A Si Fi watchmaker.

[AFTT47]

Brian, you just come across as wanting (demanding, actually) that everyone in the world conform to your way of thinking in every way. You're just too damn uptight. Besides being annoying, it's not even productive. Your attitude is the kind that squashes speculation - which is where ideas come from. Sure, scientists challenge each other and it's appropriate in that arena. Ideas presented for scientific consideration must be rigorously challenged. That's how the process works. Speculation thrown out casually at sci-fi conventions is hardly in the same realm. When Star Trek fans start lobbying congress to fund transporter technology research, citing photon teleportation, criticize away. Otherwise, leave them to hell alone.

[Brian37]

Brian, you just come across as wanting (demanding, actually) that everyone in the world conform to your way of thinking in every way. You're just too damn uptight. Besides being annoying, it's not even productive. Your attitude is the kind that squashes speculation - which is where ideas come from. Sure, scientists challenge each other and it's appropriate in that arena. Ideas presented for scientific consideration must be rigorously challenged. That's how the process works. Speculation thrown out casually at sci-fi conventions is hardly in the same realm. When Star Trek fans start lobbying congress to fund transporter technology research, citing photon teleportation, criticize away. Otherwise, leave them to hell alone.

NO I am not, now here is a video of a SCIENTIST criticizing the word choices of a QM physicist, not because he was wrong, but because the general public JUMPED THE GUN. No one has to take my word for it. You just said scientists should challenge each other. OK watch the video.

---

EVEN in QM they have to use METAPHOR because the general public has a hard time understanding the actual math and physics involved at that tiny level.

There are still probability issues and rules even at that level.

---

Same with the word "teleport" now don't take my word for it READ this SCIENTIST saying the same thing as me DON'T GAP FILL. Scroll down until you see the Star Trek photo and READ the caption.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/01...han-light/

[One Above All]

Sci-fi need not be more "sci" than "fi" and vice-versa. Don't like it, don't read/watch it. It's what I do with religious-themed books, atheism-themed books, romance novels, soap-operas, reality shows, cop shows, and so on.
If your brain can't - even for a brief moment - accept a hypothetical scenario just for the sake of amusement, I pity you. I hope your dream isn't working in any area of theoretical science, because you'll never achieve it like that.

[Brian37]

Sci-fi need not be more "sci" than "fi" and vice-versa. Don't like it, don't read/watch it. It's what I do with religious-themed books, atheism-themed books, romance novels, soap-operas, reality shows, cop shows, and so on.
If your brain can't - even for a brief moment - accept a hypothetical scenario just for the sake of amusement, I pity you. I hope your dream isn't working in any area of theoretical science, because you'll never achieve it like that.

If its and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party. Certainly scientists have to "imagine" but that doesn't give laypeople outside that level to twist metaphor and words to suit their own fantasies. In science there is a way to "imagine" and then there is fantasy.

I would highly recommend if you have not to watch the entire new series COSMOS with Neil. Saying "I don't know" and even "imagining" the possibilities still even at that level are subject to rules and issues of likelihood.

---

Sci-fi need not be more "sci" than "fi" and vice-versa. Don't like it, don't read/watch it. It's what I do with religious-themed books, atheism-themed books, romance novels, soap-operas, reality shows, cop shows, and so on.
If your brain can't - even for a brief moment - accept a hypothetical scenario just for the sake of amusement, I pity you. I hope your dream isn't working in any area of theoretical science, because you'll never achieve it like that.

OK, can you melt metal and mold a car engine and build one from scratch all by yourself? No? But I bet you can rule out that your car runs on pixy dust and you have a general knowledge of what makes a combustion engine run.

Now if you think I am being closed minded, Einstein poo pooed the idea of of QM, but I bet if he were alive today he'd be happy he was proven wrong even if he might feel his ego was bruised a little.

"Don't jump the gun" is not being closed minded. I suck at details of science, but I do listen to the experts when they say "don't gap fill" and don't twist metaphor to suit your own desires.

