Gravity on the Ships from Sci-Fi Movies/Shows

[Quadhelix]

Pure academics lends toward fiction. Only when such extrapolation is grounded in reality does it become science.

Yes, but what about when something is grounded in reality, but someone refuses to believe it?

People who believe the universe is a giant hologram or that all matter is nothing more than magnetic fields need to get outside and get smacked in the head with a baseball...then see if its all a matter of perspective.

Well, on the issue of matter being mostly electric fields, I will point out that an atom is about 10^-10 m across, an atomic nucleus is about 10^-15 m across, and electrons have no discernible size. Thus, each atom is almost entirely empty space. I fail to see how getting smacked with a baseball would change that.


As for hologram theory, yes, it is counter-intuitive, but "counter-intuitive" does not equate to "wrong." Additionally, even if Hologram Theory is wrong, it has still given physicists a useful tool: they found that treating simple 3-D problems as 2-D complicated the math tremendously, so they realized that they could simplify complicated 3-D problems by treating them as 4-D. That is not to say that they think that there is a hidden fourth dimension, but rather that they have found a useful tool for solving complicated problems.

This is why I don't give much credence to anything coming from 'theoretical scientists.'

Then I guess that you don't give much credence to the radio since it was the result of theoretical science.

[Krazeh]

This is why I don't give much credence to anything coming from 'theoretical scientists.'

Yet it appears you are quite happy to live a life improved by products created on the back of the work of "theoretical scientists". If it hadn't been for the work of "theoretical scientists" there wouldn't be computers or an internet or indeed online forums where you could post about your bizarre anti-science viewpoint. I suppose it some ways it is a shame those scientists you put so little faith in even bothered with their work.

On a slightly different point I have to agree with Quadhelix's point about there being no need to change convention when discussing current. As he said, in the vast majority of cases it makes no difference whether there's a negative charge flowing in one direction or a positive charge flowing in the other and so there's no need to teach most people any different than they are now. It's not as if the "dumbing down" of scientific ideas, concepts, theories etc, when teaching them to children or people new to a field is an uncommon occurence.

[morrismike]

Yes, but what about when something is grounded in reality, but someone refuses to believe it?



Well, on the issue of matter being mostly electric fields, I will point out that an atom is about 10^-10 m across, an atomic nucleus is about 10^-15 m across, and electrons have no discernible size. Thus, each atom is almost entirely empty space. I fail to see how getting smacked with a baseball would change that.


As for hologram theory, yes, it is counter-intuitive, but "counter-intuitive" does not equate to "wrong." Additionally, even if Hologram Theory is wrong, it has still given physicists a useful tool: they found that treating simple 3-D problems as 2-D complicated the math tremendously, so they realized that they could simplify complicated 3-D problems by treating them as 4-D. That is not to say that they think that there is a hidden fourth dimension, but rather that they have found a useful tool for solving complicated problems.


Then I guess that you don't give much credence to the radio since it was the result of theoretical science.

Tesla was cutting edge and didn't rely on others work. The radio was his invention as was multiphase electric motors. Is it theoretical science when the person thinking it makes it happen?

[Quadhelix]

Tesla was cutting edge and didn't rely on others work. The radio was his invention as was multiphase electric motors.

Maxwell showed the existence of electromagnetic waves in 1864. Tesla first demonstrated his radio in 1891.

Is it theoretical science when the person thinking it makes it happen?

Yes.

[morrismike]

Maxwell showed the existence of electromagnetic waves in 1864. Tesla first demonstrated his radio in 1891.



Yes.

Maxwells work was unusable by anyone but Maxwell until Heviside "fixed it" - Maxwell and Hertz get a lot of credit for Hevisides efforts. I doubt Tesla "needed" Maxwells work to achieve what he did, his mind was on a whole other plane.

I think you are confusing "theoretical science" with "ingenuity". Tesla was an engineer that skipped the whole science first reality second model.

