A Si Fi watchmaker.

[AFTT47]

Certainly scientists have to "imagine" but that doesn't give laypeople outside that level to twist metaphor and words to suit their own fantasies.


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.

Can anyone else picture Brian driving around in some kind of elaborate vehicle like Ecto 1 from Ghost Busters, blasting anyone who dares speak the woo?

How about demonstrating, Fred Phelps style, outside Comicon?

Brian, YOU obviously have a personal fantasy: Purging the general population of all unscientific thought. It's insane and it's sad that you can't see that. Think about it: A group of hard-core atheists think you're nuts. How do you think your crusade would be received by the masses?

You want to do something positive to make the world more logical? Focus on what is PRACTICAL. Oppose creationists trying to push their crap into schools. Oppose the religious right trying to proselytize in schools. There is a ton of work to be done there. Charging around trying to silence the dreaded sci-fi fans is a fool's errand.

[Brian37]

[quote='Brian37' pid='901766' dateline='1426766755']
Certainly scientists have to "imagine" but that doesn't give laypeople outside that level to twist metaphor and words to suit their own fantasies.

Can anyone else picture Brian driving around in some kind of elaborate vehicle like Ecto 1 from Ghost Busters, blasting anyone who dares speak the woo?

How about demonstrating, Fred Phelps style, outside Comicon?

Brian, YOU obviously have a personal fantasy: Purging the general population of all unscientific thought. It's insane and it's sad that you can't see that. Think about it: A group of hard-core atheists think you're nuts. How do you think your crusade would be received by the masses?

You want to do something positive to make the world more logical? Focus on what is PRACTICAL. Oppose creationists trying to push their crap into schools. Oppose the religious right trying to proselytize in schools. There is a ton of work to be done there. Charging around trying to silence the dreaded sci-fi fans is a fool's errand.

I am not purging a fucking thing, damn you sound like the Church when Galileo told the truth that the earth revolved around the sun. Is your wishful thinking more important than reality.

Now again for the umpteenth time, there is nothing wrong with "mental masturbation" but there is a way science goes about it and the stupid way laypersons go about it.

If you want to dwell in the unimaginative sphere of fantasy you can, but you still have nothing until scientific method and peer review act on it. Make any claim you want, that is a government issue and a human rights issue, go for it. But don't expect anyone, especially not scientists to buy anything you say just because you uttered it.

It is when we buck bad claims we are less clouded in our view of the future. It is why we no longer believe the earth is flat.

Science, especially QM is freaky enough by itself without adding laypersons god or si fi baggage to it.

You got an idea? Great, science loves new ideas. But you don't get to skip method just because you have an idea.

And who said fantasy was bad? All I said is you don't utter an idea and get a pass. Fantasy is good for relaxing and entertainment, but method is the only way to confirm a claim.

---

If you like comic book conventions, that really is great. I think some of the heros and costumes are awesome to look at and the stories are great to read. Never was into much as far as si fi outside Xena Warior Princess and Buck Rogers, Some of Next generation and Voyager but my attitude to any claim is "Ill believe when I see it".

If you want some real inspiration along with your relaxation but separate from it, knowing the implication of spacetime is awesome. I do however think there still are lots of hurdles to what QM physicists want to do. Some of it may pan out, but Newton while he got physics right also postulated alchemy.

I really am not trying to ruin your fun. I am just saying don't jump the gun and don't gap fill. Your spare time relaxation outside a lab when you have nothing to test what is in your head can only be there until you apply method to it.

---

Ok let me give you another example.

I write a tv cartoon, and in it the head character is a snarfwiget, it can take a frog and turn it into ice cream. The show teaches kids to share as a theme and ice cream is real and frogs are real and the empathy of the script conveys our nature. But does any of those real things or kind motifs make a sarfwidget real?

Now if there was a way I could prove the existence of a sharfwidget, would it be your job to blindly agree with me of even that being a posibility, or would I at a minimum, at least have to do my own homework to prove it in theory on paper or a computer simulation?

"Ideas must be distinct before reason can act on them" and that was Thomas Jefferson. Yea he was a deist, but he wouldn't have feared people questioning him.

[AFTT47]

I am not purging a fucking thing, damn you sound like the Church when Galileo told the truth that the earth revolved around the sun. Is your wishful thinking more important than reality.

Now again for the umpteenth time, there is nothing wrong with "mental masturbation" but there is a way science goes about it and the stupid way laypersons go about it.

If you want to dwell in the unimaginative sphere of fantasy you can, but you still have nothing until scientific method and peer review act on it. Make any claim you want, that is a government issue and a human rights issue, go for it. But don't expect anyone, especially not scientists to buy anything you say just because you uttered it.

What wishful thinking? If I decide to indulge in fantasy, it is for escapism - not to present said fantasy as a scientific candidate for reality. Who the hell does that?