Scientists at that level have a hard enough time without the rest of us polluting what they say with our own personal fantasies. The have enough competing claims without the general public poisoning it with god claims or si fi woo.

[One Above All]

In science there is a way to "imagine" and then there is fantasy.

In sci-fi, the two are joined together. Amazing, isn't it?

Saying "I don't know" and even "imagining" the possibilities still even at that level are subject to rules and issues of likelihood.

Not when you're talking about fiction.
In sci-fi, you combine the possible (sci - humans being born with genetic mutations that give them abilities others do not have, like seeing and hearing outside the normal spectrum) with the impossible (fi - those abilities include flight, weather manipulation, and eyes that serve as portals to another universe) to create something that people will like (X-Men). You take what could be (sci - "actual" space travel) with what can't be (fi - using black holes) and create a masterpiece (Event Horizon). It's called "suspension of disbelief". Learn it, so you can learn how to enjoy sci-fi. Or don't, and keep your mouth shut about what you don't understand instead of making shit up - id est, fantasizing. We sci-fi fans have a hard enough time explaining that our discussions are hypothetical in nature without you polluting them with your lack of imagination.

EDIT: I take it you're not a LotR or HP fan. I take it you don't read comic books or watch TV (besides the news and sports, anyway). I take it you don't play games (aside from chess, checkers, various types of solitaires, poker, and everything that doesn't require you to accept the impossible). If I am correct in this, you are a sad, sad person. If I'm incorrect, you're just a sad hypocrite (which is one less "sad" than the alternative, but still one more "sad" than I'd like).

[Brian37]

In science there is a way to "imagine" and then there is fantasy.

In sci-fi, the two are joined together. Amazing, isn't it?

Saying "I don't know" and even "imagining" the possibilities still even at that level are subject to rules and issues of likelihood.

Not when you're talking about fiction.
In sci-fi, you combine the possible (sci - humans being born with genetic mutations that give them abilities others do not have, like seeing and hearing outside the normal spectrum) with the impossible (fi - those abilities include flight, weather manipulation, and eyes that serve as portals to another universe) to create something that people will like (X-Men). You take what could be (sci - "actual" space travel) with what can't be (fi - using black holes) and create a masterpiece (Event Horizon). It's called "suspension of disbelief". Learn it, so you can learn how to enjoy sci-fi. Or don't, and keep your mouth shut about what you don't understand instead of making shit up - id est, fantasizing. We sci-fi fans have a hard enough time explaining that our discussions are hypothetical in nature without you polluting them with your lack of imagination.

No, si fi is just that, that is why it is called FICTION. Science in reality allows for imagining the possibilities but it does not gap fill with mere fiction.

If you are stupidly going to think that everything works by default just because you uttered it, then find a god or a church and go back. Science works off METHOD not making shit up.

There is a HUGE difference between when science "imagines" and how laypersons "imagine" and the difference is testing and falsification and peer review. Si fi does not count as science that is why it is called FICTION.

---

What is next? You going to use the old logic "we once thought we couldn't fly with machines". I have the same attitude with any claim. Fine, make the claim, but don't expect me to do your homework for you. QM does not postulate the absurd, it is freaky enough on its own without a god of the gaps or si fi crap. Even at that level it is subject to rules and likelihoods.

Now go back and watch that video of a SCIENTIST and read the link of a SCIENTIST. You DONT have to take my word for it.

[One Above All]

No, si fi is just that, that is why it is called FICTION. Science in reality allows for imagining the possibilities but it does not gap fill with mere fiction.

It doesn't? Einstein filled his inability to accept observations of the universe's expansion with a fictional constant. The constant is still being tossed around to this day.

If you are stupidly going to think that everything works by default just because you uttered it, then find a god or a church and go back. Science works off METHOD not making shit up.

Sad hypocrite then. I knew it.
Here you are, arguing about how things are, completely convinced you're right because it's you who made the argument, when you're demonstrably wrong about a lot of things, and other things (like the one below) are just strawmen.

