Campaign for real science

[Three PhDs]

hmmm... i got the impression that GW was to discuss differant opinions on SG and to have a little fun, guess im wrong

Well, 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! 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]

^^^
As to my response to the above please see the thread on ZPM’s in this forum.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost....3&postcount=34

[Madeleine]

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]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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

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! You'll corrupt my innocence.

Denny Crane.

[_Owen_]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

Yep and that pictured i scanned in from Michio Kaku's Hyperspace,

[_Owen_]

Very cool. I would like to read that.

Owen Macri