Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would the US Space Force factor into a future Stargate series?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
    The circumstances and behavior of those who advocated regulation of CFCs was completely different than we see today. What we see today is extremely politically motivated.

    As I've said to SR, I'm not going to get into a discussion on politics unless the keepers of this anthill reverse their decisions and allow political and other controversial RL topics again. You can't separate this out into science and political because it IS political these days.
    As I said in a previous post, if people interpret scientific studies in a way that you disagree with you are free to argue against decisions that you think of as rash or too heavy handed. That you think the latter happens is not cause to say scientists should not be able to do science by collecting data ahead of time.

    In a conversation that I had with you several months ago, I explained to you that I am apolitical, so regardless of the rules I am indeed focusing solely on the science. The points I am arguing are based on what scientists are actually saying. They want to be able to collect data so that we have the capacity to make an informed decision when it matters. What the public or politicians do with that data is outside the bounds of my advocacy for data collection.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
      As I've said to SR, I'm not going to get into a discussion on politics unless the keepers of this anthill reverse their decisions and allow political and other controversial RL topics again. You can't separate this out into science and political because it IS political these days.
      sure you can. this is about science. no politicians were named
      this not necessarily politics. just like the glbtq thread

      (or if you prefer the reverse: just about everything's ultimately political)

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by Xaeden View Post
        There's zero scientific evidence that faster than light travel is even plausible, so I think it's a stretch to say that's inevitable. That humans have broken other barriers that were thought impossible does not mean all things we think of impossible have equal weight. FTL is made to seem as equally plausible as breaking the sound barrier because it's a staple of science fiction, but there are very valid, well thought out scientific reasons to be skeptical that it's possible in the real world.
        At our current level of development/understanding. Just as prior barriers were thought to be unbreakable at that point in our development.
        It is pure human arrogance to predict that we can't break FTL, just as it was arrogance to predict that we couldn't break the speed of sound, for example. There were many "well thought out scientific reasons" that was impossible, too. We just didn't know enough to do it yet.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
          sure you can. this is about science. no politicians were named
          this not necessarily politics. just like the glbtq thread

          (or if you prefer the reverse: just about everything's ultimately political)
          You're correct there, since politics is how we decide things.

          Specific to environmental topic though, these days, that's as much politics as it is science.

          Take your own comment earlier:
          Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
          you mentioned new clean energy production methods
          nowadays it's those at the head of the not-so-clean energy indu$try (did I say fo$$il fuel) who are hindering research into alternatives
          so by the time we do get there it could be too late
          That's not political?

          We cannot discuss this, or most other real world topics because politics is involved in almost everything.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
            You're correct there, since politics is how we decide things.

            Specific to environmental topic though, these days, that's as much politics as it is science.
            k so lets focus on the science part

            Take your own comment earlier:


            That's not political?
            ah but oil indu$try = private corporations = not Government = not political...technically :|

            you could argue that it's economics but economics does not necessarily involve politics (take miltonian capitalism = economic anarchy)

            Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
            We cannot discuss this, or most other real world topics because politics is involved in almost everything.
            correct

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
              At our current level of development/understanding. Just as prior barriers were thought to be unbreakable at that point in our development.
              It is pure human arrogance to predict that we can't break FTL, just as it was arrogance to predict that we couldn't break the speed of sound, for example. There were many "well thought out scientific reasons" that was impossible, too. We just didn't know enough to do it yet.
              May I ask if you've researched and have a solid understanding behind both claims of impossibility? People do this thing where they compare what we know now with what we thought we knew in the past in a very folksy kind of way.

              For example, frequently people say scientists could be wrong about, say, evolution because the greatest minds used to think that the Sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. They're not, however, comparable. The geocentric model proposed by the Greeks was just that, a model. To make sense of their observations they had planets going around in a circle while also revolving around the Earth. People accepted it for hundreds of years based on limited observations (and also because thinkers in the Middle Ages were big on arguments from authority), but it never reached the level of a scientific theory (which didn't exist as a concept until recently).

