin
August 19th, 2005, 06:30 PM
An opinion is not a theory is not the truth.
people are entitled to a theory aswell.

I dont wanna have any arguments in GW, so im gonna back off, im gonna stand up and be a man and say im sorry for my carry-on. *eoin kicks himself in the but for bad behavior*
its getting late now and im really tired.

aAnubiSs
August 19th, 2005, 06:34 PM
A theory is based on math and observation. Most of the "Theories" here are based on techno babble. Subspace this subspace that.

Esquin
August 19th, 2005, 08:38 PM
Becasue the simple fact is that subspace is a vital part of stargate physics, if you don't like talking about subspace science then stay away from the stargate boards. They are based on the science of Stargate which sounds like technobabble to anyone who doesnt understand it.

vonbismarck
August 19th, 2005, 09:47 PM
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, as it is not meant that way, but could you give an example of what you would like to talk about? Also, as Esquin has said, subspace plays a part in Stargate science, not going to say all of it, but it does in some. Hence you will hear it used for some (although not all) reasons.

aAnubiSs
August 19th, 2005, 10:10 PM
I was talking science here long before you joined the forum.

I have no problems talking about subspace, but when people answer everything with either subspace and phasing in and out of subspace and phasing particles non-stop I get bored.

There are many things that could be discussed. how Naquadah functions, weapon yield, basic shield principles, alternate power sources...

vonbismarck
August 19th, 2005, 11:19 PM
I hope you did not take offense to my last post. I know that you have been talking science long before I joined, I only joined this month. Could you tell me more about Naquadah such as it's boiling point, melting point, freezing point, how it reacts with other elements. For I know just about nothing about Naquadah except that it helps increase the yield of weapons, used in staff weapons and stargates and is part of the genetic makeup of Goa'uld.

DHD
August 20th, 2005, 12:42 AM
Most stuff in here is technobabble because 1: Its a show and people tend to go by what science is in the show whether they understand it or not.
2:most of the science in the show is not real( and is SCIENCE FICTION!!!), which means everyone does not understand it completly or just not understand it atall.

People have the right to express their opinions whether true or not.

That is something I completly agree on, And I have been dealing with it extensivly and in a overt manner. Stargate IS science fiction, but like ALL Science Fiction there is a inkling of the real world physics. BUT as some people find it necessary they love to start problems based on it. But as I have said before, if you want to start a arguement of factual science in a fiction enviroment, go ahead, the only thing it will get anyone is pissed.

EMSPARKS
August 20th, 2005, 05:08 AM
The point of this forum to my way of thinking is not intellectual self-abuse, but rather education. For the most part the people that come to this board are for the lack of another word neophytes, people with a smattering of interest in the subject and little else. They come here to learn and not to be pontificated to. If the science her is not to your level, or liking then I suggest that you augment your forum experience by participating in the many newsgroups that are made up of professionals, and academics.

This argument was brought up in another thread; when I challenged several assertions of so-called non-science I was met with a deafening silence. So I am going to repost them here.

In short stop stamping your feet, and answer the questions:


What's the point though? Why have a forum with a bunch of people with little or no scientific knowledge or training running around all making up their own ideas without any evidence of well thought out ideas about how something works?

For you there is no point, at least until you learn that people don’t all ways use language the same way you do. How else do we learn?


… How does it lose them? By what means? Crystal shell? By what means do the electrons draw energy into the shell? Or did you just make this up on guesswork? Man I hate how little real science there is on gateworld. :(

Ever hear of a “Piezoelectric crystal” where electron flow is created by applying pressure to the crystal. Some types of crystals react to heat, which is why there is such a thing as crystal ovens in older types of radio equipment, where frequencies had to be held stable. It then stands to reason that even if not so far discovered there could be a crystal material that could, when heated, cause enough of an electron differential within its structure to create a sizable current flow.

If I’m not mistaken apply heat energy to any atom and it becomes more energetic, in some cases moving electrons to higher valence bands.

As to electron loss, maybe you don’t lose electrons but you lose the energy driving them to heat, through resistance. So even in a circuit comprised of super conductors there is still resistance however small. I take it you’ve heard the term electrical resistance, however it works.

Three PhDs
August 20th, 2005, 06:05 AM
hmmm... i got the impression that GW was to discuss differant opinions on SG and to have a little fun, guess im wrongWell, it is the Science and tech forum, not the pseudoscience and technobabble forum.


Most of our technobable, or that of Owen Macri and myself is actually correct.Right. Maybe you didn't notice me taking nearly every one of Owen's posts to pieces. Or you skipped over Owen acknowledging his mistakes to me?

Whether you udnerstand it or not isn't really our problem we see questions we answer them and yes we will use terms which relate to the science behind stargate be it real or fictional science.It is your problem. If one of you asks a question about something, the rest of you all jump in with your made up ideas (no, not theories) about how to answer and all of them contradict each other. So then, how much closer are you to answering the question? You're not any closer, and don't know anything more than you did when you asked. It's a pointless waste of time. Oh and for the record "fictional science" is a hilarious oxymoron.


If you want to debate a scientific matter be prepared to read the jargon that goes with it.Jargon is not the issue, it's that you're talking crap.


Most stuff in here is technobabble because 1: Its a show and people tend to go by what science is in the show whether they understand it or not.And what of the technobabble when people claim to authoritatively know the workings of a naquadah generator or Atlantis' shields?