[Quadhelix]

Maxwells work was unusable by anyone but Maxwell until Heviside "fixed it" - Maxwell and Hertz get a lot of credit for Hevisides efforts. I doubt Tesla "needed" Maxwells work to achieve what he did, his mind was on a whole other plane.

Which means that Tesla either duplicated the theoretical work himself or experimentally discovered an effect that had already been predicted.

I think you are confusing "theoretical science" with "ingenuity". Tesla was an engineer that skipped the whole science first reality second model.

Except that he would have to know that it was possible first: it was only a theoretical effect until someone duplicated it in reality.

[morrismike]

Which means that Tesla either duplicated the theoretical work himself or experimentally discovered an effect that had already been predicted.


Except that he would have to know that it was possible first: it was only a theoretical effect until someone duplicated it in reality.

Tesla made a lot of things work that others thought impossible and that is his claim to fame. Conceptually, designing and building the first working 3 phase motor in a 12 month period is all one needs to know about what willpower and inspiration can accomplish. I realize that Tesla is the exception rather than the rule but a radio is a bad example to use when trying to make people believe grand ideas lead to grand accomplishment. I generally agree the theory is required prior to achievements 99.9% of the time. I would also say about 99% of what is passed off as theory is generally useless and is only deemed credible because it is so far out, no one has a clue on how to refute it.

Perhaps he made the radio work because he wanted to make a radio work. He made turbines that operated by taking advantage of viscosity (original thinking). I don't think Tesla (or Heviside) were enamored with those who went before them. Tesla did a lot of things thru shear force of will. It's a shame there aren't more like him out there.

[Quadhelix]

Tesla made a lot of things work that others thought impossible and that is his claim to fame.

None of which negates my point: if you are going to make a radio, you have to know that radio-waves exist.

Perhaps he made the radio work because he wanted to make a radio work.

Yes, but unless his desire to make the radio work could physically alter reality, he would have to know of the existence of electromagnetic waves in order to build a device that uses electromagnetic waves to communicate.

Tesla did a lot of things thru shear force of will.

Again, unless he had the force of will to alter reality, he would have to know of electromagnetic waves in order to build a device that makes use of them, unless he stumbled across the effect by accident.

I would also say about 99% of what is passed off as theory is generally useless and is only deemed credible because it is so far out, no one has a clue on how to refute it.

What is being passed off as theory?

[Aer'ki]

None of which negates my point: if you are going to make a radio, you have to know that radio-waves exist.


Yes, but unless his desire to make the radio work could physically alter reality, he would have to know of the existence of electromagnetic waves in order to build a device that uses electromagnetic waves to communicate.


Again, unless he had the force of will to alter reality, he would have to know of electromagnetic waves in order to build a device that makes use of them, unless he stumbled across the effect by accident.


What is being passed off as theory?

You just don't stop, do you?

Theory of relativity, absolute speed limit of light, gravitational waves, blackholes having no volume, big bang theory, universal expansion, multiple dimensions, multiple realities, time travel, wormholes...

...you know, all that THEORETICAL stuff that in turn is based off another theory.

In US law, any testimony based off someone else's testimony is called heresay and not allowed in court. Same should apply to science...no theories should be allowed based off of other unverified theories...it lends to B.S.ing.

I would also say about 99% of what is passed off as theory is generally useless and is only deemed credible because it is so far out, no one has a clue on how to refute it.

Another good quote here...

[Quadhelix]

You just don't stop, do you?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Newton's absolute space and absolute time are any more inviolable than Aristotle's belief that objects would inherently come to a halt or Ptolemy's belief that Earth is the center of the universe.

After all, you did say here that the ideas of absolute space and absolute time are the reason that you don't believe Special Relativity, so you must have a good reason for believing in them, especially since they contradict so much of what we actually observe when we run experiments.