              Evolution, on the other hand, is very much a scientific theory, which means we have a body of facts that have stood up under intense scrutiny. It's a theory because there's room for refinement and there's a lot still left to learn, but many of the core concepts have been verified through repeated tests and will not ever be debunked. Organisms do evolve and environmental pressures do influence evolution, but we're for sure going to find that we've misidentified extinct species as belonging to one family or another. That sort of thing.

              In the case of the sound barrier, scientists didn't think it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound. Bullets had been breaking the sound barrier for hundreds of years prior to Yeager's flight. Rockets also existed that could break the sound barrier. What was in dispute was whether a human could withstand the pressures of traveling at the speed of sound and, if so, whether they could maintain control of their craft. Even that was never a scientific dispute. Pilots were skeptical because they had difficulty when approaching the speed of sound in the aircraft that existed at the time (they described it as feeling like hitting a brick wall, hence the barrier motif).

              Scientists working in the field of aerodynamics, though, widely believed it to be possible with a properly engineered craft. The "sound barrier" is a misnomer that leads some to believe scientists used to literally claim nothing could go faster than sound much like scientists dispute that anything can go faster than light today. That is not the case, so when scientists today say that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible and list well thought out scientific reasons, it's not the same as the sound barrier, which was not based on science or a solid understanding of aerodynamics whatsoever.

              If you've read up on exactly why science says it's impossible to go faster than light and you'd like to try to pick apart specific scientific claims, great, I'm happy to do that with you. If, however, you just want to take a body of information that you're not familiar with and dismiss it because you think it compares to something else that you're also not familiar with, that's not workable. In that case, we're not having a scientific conversation. Rather we're having a conversation about what you consider "common sense" logic. It's like trying to explain to your (hypothetical) grandmother that getting cold does not cause you to catch a cold. We can understand why that makes sense to her based on her observations, but in continuing to push that myth she's demonstrating a lack of interest in learning what the actual science says about the matter.
              Last edited by Xaeden; February 24, 2020, 08:09 AM.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Xaeden View Post

                If you've read up on exactly why science says it's impossible to go faster than light and you'd like to try to pick apart specific scientific claims, great, I'm happy to do that with you. If, however, you just want to take a body of information that you're not familiar with and dismiss it because you think it compares to something else that you're also not familiar with, that's not workable. In that case, we're not having a scientific conversation. Rather we're having a conversation about what you consider "common sense" logic. It's like trying to explain to your (hypothetical) grandmother that getting cold does not cause you to catch a cold. We can understand why that makes sense to her based on her observations, but in continuing to push that myth she's demonstrating a lack of interest in learning what the actual science says about the matter.
                It really doesn't matter if I've followed all the "research" because it's irrelevant. Because it is done with a 21st century level of understanding.
                What will research done with 31st or 41st century level of things think about it? Whatever we think about it today just means that we can't see a way to do it today. We cannot possibly know where our understanding will be proven wrong or incomplete in the future.

                We are an arrogant species, arrogant beyond belief. We don't *know* half of what we claim to *know*.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Sigh. Can somebody please move this thread to the Off-topic section ? Because I don't know what it's about, but sure it isn't about Stargate anymore. Or, and here's a novice suggestion, maybe we could actually talk about STARGATE in the Stargate forum ?
                  sigpic

                  SGU Continued....

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                    It really doesn't matter if I've followed all the "research" because it's irrelevant. Because it is done with a 21st century level of understanding.
                    What will research done with 31st or 41st century level of things think about it? Whatever we think about it today just means that we can't see a way to do it today. We cannot possibly know where our understanding will be proven wrong or incomplete in the future.