2:most of the science in the show is not real( and is SCIENCE FICTION!!!), which means everyone does not understand it completly or just not understand it atall.That's fine, I expect that. However there wouldn't be a problem if people just said "We don't know how it works" instead of just making stuff up to fill in the blanks, and worse, stuff that flys in the face of established science.


People have the right to express their opinions whether true or not.Fine, but don't pass off opinion as fact, and don't complain when someone else comes along and demonstrates how your opinion doesn't actually work.


Becasue the simple fact is that subspace is a vital part of stargate physics, if you don't like talking about subspace science then stay away from the stargate boards. They are based on the science of Stargate which sounds like technobabble to anyone who doesnt understand it.Hahahahaha. To anyone who doesn't understand it. Subspace and Hyperspace are completely fictional concepts. They have no founding nor basis in science. If you talk about them in a serious manner, that is technobabble. So your posts don't just sound like technobabble, they are technobabble. Completely made up.


I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, as it is not meant that way, but could you give an example of what you would like to talk about?All of the current discussions are fine topics, and I wouldn't dare presume to try and impose some sort of guidelines as to what can and can't be talked about, I just would rather all discussions in the science and tech forum were scientific.

Also, as Esquin has said, subspace plays a part in Stargate science, not going to say all of it, but it does in some. Hence you will hear it used for some (although not all) reasons.Yeah, once now and again it' s ok, but it's bandied about all the time with no consistency. Everyone has their own ideas but no reasons for those ideas, no proofs, no theorem, no formulae, no backing. It's all just silly empty words.


This argument was brought up in another thread; when I challenged several assertions of so-called non-science I was met with a deafening silence. So I am going to repost them here.My apologies if I have been late in providing an answer, this forum is a lot bigger than most I am used to posting in and as such I often forget which threads I have posted in and which I haven't (I notice also gateworld doesn't have the markers on threads to indicate that for you.)


For you there is no point, at least until you learn that people don’t all ways use language the same way you do. How else do we learn?By consistent usage of something in a defined sense. Can you imagine trying to learn to speak as a child if everyone who spoke to you used the same words but gave them different meanings?


Ever hear of a “Piezoelectric crystal” where electron flow is created by applying pressure to the crystal. Some types of crystals react to heat, which is why there is such a thing as crystal ovens in older types of radio equipment, where frequencies had to be held stable. It then stands to reason that even if not so far discovered there could be a crystal material that could, when heated, cause enough of an electron differential within its structure to create a sizable current flow.Nope, I had absolutely no idea how microphones worked until now! :eek: However, if there were any real practical application in the matter then we'd have harvested the technology long ago. As a source of power generation, piezoelectrics are inefficient and useless.


If I’m not mistaken apply heat energy to any atom and it becomes more energetic, in some cases moving electrons to higher valence bands.This is true.


As to electron loss, maybe you don’t lose electrons but you lose the energy driving them to heat, through resistance. So even in a circuit comprised of super conductors there is still resistance however small. I take it you’ve heard the term electrical resistance, however it works.Well, given the power levels given off by the ZPM, even a minute amount of inefficiency bleeding to heat would probably give off enough heat to instantaneously ignite anythin within its proximity.

EMSPARKS
August 20th, 2005, 08:57 AM
^^^
As to my response to the above please see the thread on ZPM’s in this forum.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=4443073&postcount=34

Madeleine
August 20th, 2005, 09:00 AM
Some points need to be clarified.

1. This is a Discussion forum (not a Teaching forum, not an Argument forum and not a Sod Off And Shut Up Cos ___ Knows Better Than Stephen Hawkings forum).

2. It is a forum for discussion of Stargate. Stargate is a fiction created by people who freely admit to being Writers and TV Gurus rather than Lab Jonnies; people who care more about plot devices and thrilling drama than about seeing the audience through their A Level Physics exam. Consequently the 'science' in Stargate's fiction is inconsistent, inaccurate and flabby.

3. When discussing 'science' that is riddled with inconsistencies and impossibilities it's frequently going to be the case that *no* theory can fit perfectly with the 'evidence'. At that point, the viewer has to decide: Do I ignore evidence xxx cos it only hapenned once? Or do I discount evidence yyy cos it is the most implausible piece? Or do I discount zzz cos that's Real Proper science that never happenned on Stargate and so isn't 'canon' even if it's True? Different people will make different decisions. This leads to differences of opinion. That is normal and not a bad thing. It's even possible for two people to have different opinions without one of them automatically being wrong. Or stupid.

3. Most people seem to be here to share ideas and bat theories about a bit, friendly-like; to share opinions and excercise their brains some. Others come to ask questions and get a patch for some leaky onscreen science to help them with their suspension of disbelief. Others have spent long hours constructing careful structures of theories that they are just bursting to share. All that's fine.

4. What is NOT fine is the people who are so arrogant that they assume everyone here is their twelve-year-old pupil and they are Professor Omniscient P. Einstein. Or people who, when deconstructing another poster's intricately detailed idea, are sneering or gleeful to have found what they perceive as an error. Or people who imagine that their way of watching the Science in SF is the only way and other people are Watching TV Wrong and need to be made to read post #94 again and again until they get it right. Or people who tell other people who are politely discussing an idea that they are 'talking crap'. Or people who whinge that other people are spoiling the forum for them by not being scientific enough.