Theory of relativity, absolute speed limit of light, gravitational waves, blackholes having no volume, big bang theory, universal expansion, multiple dimensions, multiple realities, time travel, wormholes...

...you know, all that THEORETICAL stuff that in turn is based off another theory.

Except that Special Relativity has been confirmed: as I have pointed out, Muons have a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds -as long as they are at rest relative to the laboratory. However, if the muons are moving at high speeds relative to the lab, they take longer to decay - much longer, depending on the speeds involved.

Moreover, there is the issue that particles in particle collider like the Large Electron-Positron Collider have to become more massive, and Special Relativity predicts exactly how much more massive they become. If the particles did not become more massive, then the magnetic field holding them on the path would be many thousands of times too strong, and the particles would be slammed into the inner wall of the collider.



The idea that the universe is expanding actually comes from observation, not theory: all distant objects are seen to be red-shifted, meaning that they are moving away from us.


The idea of multiple realities is one of many possible interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics themselves are based off of direct observation, not some other theory.

[knowles2]

The nature of scientific knowledge is such that there will always be "mysteries", but scientific understanding simply requires ability to completely predict a phenomenon to within required precision. Situations where we have trouble with gravity are bizarre beyond simple description.

An we also have the bigger problem of why gravity is so weak compare to other forces in the universe.
It not just in bizarre situations that gravity is a mystery, it is generally a mystery all round, Eienstein an Newton an gang, I believe have barely scratch the surface.

As to the general questions of how artigicial gravity in scifi is generated each show as it own answers. If I knew how to do it in real life I would be a very rich man in indeed instead of a very poor man I am at the moment.

[Quadhelix]

An we also have the bigger problem of why gravity is so weak compare to other forces in the universe.

That isn't the real issue: the real issue is why the proton's mass is so small compared to its charge.

The reason that I say this is because there are what as known as "natural units," in which certain constants (such as the gravitational G, for example) are defined as being equal to 1. In these units, the gravitational force between masses M and m is M*m/r^2 while the electrostatic force between charges Q and q is Q*q/r^2. In other words, the relative strength of the two forces is dependent only on the masses and charges involved.

You just don't stop, do you?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Newton's absolute space and absolute time are any more inviolable than Aristotle's belief that objects would inherently come to a halt or Ptolemy's belief that Earth is the center of the universe.

After all, you did say here that the ideas of absolute space and absolute time are the reason that you don't believe Special Relativity, so you must have a good reason for believing in them, especially since they contradict so much of what we actually observe when we run experiments.

Theory of relativity, absolute speed limit of light, gravitational waves, blackholes having no volume, big bang theory, universal expansion, multiple dimensions, multiple realities, time travel, wormholes...

...you know, all that THEORETICAL stuff that in turn is based off another theory.

Except that Special Relativity has been confirmed: as I have pointed out, Muons have a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds -as long as they are at rest relative to the laboratory. However, if the muons are moving at high speeds relative to the lab, they take longer to decay - much longer, depending on the speeds involved.

Moreover, there is the issue that particles in particle collider like the Large Electron-Positron Collider have to become more massive, and Special Relativity predicts exactly how much more massive they become. If the particles did not become more massive, then the magnetic field holding them on the path would be many thousands of times too strong, and the particles would be slammed into the inner wall of the collider.



The idea that the universe is expanding actually comes from observation, not theory: all distant objects are seen to be red-shifted, meaning that they are moving away from us.


The idea of multiple realities is one of many possible interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics themselves are based off of direct observation, not some other theory.

[tinerin]

Theory of relativity, absolute speed limit of light, gravitational waves, blackholes having no volume, big bang theory, universal expansion, multiple dimensions, multiple realities, time travel, wormholes...

...you know, all that THEORETICAL stuff that in turn is based off another theory.