There is a HUGE difference between when science "imagines" and how laypersons "imagine" and the difference is testing and falsification and peer review. Si fi does not count as science that is why it is called FICTION.

Sci-fi is a mixture of science and fiction. It takes a concept or idea or fact from science and pushes it to the brink.
Are X-Men possible? No. Are mutations possible? Yes.
Is space travel possible? Yes. Is controlling a black hole in order to do it possible? Probably not.
Are aliens possible? Yes. Do they look like little grey men? Probably not.

[Brian37]

No, si fi is just that, that is why it is called FICTION. Science in reality allows for imagining the possibilities but it does not gap fill with mere fiction.

It doesn't? Einstein filled his inability to accept observations of the universe's expansion with a fictional constant. The constant is still being tossed around to this day.

If you are stupidly going to think that everything works by default just because you uttered it, then find a god or a church and go back. Science works off METHOD not making shit up.

Sad hypocrite then. I knew it.
Here you are, arguing about how things are, completely convinced you're right because it's you who made the argument, when you're demonstrably wrong about a lot of things, and other things (like the one below) are just strawmen.

There is a HUGE difference between when science "imagines" and how laypersons "imagine" and the difference is testing and falsification and peer review. Si fi does not count as science that is why it is called FICTION.

Sci-fi is a mixture of science and fiction. It takes a concept or idea or fact from science and pushes it to the brink.
Are X-Men possible? No. Are mutations possible? Yes.
Is space travel possible? Yes. Is controlling a black hole in order to do it possible? Probably not.
Are aliens possible? Yes. Do they look like little grey men? Probably not.

Ok then, "all this" is a result of a unicorn with a human head, metal horn, and rubber legs, who has a cape with "U" on it's chest, which works for a quantum billions of Bill Gates and we are mere waves on this motherboard run by those Gates and unicorns. WHAT you say? Gibberish? But I thought you said fiction is part of science?

QM does postulate an absurd amount of "Possibilities" but again, the ability to utter something does not make it true by default. Books of myth are fiction too, we call them holy books because people treat them as fact. I would say talking donkeys are science fiction because for them to literally be true, they would defy science.

Holy books are science fiction too. Otherwise their super heros would be true by proxy of utterance. I see no difference between "all powerful" super hero, and a guy with a cape who is limited in power but has powers that defy science. NO difference, fiction is fiction, religious or si fi.

If you are treating Men In Black or Star Trek as a science classroom beyond metaphor, you are not "imagining" any better than someone with a god claim.

Don't gap fill does not mean "never imagine", there are still REAL ways to do that and crappy ways to "imagine". Go back and watch that video and read that link.

[One Above All]

Let me know when you're ready to address what's being said to you. Until then, I shall imagine a unicorn with two heads and three horns being the (metaphorical) missing link between gravity and quantum mechanics, and there's nothing you can do about it. Later!

[Brian37]

Let me know when you're ready to address what's being said to you. Until then, I shall imagine a unicorn with two heads and three horns being the (metaphorical) missing link between gravity and quantum mechanics, and there's nothing you can do about it. Later!

Nope, you said fiction was required to explain science, so if anything goes in QM my made up bulllshit is just as good a gap answer as anything you can make up.

Still amounts to "if ifs and butts were candy and nuts".

Find me Klingons and Vulcans in the numbers of quadrillion billions that are all merely waves, or running a giant computer lab outside the background radiation. How about tiny or giant Tribbles? I got it, there are a bunch if tiny Green gobblins from spiderman running this "program".

QM does not justify "if ifs and butts were candy and nuts" not even at that level. Einstein when he used the word "God" as in "God does not play dice" was METAPHOR, and that METAPHOR also applies to QM. It is very accurate, and also freaky, no need to ad superfluous baggage to either classical physics or QM.

Open minded is not "gap fill". Open minded is the ability to scrap bad claims and "wait and see" while we work on finding a natural explanation. Uttering a claim merely means you can make sound waves.