5. This is a place where we share opinions. We also ask that everyone respect the opinions of other posters. Challenge them, by all means, but if you can't challenge an idea respectfully, then LEARN. And while you're at it, learn to be challenged and take it with grace. (By which I mean find another way to react to someone's disagreement than "You're thick, I'm brilliant, shut up, woe is me having to share forum space with a person who is too dim to automatically agree with every syllable I type.")

Madeleine
GateWorld Moderator

Gargen
August 20th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick of going into threads hoping to discuss and debate matters scientific only to see people talking complete technobabble and worse so talking like it's real and authoratitive. Can we have some sort of consesnsus here so threads aren't ruined by people putting forward their own unscientific ideas with no backing as fact?


hey i was into astrophysics before i started watching stargate it actaully the reason i started watching a couple years ago

Lord §okar
August 22nd, 2005, 06:20 PM
Subspace and Hyperspace are completely fictional concepts.
I'm going to have to disagree there, subspace is 100% Roddenberry fiction but hyperspace has solid theoretical grounding in actual physics, despite the stargate hyperspace being a veritable abortion of the actual concept.

Gargen
August 22nd, 2005, 07:01 PM
So i take it the Thoery of Relativity is just a fairy tale. If not subspace what would you have us call the space between the infinite number of universes.

Oh and im just curious what knowledge of astrophysics do you have, just what have you read and possible even where have you studied, personally ive read alot of the leading books out there, all of hawkings, kaku, and greene's, i have read some of einsteins stuff but it is a bit to dry if i say so myself, dont get me wrong its genious work but just einstein obviously wasnt a writer in his past life.

Oh and yes dont give me any of that cocky bull**** i read profile Student: Physics..... well i dont give a **** becuase unless you have Hawking as a mentor that dont mean **** because when you get into astrophysics, 1 its all theory and 2 if you really new anything you would know that the space between universes is often refered to as subspace. Yea im not a college student but hell ive been reading up on this **** for years.

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 08:38 PM
Right. Maybe you didn't notice me taking nearly every one of Owen's posts to pieces. Or you skipped over Owen acknowledging his mistakes to me?

I'm sorry, which posts were these? All you have done most of the time is tell me that my "theories" are not theories but ideas, which I have understood. If this is what you meant by "taking nearly every one of Owen's posts to pieces," then you have indeed, every time I have misused the word theory you have corrected me and I thank you for it.

This section is the Science and Tech section of GateWorld, a Stargate forum. This section has to do with analyzing the science and technology within Stargate. If you would like to hear nothing but proven scientific fact, this is not the section for you. Because many of the aspects of science and technology that we will be discussing, will be deemed impossible or incredibly improbable, by current scientific theories, and laws of physics. However it still has bearing in the Stargate universe which is why we will be discussing it. If you believe the disscussion is offtopic or what you would classify as "technobabble" with no meaning, then there is the "Report Post" feature, which apears grey bar above each post, which also states the date. It apears as a triangle with an exclamation mark (!) inside. You may use it whenever you see fit.

On the subject of technobabble. Many people use this word far to often out of context. You will only say something is, or percieve something as technobabble if you do not understand it, however, even if you do not understand it, does not mean it does not mean anything.

Owen Macri

Gargen
August 22nd, 2005, 08:41 PM
I think what he is saying is that some people take TV shows to far and meld real science with that of SciFi

Lord §okar
August 22nd, 2005, 08:58 PM
So i take it the Thoery of Relativity is just a fairy tale. If not subspace what would you have us call the space between the infinite number of universes.
You go, point out to me where exactly relativity references subspace in any way. Go on.

EDIT: On another note there exists a concept known as "hyperspace", however it collectively refers to the additional hyperspatial dimensions associated with our own universe. "The space between infinite number of universes" eh? You think that's what subspace is? Heh.

Um I wouldn't have you call it anything since it doesn't really have a name (nor have I ever heard of it before). Maybe you should read all of "Hawkings [sic], Kaku and Greene's" fiziks books again.

Oh and im just curious what knowledge of astrophysics do you have, just what have you read and possible even where have you studied, personally ive read alot of the leading books out there, all of hawkings, kaku, and greene's, i have read some of einsteins stuff but it is a bit to dry if i say so myself, dont get me wrong its genious work but just einstein obviously wasnt a writer in his past life.
What have I read? Where have I studied?? How is this relavant? You can't address the points I raise so you thought you'd try the ad hominem approach? I don't remember the names of the books I've read, I only have textbooks here with me at the moment which are a touch less accessable than, say, "Hyperspace" (which I have read, too). As for the second part of your question: UQ (http://www.uq.edu.au)

Oh and yes dont give me any of that cocky bull**** i read profile Student: Physics..... well i dont give a **** becuase unless you have Hawking as a mentor that dont mean **** because when you get into astrophysics, 1 its all theory and 2 if you really new anything you would know that the space between universes is often refered to as subspace. Yea im not a college student but hell ive been reading up on this **** for years.
Well it seems like you need to keep reading. No, it's never referred to as subspace, unless you're an ardent Trekkie who can't keep reality separate from "coherent plasma phased polaron flux... subspace frequency neutrino" land. So much swearing! :eek: You'll corrupt my innocence.