                    We are an arrogant species, arrogant beyond belief. We don't *know* half of what we claim to *know*.
                    yet a century later & the same consensus on the inviolability of c

                    +1000 about the arrogance part. the whole Space Farce thing (to get back to the original topic) is proof of this
                    brought to you by the posterboys for anthropocentrism
                    imagine if those same people got hold of a real life Stargate you think they'd visit other worlds in peace? especially if those worlds are full of oil valuable resources

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                      It really doesn't matter if I've followed all the "research" because it's irrelevant. Because it is done with a 21st century level of understanding.
                      What will research done with 31st or 41st century level of things think about it? Whatever we think about it today just means that we can't see a way to do it today. We cannot possibly know where our understanding will be proven wrong or incomplete in the future.
                      It's not irrelevant because for people who actually know the science we do have, there's an understanding of what the probability is that something will be proven wrong in the future. That everything is relative and all ideas are equally susceptible to being wrong as science advances is an uninformed viewpoint. Nobody will ever prove that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. The evidence for this is too overwhelming. Same for evolution. There's a lot more that we can learn about evolution and facets of what we believe about may be expanded or overturned, but the core principles are fixed. Regarding faster than light travel, I'm not trying to tell you that there is zero chance we ever find out that we can get from point A to point B faster than light can in a vacuum. What I am telling you is that it's unlikely and improbable and therefore it's unreasonable to say it's "inevitable."

                      To understand why, it's important to understand what we know now. For example, we know that the faster objects travel, the heavier they get, which makes it increasingly difficult to accelerate. The reason why light can travel as fast as it does is because it has no mass. This makes trying to achieve light speed in a spaceship a self-defeating endeavor because at a certain point, adding more energy does not make you go faster and instead just adds mass. It's therefore well established science that we cannot travel at or above light speed by increasing thrust.

                      Are there workarounds that we haven't discovered yet? Possibly. Wormholes might turn out to be real. They wouldn't let people travel faster than the speed of light, but they would allow people to get from one point in space to another before light can. It's also possible that we'd figure out a way to create space-time distortions, but one study calculated that if possible the amount of energy it would require would be comparable to the mass of Jupiter just to get started. This also isn't true FTL, but rather apparent faster than light travel.

                      We are an arrogant species, arrogant beyond belief. We don't *know* half of what we claim to *know*.
                      When you say something is inevitable because "we don't *know* half of what we claim to *know*" you're claiming to know something. Notice that I've been saying things like implausible, unlikely, possible, etc. When I've written about the impossibility of faster than light travel, it's in the context of literally traveling faster than light. The mass issue makes that insurmountable, which leaves the only options "apparent" or "effective" FTL travel, but those ideas are purely speculative. Since there's no evidence that apparent FTL is possible, the reasonable thing to do is to say we have to take a wait and see approach. Wildly claiming that anything is possible because humans are arrogant is an unreasonable position.

                      It also makes no sense. I get that you're trying to say it's arrogant to state that we can know something for sure, but it's very strange to use that to describe people who came to the conclusion that we can't do X in a specific way because there's evidence to that effect while simultaneously saying we will for sure be able to do X without any evidence whatsoever.
                      Last edited by Xaeden; February 26, 2020, 09:53 PM.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by Xaeden View Post

                        To understand why, it's important to understand what we know now. For example, we know that that the faster objects travel, the heavier they get, which makes it increasingly difficult to accelerate. The reason why light can travel as fast as it does is because it has no mass. This makes trying to achieve light speed in a spaceship a self-defeating endeavor because at a certain point, adding more energy does not make you go faster and instead just adds mass. It's therefore well established science that we cannot travel at or above light speed by increasing thrust.
                        in theory the tunnel effect could allow an object with rest mass to surpass c without hitting c thus avoiding the "infinite energy" problem that's why tachyons could exist...in theory

                        for apparent FTL if this involves going into some unknown dimension (did I say 'The Warp') then nope I'm good I'd rather stick to STL :|

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Xaeden View Post
                          It's not irrelevant because for people who actually know the science we do have, there's an understanding of what the probability is that something will be proven wrong in the future. That everything is relative and all ideas are equally susceptible to being wrong as science advances is an uninformed viewpoint. Nobody will ever prove that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. The evidence for this is too overwhelming. Same for evolution. There's a lot more that we can learn about evolution and facets of what we believe about may be expanded or overturned, but the core principles are fixed. Regarding faster than light travel, I'm not trying to tell you that there is zero chance we ever ever find out that we can get from point A to point B faster than light can in a vacuum. What I am telling you is that it's unlikely and improbable and therefore it's unreasonable to say it's "inevitable."