If I did try to pass fantasy off as reality - especially in a scientific arena - and somebody buys it, shame on them! If enough people did it and managed to snow enough other people, it would be a problem but I sure don't see that that has happened. How many people do you know think time travel is possible because Seven of Nine caused a temporal displacement with a resonant, inverse tetryon burst from the main deflector dish?

[Aoi Magi]

Brian in this instance you are acting like the church that silenced Galileo because they believed something was correct and wouldn't hear of anything else. From a scientific standpoint you are right that this particular idea is wrong, but that doesn't mean nobody can speculate on it just for fun. There are many ideas which scientists in the past would have called utterly impossible based on the data they had at that point in time. If everybody relied only on that data and shut off all other ideas, our progress would have halted right there. Sci-fi isn't being taught as fact in schools rather it's called sci-fi because people recognize it as fictional, and it is just for fun.

[Brian37]

I am not purging a fucking thing, damn you sound like the Church when Galileo told the truth that the earth revolved around the sun. Is your wishful thinking more important than reality.

Now again for the umpteenth time, there is nothing wrong with "mental masturbation" but there is a way science goes about it and the stupid way laypersons go about it.

If you want to dwell in the unimaginative sphere of fantasy you can, but you still have nothing until scientific method and peer review act on it. Make any claim you want, that is a government issue and a human rights issue, go for it. But don't expect anyone, especially not scientists to buy anything you say just because you uttered it.

What wishful thinking? If I decide to indulge in fantasy, it is for escapism - not to present said fantasy as a scientific candidate for reality. Who the hell does that?

If I did try to pass fantasy off as reality - especially in a scientific arena - and somebody buys it, shame on them! If enough people did it and managed to snow enough other people, it would be a problem but I sure don't see that that has happened. How many people do you know think time travel is possible because Seven of Nine caused a temporal displacement with a resonant, inverse tetryon burst from the main deflector dish?

If you are doing it for entertainment, have fun. But if you are taking that entertainment and thinking that setting will magically make something go from your thoughts to reality, it does not work like that. I like the NFL, but watching the sport never landed anyone on the moon.

EVERYONE has their likes, me included. You keep missing my point. You don't simply make a claim. And those scientists like I said, are stuck on paper and computers right now, but they are not simply talking about it.

There still is a way to brainstorm, and a way not to.

Oh and as far as time travel, I really don't think you understand what "theoretical"(sounds good(plausible on paper), (and practical reality, in size and resources)

And the MACRO physics (us) that we have to make work with the QM world. If they ever get it to work, THEY are still making the attempt in A LAB. But the problems they are having with that is squaring the QM world with our large world. It is one thing to move a proton. It is quite another to move a entire body or copy trillions of particles in the exact order and re assemble them in the exact order at the exact same spin and momentum and speed. Trillions of particles all at the same time. Some physicists, think at best we can only use that for communication at the proton level.

To move an entire body, it would be like trying to shoot billions if not hundreds of billions of billiard balls all at the same time. So even if it is possible mathematically, there still may be a physical limitation in reality. But again, if we really do get to that point, if ever, you don't simply talk about it.

I think you fall for the "just do it" attitude in the same way some fall for the seeming abundance of life. Yes there is lots of life, but what we see now is only 1% of what has been in evolution. You can look at science inventions the same way. For every success, which even then, takes lots of failure, most attempts go nowhere. Same with any product you buy at the store. For everyone you see on the shelf, there are more that compete that do not make it to the shelf.

It is the same with other issues like people wanting to get rich, or act or play music or sports. Yes you can try, but there is a difference between what you want, and likelihood. Science is no different. When you only focus on the success, that is the same selection bias and sample rate failure. It is not saying do nothing. It is saying that if you want to try, sure, try, but success at that level takes far more failure. Any successful person can tell you if you don't fail that means you have not tried. And for every successful person, there are tons more that will not get to that level.

And again, while science has produced tons of useful things, that is an illusion, and to know that, all you have to do is look at all the records at the patent office of things that never became useful. I am not saying that to anyone to burst their bubble, but to be realistic.

[AFTT47]

I like the NFL, but watching the sport never landed anyone on the moon.

Well thanks for pointing that out. I'm more of a baseball guy myself. I guess I should stop thinking that watching the Red Sox will launch me to the International Space Station though.

Oh and as far as time travel, I really don't think you understand what "theoretical"(sounds good(plausible on paper), (and practical reality, in size and resources)

I don't recall posting anything of what I think of time travel on this board since I joined so I have no idea how you would form an opinion of what my understanding of it is.

And the MACRO physics (us) that we have to make work with the QM world. If they ever get it to work, THEY are still making the attempt in A LAB. But the problems they are having with that is squaring the QM world with our large world. It is one thing to move a proton. It is quite another to move a entire body or copy trillions of particles in the exact order and re assemble them in the exact order at the exact same spin and momentum and speed. Trillions of particles all at the same time. Some physicists, think at best we can only use that for communication at the proton level.