Denny Crane.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Niles/DennyCrane.jpg

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
Perhaps, however, I think all of the disscussion in this section, other than the most obvious cases, has been perfectly fine most of the time. There is the odd case, where someone may claim something is fact when it is pure fiction, however everyone makes mistakes, and it should not be taken so heavely.

Owen Macri

Gargen
August 23rd, 2005, 03:18 AM
Yea about the trekkie thing i dont like star trek and have never like star trek i watched an episode for like10-15 minutes and changed the channel, man thats real bloody boring. And later today whe its not 6 am ill try to reread Hyperspace and pull out some of the juicy tidbits.

Gargen
August 23rd, 2005, 04:23 AM
http://www.ihategargen.com/wormhole.GIF

well i wrote the stuff in on my computer so its a bit hard to read but eh well i didnt want to have to type stuff up

And yes the illustration is a bit well out of porportions but i think it will atleast get it a cross to you that this isnt all just made up bu the ******* writers of some scifi show

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 09:02 AM
Yes, the space which the wormhole will cross is called hyperspace. This is the real world hyperspace, in Stargate it is diffrent.

Owen Macri

Gargen
August 23rd, 2005, 09:06 AM
Yep and that pictured i scanned in from Michio Kaku's Hyperspace,

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 09:07 AM
Very cool. I would like to read that.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 23rd, 2005, 09:40 AM
I thought the space where the wormhole will cross is called the Einstein-Rosen bridge or is that just another name for hyperspace?

Heisenberg
August 23rd, 2005, 09:45 AM
I thought the space where the wormhole will cross is called the Einstein-Rosen bridge or is that just another name for hyperspace?

The Einstein-Rosen-Podolski Bridge is the name for a Wormhole, hyperspace is the concept of a higher dimension of space (which the wormhole would presumably travel)

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 10:05 AM
Yes, that is correct. Hyperspace, is basically theorized to be something inside our universe.

Owen Macri

Gargen
August 23rd, 2005, 10:26 AM
The Einstein-Rosen-Podolski Bridge is the name for a Wormhole, hyperspace is the concept of a higher dimension of space (which the wormhole would presumably travel)


yes thats were you get to have fun stuff like a hypercube

oh andowen not in our universe but co-existing in hmmm whats that place called agian oh yea subspace and this 10 (or however many you think it is) dimesional universe would exist but it exists much like our universe did before the big bang, but this of course all theory

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 10:30 AM
Lol, I was going to say, that would make a good name for a movie, but there already is one, Cube 2: Hypercube.

well, yes, when you enter hyperspace, either real or Stargate, it does get quite interesting.

Owen Macri

Heisenberg
August 23rd, 2005, 10:42 AM
^ Pity that Cube 2: Hypercube, whilst interesting, was rather lame in plot... Hypercubes are an intriguing idea, something that can be infinitely proportionate in size but equally non-existant in real space-time.

The only problem is the terminology of Hyperspace is that Hyperspace takes place outside of our dimension in a higher one, wheresas Subspace is a lower level of space that bisects our own. It gets worse when you talk about Hypersurfaces which are the regions of which Subspace operates on, which probably should technically be called a Subsurface... doesn't it just give you a headache? :eek:

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 10:49 AM
I have not seen Cube 2, lol.

I find it all quite interesting, just thinking about subspace, and hyperspace is very interesting and when you go deeper into them...

Owen Macri

Heisenberg
August 23rd, 2005, 11:12 AM
^Don't see it, if your a fan of Cube you'll reget it (and don't even begin to think about Cube 3) lol

It is very interesting and I think I've worked out the answer to the great Subspace vs Hyperspace debate: Subspace (which is used for Warp Drive in Star Trek) is far inferior to Hyperspace (ala Stargate).

(Yeah I was sad and worked this out from what Walter said in "Prometheus Unbound")

It would take the USS Voyager 70 years to travel 70,000 light years, but the Prometheus can go 50 light years in 20 minutes, meaning that in a day it can go 3600 Light Years. That means that the Promethus could make the trip in about 19 3/4 days...

And we've not began to talk about that the Daedalus managed in 20 days to get between Pegasus and the Earth suggesting even faster speeds...

*backs away from the keyboard* lol

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 11:18 AM
Lol, yes, but you forgot one thing. Warp Drive does not involve travel through subspace. Warp Drive has been researched in real life, by a scientist named Migeul Alcubierre, and he came up with the Alcubierre Drive. Basically it compresses space in front of the ship and expands it behind the ship. Here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Owen Macri

Heisenberg
August 23rd, 2005, 11:25 AM
Good point, Alcubierre doesn't really mention subspace but hypersurfaces instead, which you could take as the same thing as its a lower spacial dimension.

You might wanna check out this link, Chris Van De Broeck came up with more reasonable energy requirements for the drive from Alcubierre's equations.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905084

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 11:34 AM
Thank you very much for the link I will check it out in more detail later. It looks very interesting.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 23rd, 2005, 02:13 PM
Yes, the space which the wormhole will cross is called hyperspace. This is the real world hyperspace, in Stargate it is diffrent.


Are you saying the space that surrounds the bridge/throat of the wormhole is where hyperspace is to be found?