You do realize that ALL of science was a theory at some point. It's not like there were a set of laws or equations that were written down in the Biblee and all modern scientific theories are based on those. And pretty much every single piece of technology on the planet exists because of someone's theories. If you don't like the fact that science is just theoretical stuff based off other theories, then you should become a religious naturist type person. The way that you state your belief in science, it is either an all or nothing thing; it is impossible for you to believe in some of and not other parts of it because at some point in history, all of science was that theoretical stuff that you think is total BS.

Really the only differences between theoretical physics and theories in other sciences is that it is much more difficult to come up with evidence to support the theories and it takes alot longer for people to come up practical applications of the theories. It took over 300 years since Newton came up with his theories on gravity before the Wright brothers built the first airplane. It was over 80 years after microwaves were theorized to exist that the first microwave oven was invented. And it took over 150 years since quantum theory started until we were able to build microprocessors so small that quantum effects prevented us from making them any smaller and until we were able to start harnessing those same quantum effects to build quantum computers.

[morrismike]

An we also have the bigger problem of why gravity is so weak compare to other forces in the universe.
It not just in bizarre situations that gravity is a mystery, it is generally a mystery all round, Eienstein an Newton an gang, I believe have barely scratch the surface.

As to the general questions of how artigicial gravity in scifi is generated each show as it own answers. If I knew how to do it in real life I would be a very rich man in indeed instead of a very poor man I am at the moment.

Despite what some will say, we really don't have a clue how gravity works outside it being reasonable (and supported by observation) that mass attracts mass and this attraction is a squared function of distance (like a great many other things in nature.

[Aer'ki]

You do realize that ALL of science was a theory at some point. It's not like there were a set of laws or equations that were written down in the Biblee and all modern scientific theories are based on those. And pretty much every single piece of technology on the planet exists because of someone's theories. If you don't like the fact that science is just theoretical stuff based off other theories, then you should become a religious naturist type person. The way that you state your belief in science, it is either an all or nothing thing; it is impossible for you to believe in some of and not other parts of it because at some point in history, all of science was that theoretical stuff that you think is total BS.

Really the only differences between theoretical physics and theories in other sciences is that it is much more difficult to come up with evidence to support the theories and it takes alot longer for people to come up practical applications of the theories. It took over 300 years since Newton came up with his theories on gravity before the Wright brothers built the first airplane. It was over 80 years after microwaves were theorized to exist that the first microwave oven was invented. And it took over 150 years since quantum theory started until we were able to build microprocessors so small that quantum effects prevented us from making them any smaller and until we were able to start harnessing those same quantum effects to build quantum computers.

You misunderstand what I mean by 'theoretical science.'

I have no problem with one step theories...theories taking one leap from ESTABLISHED FACTS OR DATA.

But when 'scientists' take a one step theory and treat it as if it were fact, and then make another leap from that first leap, and another considers that theory fact, and makes another leap, before long all you have is scifi and not science.

A lot of scientists quote the theory of relativity as their PROOF for why their theories are correct. Theory isn't proof, it's an untested idea.

And yes, some good can come from multiple step theories, but when doing so you must recognize that the farther you get from the base facts, the more unlikely your results are going to be.

Einstein devotees don't do that. They treat his theories as if they were law and totally undisputable. They have gone so far to fake experiments to 'prove' it real, though those experiments are little more than a facade, but most people's eyes glass over with the technobable and they don't call them on it.

So what you have is a fictious little world that some people get paid to play around in. This HURTS the forward movement of science and technology, because these people activity discourage research and thought contrary to theirs(dogma) and indoctrinate the students they teach with these 'beliefs' rather than insist on them the basic principle of questioning everything.

And Quadhelix, I've given you many answers in the T.O.R. thread that you completely ignored. I'm not playing these games with you anymore...you're like a relative of mine who never shuts up, never gives in, and distorts everything in an attempt to come out on top. He has no loyalty to the truth, and it's becoming more apparent by the post that neither do you.

A scientist's first priority must ALWAYS be to the TRUTH, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.