To move an entire body, it would be like trying to shoot billions if not hundreds of billions of billiard balls all at the same time. So even if it is possible mathematically, there still may be a physical limitation in reality. But again, if we really do get to that point, if ever, you don't simply talk about it.

I don't recall talking about it myself so I have no idea why you went there but thanks for letting me know beforehand that I'm not allowed to.

You keep missing my point.

No argument there, lol. I thought I may have been missing it before but now I'm certain of it.

[Brian37]

I like the NFL, but watching the sport never landed anyone on the moon.

Well thanks for pointing that out. I'm more of a baseball guy myself. I guess I should stop thinking that watching the Red Sox will launch me to the International Space Station though.

Oh and as far as time travel, I really don't think you understand what "theoretical"(sounds good(plausible on paper), (and practical reality, in size and resources)

I don't recall posting anything of what I think of time travel on this board since I joined so I have no idea how you would form an opinion of what my understanding of it is.

And the MACRO physics (us) that we have to make work with the QM world. If they ever get it to work, THEY are still making the attempt in A LAB. But the problems they are having with that is squaring the QM world with our large world. It is one thing to move a proton. It is quite another to move a entire body or copy trillions of particles in the exact order and re assemble them in the exact order at the exact same spin and momentum and speed. Trillions of particles all at the same time. Some physicists, think at best we can only use that for communication at the proton level.

To move an entire body, it would be like trying to shoot billions if not hundreds of billions of billiard balls all at the same time. So even if it is possible mathematically, there still may be a physical limitation in reality. But again, if we really do get to that point, if ever, you don't simply talk about it.

I don't recall talking about it myself so I have no idea why you went there but thanks for letting me know beforehand that I'm not allowed to.

You keep missing my point.

No argument there, lol. I thought I may have been missing it before but now I'm certain of it.

I must be misunderstanding you too.

It isn't that hard from my POV

Idea, then collect data, set up control group, test and falsify, peer review.

Not

Idea, then it will happen because I merely claimed it.

Si fi is not science anymore than religion explains anything.

Like I said, the experts at the top of science already have enough of a hard time even with everything they get right without laypeople gap filling and assuming what they are really saying. And even they have their competing ideas.

---

The reason I say Si fi isn't even science is because you watch tons of it you will understand most of it goes nowhere and will never be a reality. Ideas have to be tested, not merely claimed.

[Lemonvariable72]

Brian, must I explain a major difference between religious works and say star trek? Nobody your going to hell if you don't worship Benjamin Sisco, nobody expects you to think there are actually cyborgic people trying to kill you.
The best science fiction uses the backdrop of a science fiction setting to examine something about humanity. Like say forever war by Joe Haldeman. So in other words brian, get the log out of your ass.

[Brian37]

Brian, must I explain a major difference between religious works and say star trek? Nobody your going to hell if you don't worship Benjamin Sisco, nobody expects you to think there are actually cyborgic people trying to kill you.
The best science fiction uses the backdrop of a science fiction setting to examine something about humanity. Like say forever war by Joe Haldeman. So in other words brian, get the log out of your ass.

Do you know why you don't let si fi go either? Homapathy, perpetual motion machines, Scientology, De Pak Chumphead. Lots of cons are because someone wants it to be true and mixes real words of science into their claptrap.

Entertainment is still entertainment. Si fi is really no different than the Cat In the Hat and Charlotte's Web, Animal Farm and 1984. All of those have questions about morality in them. Si fi isn't the only fiction that makes suggestions about axioms or morality.

I have NO problem finding morals in any work of fiction, si fi or otherwise. But none of them constitute science. Just treat them for what they are, entertainment.

[AFTT47]

Si fi is not science anymore than religion explains anything.

NO KIDDING! Who's claiming that it is? Lots of people (including probably the majority of scientists and engineers) are inspired by it but I've never met a single person who thinks a thing is real because of some science fiction they read or watched. I'm sure some exist but they are harmless. Do you see dilithium crystals working their way into text books or politicians insisting that we need to establish relations with the Romulans? It's a non-issue.

Like I said, the experts at the top of science already have enough of a hard time even with everything they get right without laypeople gap filling and assuming what they are really saying.

What are you saying here? The scientific process is hindered because of something non-scientists think? How?

The reason I say Si fi isn't even science is because you watch tons of it you will understand most of it goes nowhere and will never be a reality. Ideas have to be tested, not merely claimed.

Who is claiming anything? Sure, people may explore the possibilities of how this or that fictional technology might actually be achieved. So what? What do you care if somebody does claim that such and such a device can actually be built and they don't justify it? Where is the harm? Is it going to have any impact on actual design and engineering?

It sounds like you just can't make peace with the fact that not everyone thinks the same way you do or has the same priorities. If that's the case, you are in for a lifetime of frustration and misery.