Heisenberg
August 23rd, 2005, 02:23 PM
I believe that once you enter the gate through the wormhole you'd be in hyperspace but not before, as the connection between the "throat/bridge" of the wormhole would be the Event Horizon.

vonbismarck
August 23rd, 2005, 02:29 PM
I didn't think you would be in hyperspace before crossing the event horizon, that much I actually did know (even if it is all that I know). It is just that with everything that I have read, hyperspace doesn't really play a part in the lit., so I wanted to make sure where it was as Marci said it was the space the wormhole would cross which would be the space the bridge covers.

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
Are you saying the space that surrounds the bridge/throat of the wormhole is where hyperspace is to be found?
Yep.

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5958/wormholeshyperspace0at.png

And I made that image all by myself, and it took a long time so appreciate it! lol.

Owen Macri

Lord §okar
August 23rd, 2005, 06:53 PM
http://www.ihategargen.com/wormhole.GIF

well i wrote the stuff in on my computer so its a bit hard to read but eh well i didnt want to have to type stuff up

And yes the illustration is a bit well out of porportions but i think it will atleast get it a cross to you that this isnt all just made up bu the ******* writers of some scifi show
I see you've scanned a page from the first chapter of 'Hyperspace'. Now show me where it mentions subspace. I'd like to point out that that image is a graphical analog of an actual wormhole and in no way represents the allegedly true structure. If you actually read the book you'll note that it supports the idea that the length of the wormhole throat is zero. Subspace is thrice distilled nonsense.

And yes the illustration is a bit well out of porportions but i think it will atleast get it a cross to you that this isnt all just made up bu the ******* writers of some scifi show
"Well out of proportions"? Tell me, what are the proportions? Yeeees, we know that wormhole weren't reated by scifi writers, subspace... was.

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 08:00 PM
It may not be real, as far as we know, however it is still fun to think about it.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
August 24th, 2005, 12:37 AM
http://www.ihategargen.com/wormhole.GIF

well i wrote the stuff in on my computer so its a bit hard to read but eh well i didnt want to have to type stuff up

And yes the illustration is a bit well out of porportions but i think it will atleast get it a cross to you that this isnt all just made up bu the ******* writers of some scifi show

It's imporant to point out that, in this figure, the 2-D plane represents space. The "space" between the two planes is, well, no idea.

Gargen
August 24th, 2005, 06:26 AM
I see you've scanned a page from the first chapter of 'Hyperspace'. Now show me where it mentions subspace. I'd like to point out that that image is a graphical analog of an actual wormhole and in no way represents the allegedly true structure. If you actually read the book you'll note that it supports the idea that the length of the wormhole throat is zero. Subspace is thrice distilled nonsense.

And yes the illustration is a bit well out of porportions but i think it will atleast get it a cross to you that this isnt all just made up bu the ******* writers of some scifi show
"Well out of proportions"? Tell me, what are the proportions? Yeeees, we know that wormhole weren't reated by scifi writers, subspace... was.

well because subspace exist between universe and there is well no space in subspace (or at least very very little) that is what make it so you could step through a rip in our universe and come out lightyears away in less than a second

Auralis
August 24th, 2005, 09:35 AM
Actually in stargate FTL travel is done via hyperspace, not subspace.
Trek had eveything and the kitchensinks doing subspace mumbojumbo.

Gargen
August 24th, 2005, 01:03 PM
You know what i dont care if some of you dont believe this stuff existed and exists in real scientific theories not just SciFi, I would have a real hard time defending quantum mechanics i guess, and i assume most of you believe quarks were what invented by th Planet of the Apes series. But who cares anyway, this is just what i have learned about the various forms of theoritical physics.


PS I dont know why everyone goes back to star trek with this **** personally i never cared for the show i once saw less than half an episode and thought it was very dull.

Lord §okar
August 24th, 2005, 06:53 PM
You know what i dont care if some of you dont believe this stuff existed and exists in real scientific theories not just SciFi, I would have a real hard time defending quantum mechanics i guess, and i assume most of you believe quarks were what invented by th Planet of the Apes series. But who cares anyway, this is just what i have learned about the various forms of theoritical physics.
No. You. Haven't. You have taken the nonsense word 'subspace' and arbitrarily decided that it shall refer to the "space between infinite universes" (just FYI, there is no space there, there can't be). I've asked it for three posts in a row now, prove that it's a real term!

lethalfang
August 24th, 2005, 08:30 PM
You know what i dont care if some of you dont believe this stuff existed and exists in real scientific theories not just SciFi, I would have a real hard time defending quantum mechanics i guess, and i assume most of you believe quarks were what invented by th Planet of the Apes series. But who cares anyway, this is just what i have learned about the various forms of theoritical physics.
No. You. Haven't. You have taken the nonsense word 'subspace' and arbitrarily decided that it shall refer to the "space between infinite universes" (just FYI, there is no space there, there can't be). I've asked it for three posts in a row now, prove that it's a real term!

That's it. There is no such concept as "space between two universes," assuming parallel universes exist. There isn't even the concept of "between" between the two universes.

_Owen_
August 24th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Right now I don't think the argument is, or should be, whether subspace exists, it should be, rather, a discussion about subspace. Does it really matter if it exists. When the first sailors set out on thier ships (which were new technology at the time), did they know if there was more land out there? No they didn't, in fact, they didn't want to go to far because they thought the world was flat and that they would fall off. Yet, someone still decided to go further, and I am willing to bet that that someone didn't know that there was more land beyond the seas.