                          To understand why, it's important to understand what we know now. For example, we know that that the faster objects travel, the heavier they get, which makes it increasingly difficult to accelerate. The reason why light can travel as fast as it does is because it has no mass. This makes trying to achieve light speed in a spaceship a self-defeating endeavor because at a certain point, adding more energy does not make you go faster and instead just adds mass. It's therefore well established science that we cannot travel at or above light speed by increasing thrust.

                          Are there workarounds that we haven't discovered yet? Possibly. Wormholes might turn out to be real. They wouldn't let people travel faster than the speed of light, but they would allow people to get from one point in space to another before light can. It's also possible that we'd figure out a way to create space-time distortions, but one study calculated that if possible the amount of energy it would require would be comparable to the mass of Jupiter just to get started. This also isn't true FTL, but rather apparent faster than light travel.



                          When you say something is inevitable because "we don't *know* half of what we claim to *know*" you're claiming to know something. Notice that I've been saying things like implausible, unlikely, possible, etc. When I've written about the impossibility of faster than light travel, it's in the context of literally traveling faster than light. The mass issue makes that insurmountable, which leaves the only options "apparent" or "effective" FTL travel, but those ideas are purely speculative. Since there's no evidence that apparent FTL is possible, the reasonable thing to do is to say we have to take a wait and see approach. Wildly claiming that anything is possible because humans are arrogant is an unreasonable position.

                          It also makes no sense. I get that you're trying to say it's arrogant to state that we can know something for sure, but it's very strange to use that to describe people who came to the conclusion that we can't do X in a specific way because there's evidence to that effect while simultaneously saying we will for sure be able to do X without any evidence whatsoever.
                          He's more arrogant than the people he accuses of arrogance, Don't bother discussing this with him.
                          sigpic
                          ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                          A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                          The truth isn't the truth

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
                            in theory the tunnel effect could allow an object with rest mass to surpass c without hitting c thus avoiding the "infinite energy" problem that's why tachyons could exist...in theory
                            In the BattleTech universe they use MASSIVE solar sails on the FTL ships to achieve this affect. They are extended to a distance far enough away to establish a zero acceleration affect.
                            for apparent FTL if this involves going into some unknown dimension (did I say 'The Warp') then nope I'm good I'd rather stick to STL :|
                            You play to much 40K
                            We don't know if the alternate dimension would look anything like the warp, or even what happens in Event Horizon, that's something that would actually have to be scientifically tested. (I don't envy the testers however).
                            HP Lovecraft has ALOT to answer for in the notion of alternate dimensions.
                            sigpic
                            ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                            A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                            The truth isn't the truth

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                              In the BattleTech universe they use MASSIVE solar sails on the FTL ships to achieve this affect. They are extended to a distance far enough away to establish a zero acceleration affect.
                              in RL such sails would fail too cause it'd be just standard acceleration so it'd have to hit c before exceeding it

                              You play to much 40K
                              We don't know if the alternate dimension would look anything like the warp, or even what happens in Event Horizon, that's something that would actually have to be scientifically tested. (I don't envy the testers however).
                              HP Lovecraft has ALOT to answer for in the notion of alternate dimensions.
                              the Emperor protects!

                              (I'd rather deal with the chaos gods than the outer gods/great old ones)



                              I've only played some of the video games not the tabletops

                              Comment


                                #90
                                [QUOTE=Platschu;14681351]I believe the team dialed the 9th chevron wrongly in Universe. There is no way that the Ancients have built a stargate system which can blow up the dialing home planet. Something is missing in this mystery. Simply it is not logical as imagine how would have they visited their own ship? Would they destroy a planet? I doubt it.




                                the longer the distance from another stargate, the more power needed. they intended to board destiny early on in its journey which wouldn't need near as much power. by the time they dial destiny in SGU, it has been traveling from galaxy to galaxy for an incredibly long time. It was clearly one of the oldest pieces of ancient technology so it is incomprehensible distances away. it is super likely that when it was dialed in SGU, destiny was outside of the known universe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X