Owen Macri

Gargen
August 25th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Right now I don't think the argument is, or should be, whether subspace exists, it should be, rather, a discussion about subspace. Does it really matter if it exists. When the first sailors set out on thier ships (which were new technology at the time), did they know if there was more land out there? No they didn't, in fact, they didn't want to go to far because they thought the world was flat and that they would fall off. Yet, someone still decided to go further, and I am willing to bet that that someone didn't know that there was more land beyond the seas.

Owen Macri

Wow that was really insightful im +repping you for that, i think owen makes a good points i mean i could say quarks dont exist if i wanted i wanted to (but i wouldnt) but hey if i become a physist then i can theorize about whatever the fell i want too, hmm in subspace there are flying monkeys and a four witches 2 good and 2 bad and there is also a great witchhunter named dorthy, and her personal bodyguard, a small strange creature name toto

Three PhDs
August 25th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Space inbetween universes is a contradictory term. It's like erm... a universe is made up of space, space is in a universe. Outside a universe is logically unimaginable in terms of space and time.

Gargen
August 25th, 2005, 03:28 PM
well whats the point of a wormhole just rip directly through to another universe if there is no space, and what about theoritical physics is logical, if it was logical it wouldnt be theoritical.

Oh and didnt a guy a while back named columbus suggest something illogical, something about the world being a sphere not a flat plane

lethalfang
August 25th, 2005, 03:45 PM
well whats the point of a wormhole just rip directly through to another universe if there is no space, and what about theoritical physics is logical, if it was logical it wouldnt be theoritical.

Oh and didnt a guy a while back named columbus suggest something illogical, something about the world being a sphere not a flat plane

The "bridge" would connect the two universes together. The bridge can be considered a space.
There is no "space between" the two universes.
The fallacy of your logic is thinking the universe in a 3-D term, where each universe is self-contained 3-D space in a larger 3-D "superuniverse," and you connect the two self-contained 3-D space simply by building a tunnel. If that were the case, you will have space between the two self-contained 3-D universes.

Three PhDs
August 25th, 2005, 05:38 PM
well whats the point of a wormhole just rip directly through to another universe if there is no space, and what about theoritical physics is logical, if it was logical it wouldnt be theoritical.

Oh and didnt a guy a while back named columbus suggest something illogical, something about the world being a sphere not a flat planeThis is almost too simple to wonder about. Within the universe = spacetime. Outwith = no spacetime. Outwith therefore there can be no space nor time nor spacetime in which any hyperspace nor subspace nor any variation can exist. Between possible universes (if between is even a suitable term) is beyond any current comprehension of physics.

Gargen
August 25th, 2005, 06:05 PM
yes but if Einstein forgot about relitivity because it was beyond any comprehension of physics.

lethalfang
August 25th, 2005, 09:42 PM
yes but if Einstein forgot about relitivity because it was beyond any comprehension of physics.

Totally different cases.
Einstein was inventing new physics essentially, at no time was his terms ever self-contradicting.
You are insisting on something nonsensical.
Your insistence reminds me of a commone Q&A:
Q: What happened before the beginning of time?
A: You are asking what's "before" the beginning time. Since time has not begun, there was no concept of time, and therefore no concept of "before." This is therefore a nonsensical question.

Same with your logic. There's no concept of "space" or "between" between the two universes.

Madeleine
August 25th, 2005, 10:42 PM
There's no concept of "space" or "between" between the two universes.

Perhaps the failure is one of language rather than of scientific understanding. It seems to me that 'space' and 'between' are being used as synonyms for 'that which separates universes' or 'the whatever-it-is that makes universe X and universe Y not be part of the same universe'' for want of a more convenient term.

Jarnin
August 25th, 2005, 11:03 PM
Perhaps the failure is one of language rather than of scientific understanding. It seems to me that 'space' and 'between' are being used as synonyms for 'that which separates universes' or 'the whatever-it-is that makes universe X and universe Y not be part of the same universe'' for want of a more convenient term.
I always thought that the multiverse rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

PrimalAscended
August 26th, 2005, 06:12 AM
Seeing as no-one has ever been outside of our known universe we have no idea what's outside it, if anything at all, so all theories, ideas and conjectures are as valid as each other IMHO.........

And as for the "real science", physics as we know it may only apply to our universe so "outside" anything goes!!!

lethalfang
August 26th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Seeing as no-one has ever been outside of our known universe we have no idea what's outside it, if anything at all, so all theories, ideas and conjectures are as valid as each other IMHO.........


Not quite.
All ideas, theories, or conjectures, if want to be taken seriously, must be self-consistant and logically sound, otherwise they must be dismissed.

PrimalAscended
August 26th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Not quite.
All ideas, theories, or conjectures, if want to be taken seriously, must be self-consistant and logically sound, otherwise they must be dismissed.

True, in the case of known science within the confines of our universe....BUT people have been talking about "outside" our universe and for all we know different laws of physics/chemistry/biology may hold sway elsewhere......

And more importantly a "healthy suspension of disbelief" is required for nearly all science fiction......even in Stargate!! ;)

_Owen_
August 26th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Space inbetween universes is a contradictory term. It's like erm... a universe is made up of space, space is in a universe. Outside a universe is logically unimaginable in terms of space and time.
Then logically, outside of the universe there should be what we should appropriatley name "anti-space." However, something beyond the universe is unimaginable, because if the universe ends it must be within something, and if it is within something there must be something outside of whatever it is in which holds whatever it is in. The size of the universe, is extraordinarily unimaginable, it is bigger, than anyone has ever dreamed and it is getting bigger. We cannot even imagine what is out there, let alone what is outside the universe, I gurantee you, something is outside of what we call "space" and we may never know what it is.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
August 26th, 2005, 11:25 PM
Then logically, outside of the universe there should be what we should appropriatley name "anti-space." However, something beyond the universe is unimaginable, because if the universe ends it must be within something, and if it is within something there must be something outside of whatever it is in which holds whatever it is in. The size of the universe, is extraordinarily unimaginable, it is bigger, than anyone has ever dreamed and it is getting bigger. We cannot even imagine what is out there, let alone what is outside the universe, I gurantee you, something is outside of what we call "space" and we may never know what it is.

Owen Macri

"Space outside" is a concept for a self-contained region of space.
A universe cannot be described as such, so there is no such thing as "space outside" of this universe.
There may be something beyond this universe, and it could be another universe, but there is no "space between" the two universes.

_Owen_
August 26th, 2005, 11:56 PM
All right, well for all intents and purpses, let us call this area outside of a universe anti-space, as the term seems appropriate.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 26th, 2005, 11:58 PM
I am not even going to pretend that I understand what I am going to say so take it how ever you will. What do you call the area that the universe is supposed to be expanding into? Also, what if the universe ended with the "great crunch" (I think that is what it is called) and you were able to see the edge of the universe, would you see anything? I guess you probably wouldn't, just darkness but then again I don't want to answer my own question.

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 12:00 AM
I am not even going to pretend that I understand what I am going to say so take it how ever you will. What do you call the area that the universe is supposed to be expanding into? Also, what if the universe ended with the "great crunch" (I think that is what it is called) and you were able to see the edge of the universe, would you see anything? I guess you probably wouldn't, just darkness but then again I don't want to answer my own question.

The universe isn't expanding "into" anything. It's the space-time itself that is expanding.

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 12:02 AM
All right, well for all intents and purpses, let us call this area outside of a universe anti-space, as the term seems appropriate.

Owen Macri

There is no such thing as area outside the universe.
You can either be in this universe, or you can be in the other universe, or you can be in a bridge connecting the two universes. There isn't any other place.

vonbismarck
August 27th, 2005, 12:08 AM
So if the "big crunch" (do I need to use quotation marks?) were to occur, the universe itself would not collapse in on itself into a singularity?

_Owen_
August 27th, 2005, 12:28 AM
There is no such thing as area outside the universe.
You can either be in this universe, or you can be in the other universe, or you can be in a bridge connecting the two universes. There isn't any other place.
Allright so please explain to me, how the universe is managing to grow in size if there is nothing to grow into?

Owen Macri

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 01:39 AM
Allright so please explain to me, how the universe is managing to grow in size if there is nothing to grow into?

Owen Macri

Haha. Easy question to ask, but extremely difficult to understand, and it is something not agreed upon and studied by only a handful of people (there is no way of testing any theories at present time), but I'll try to present some views of this topic, of which I am hardly an expert.
First of all, do you consider the universe to have infinite size, or do you consider the universe to actually have a boundary of space.
If you believe the universe has infinite size, then the fabrics of space-time can stretch the hell it wants and the overall size is still infinite and does not change.
If you believe the universe to be of finite size, then at the edge of the universe is the edge of space. There is no space beyond this edge, the expansion of space means the just that, turning non-space dimentions into space.
I personally believe the universe is of infinite size, and expansion merely means the stretching of the fabric of our space.
When people in the media talking about the "edge" of the universe, what they really mean is the edge of the observable universe, i.e. this radius of observable is approximated by the product of speed of light and the age of the universe.

Three PhDs
August 27th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Then logically, outside of the universe there should be what we should appropriatley name "anti-space."
Owen MacriI hold in my hand a packet of crisps. I believe Americanadians refer to them as Chips. Inside the packet are crisps, however it is not logical to refer to the area outside the packet as anti-crisps.

Three PhDs
August 27th, 2005, 07:25 AM
Allright so please explain to me, how the universe is managing to grow in size if there is nothing to grow into?

Owen MacriYou're making the mistake of viewing our 3d universe as a region of space in a larger space. Hard as it is to grasp, there is nothing, no space nor time outside our universe. That's the very definition of our universe.

aironoeus
August 27th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Maybe the fact that there are standing waves is proof that the universe has a finite boundary or had such for a significant amount of time. Theoretically what if one day the boundary is removed in one fell swoop.
There is an apocolyptic episode for an SG1 show! The ORI decide, "to hell with this universe" and remove the finite barrier, slowly everything starts to expand and cool and unravel and all life ends.
If I see a standing wave that's kinda of a hint that the medium I'm viewing has a finite area don't you think.
If I drop a pebble in a pond and observe the standing waves that appear solid because they are "standing still" and all of a sudden the pond becomes BOOM infinite, what happends to my my standing waves?
Immediately the vast majority of them will disappear and any freak standing waves caused by isolated solid particles (if there can still be anything solid
left) having waves bounce off of them will slowly disappear also.
But that is kind of a 2 dimensional view of waves. How about 3 dimensions?
Bye bye solid particles.

Gargen
August 27th, 2005, 08:58 AM
There is no such thing as area outside the universe.
You can either be in this universe, or you can be in the other universe, or you can be in a bridge connecting the two universes. There isn't any other place.

ok what is the bridge needed for if all ofthe infinite universes are touching just rip right through

Three PhDs
August 27th, 2005, 10:06 AM
The word bridge is misleading. It's not a bridge per se, and more of a door. The wormhole has zero length.

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 02:18 PM
ok what is the bridge needed for if all ofthe infinite universes are touching just rip right through

You can stretch your space-time into a half-wormhole using gravity.
According to relativity, you can only stretch the space-time.
If we let our imagination take over and assume you can also rip space-time, then it is possible you can create another half-wormhole in another universe or another region of this universe, and rip them open and have them meet to create a wormhole one can travel through.

Gargen
August 27th, 2005, 03:17 PM
But travel through what i ask hmmm what could it be.

_Owen_
August 27th, 2005, 08:07 PM
That is true, you do not refer to the area outside of the package "anti-crisps," "anti-chips," or "anti-whatever-you-like-to-call-them," the reason for this is that the area inside of the package is not called "crisps." But working on the assumption that you actually meant the area outside of a chip, or crisp, or whatever, the reason that you do not call it an anti-chip, crisp, or whatever, is because this area already has a name, space. However, the area outside of the universe does not have a name.

As for there actually being an area outside of the universe, it is an interesting and perplexing subject. The simple fact is that we have become so accostumed to there being something more, that we cannot possibly imagine the universe just ending. However, it may, I believe that there must be something more, but it is impossible to tell.

As for whether I consider the universe infinite or finite, it can be seen as both, due to the curvature of the universe, we can travel in a straight line and end up exactly where we started, however, this happens because there is no further to travel, so it is finite as well.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 09:48 PM
... due to the curvature of the universe, we can travel in a straight line and end up exactly where we started, however, this happens because there is no further to travel, so it is finite as well.

Owen Macri

This has always been a possibility, I believe, until just a few years ago. I vaguely remember reading a bunch of newspaper articles at once, reporting that astronomers now have enough data to conclude this is indeed not the case. The universe is relatively "flat," even though there are ripples all over the place.

_Owen_
August 27th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Well, the universe is most definetly not flat, it is a very large three dimension volume. I haven't heard anything about this.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
August 27th, 2005, 11:44 PM
Well, the universe is most definetly not flat, it is a very large three dimension volume. I haven't heard anything about this.

Owen Macri

Take the world "flat" figuratively when I said universe is found to be flat. If earth is flat, then you can drive on way forever. Earth is not flat but round, so you will get back where you started. There is no equivalence of the word "flat" in 3-D as there is in 2-D.
When I said the universe is "flat," it means if you shine a laser beam in front of you, the beam will not eventually hit you from behind.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2000/05/10/flat.html

Lord §okar
August 28th, 2005, 04:16 AM
I always thought that the multiverse rested on the back of an enormous turtle.
Ah yes, terrapinism. I like it better than the "space between spaces" paradox. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Niles/rolleyes.gif

Three PhDs
August 28th, 2005, 05:06 AM
That is true, you do not refer to the area outside of the package "anti-crisps," "anti-chips," or "anti-whatever-you-like-to-call-them," the reason for this is that the area inside of the package is not called "crisps." But working on the assumption that you actually meant the area outside of a chip, or crisp, or whatever, the reason that you do not call it an anti-chip, crisp, or whatever, is because this area already has a name, space. However, the area outside of the universe does not have a name.

As for there actually being an area outside of the universe, it is an interesting and perplexing subject. The simple fact is that we have become so accostumed to there being something more, that we cannot possibly imagine the universe just ending. However, it may, I believe that there must be something more, but it is impossible to tell.

As for whether I consider the universe infinite or finite, it can be seen as both, due to the curvature of the universe, we can travel in a straight line and end up exactly where we started, however, this happens because there is no further to travel, so it is finite as well.

Owen Macri
Describe then the place outside the universe in which there is no forward or backward or left or right or up or down or before or after.

Lord §okar
September 4th, 2005, 05:11 PM
And more importantly a "healthy suspension of disbelief" is required for nearly all science fiction......even in Stargate!!
Particularly in Stargate.

IMForeman
September 4th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Lol, yes, but you forgot one thing. Warp Drive does not involve travel through subspace. Warp Drive has been researched in real life, by a scientist named Migeul Alcubierre, and he came up with the Alcubierre Drive. Basically it compresses space in front of the ship and expands it behind the ship. Here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Owen Macri

Thanks for posting that. It's amazing how similar it is to the description in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual of Warp Drive is. Considering the Tech Manual was written before Alcubierre came up with this.

-IMF

Three PhDs
September 5th, 2005, 12:05 AM
ooh just noticed owen didn't reply!

lethalfang
September 5th, 2005, 03:07 AM
And more importantly a "healthy suspension of disbelief" is required for nearly all science fiction......even in Stargate!!
Particularly in Stargate.

I always give sci-fi show every benefit of the doubt. However, when things are completely faulty, something just bothers me like a slice of dust in my eye. :S

1DanielForMe
September 5th, 2005, 05:04 AM
I just say it's an alternate reality, where different rules apply, that makes things so much easier.