Blade Runner tops scientist poll (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

Because there is no reason for it to move that way, George.

- Walter.

 

[RobertR]

Because it violates known laws pf physics to say that tie fighters move aerodynamically in outer space. I've shown why. The monolith in 2001 is NOT shown violating such laws. That's the difference.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between an informed objection and an uninformed one.

 

[george kaplan]

I will quote myself

Unless you have a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics or some such, I'm not about to concede this debate to you. If you do have such a degree, then I want a second opinion .

 

[RobertR]

I do have a degree in mechanical engineering. But I'm curious what your basis is for thinking that one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter could aerodynamically affect a spaceship.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Here we go again, it's always coming down to this. You're just saying it, known laws of physics. Now, my question, is it possible that there are some laws in the universe that we haven't discovered yet? Is that a concept that is too far-fetched? Remember, our understanding of the universe is far from being complete.

 

[Max Leung]

Science has been around since the dawn of humankind. Humans have ALWAYS practiced science. Just look at the achaeological records...

Agriculture is a science - knowing what plants can be cultivated, when, and where - has been known for thousands of years at least. Before recorded history, we know that "primitive" societies had sophisticated methods of hunting. The gathering of roots, berries, nuts, etc. is also grounded in science - what is poisonous, what is edible, what geographical locations are best. What we now call astronomy was needed to predict the arrival of the seasons. Weapons for hunting and warfare require the service of scientific thinking.

Humans at their very core, must employ scientific thinking to survive. Instinct may be good enough for animals, but not for humans! Instinct is what we use when we have nothing else to fall back on - fear of the unknown is one example.

As for flying in space - what's the big deal? Just pretend that Star Wars was made in the 1930's...when people had no idea what space was like. Ether, anyone? Star Wars is a throwback to the classic cheesy SF movies of decades past. Heck, the Empire Strikes Back is a nod to the old Hudson Hawke flicks of the 1940's.

In 1930, Star Wars would definitely be SF.

 

[george kaplan]

Let's put it this way. I certainly think that an advanced alien civilization that could come up with the technology of the monolith in 2001, could figure out a way to build a spacecraft of a material so amazing that it would be aerodynamically affected by one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. Hell, the monolith is built out of some material that doesn't reflect light (though that's not really successfully portrayed in the film), so maybe that material would be what you need to build such a spacecraft out of.

 

[RobertR]

George, what you're saying makes no sense at all. Every engineer knows the equation F=ma, where F is Force, m is mass, and a is accleration. As I said, the mass density of interstellar hydrogen is less than air by a factor of 10 to the 21st power. To maintain an equivalent acceleration from such a minute mass, the mass of the spaceship would have to be about .000000000000000000001 as much as an aircraft, or about a billion billionth the mass of a cubic centimeter of air. At that mass, Luke's fighter would float out of the hanger just from air currents.

Far too "amazing" to make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Brad Porter]

Except in TESB Luke got a little fat, so you've got to account for his extra weight as well. And then there's R2-D2. We know he's got some heft to him because of his parabolic arc through the Dagobah swamp when the giant slug ate him. Nope, that fighter pretty much needs reaction control jets pointed in every direction to move as visualized on film.

Unless of course this is all just a by-product of "The Force". Rather than being a mystical power, "The Force" is just an extra term in all of the physics equations that somehow makes it all possible.

F(aerodynamic lift on Tie Fighter) = m(~10^4 hydrogen particles) x a(TF moving through space) + "THE FORCE"



Brad

 

[Angelo.M]

I agree, george.

I find the Monolith no more or less plausible than the Millenium Falcon, the Star Child no more or less fantastic than Yoda, HAL no more or less conceivable than C3PO. Furthermore, I'm fully willing to accept that SW is meant to occupy its own variation of reality, with completely different laws governing the behavior of its universe.

I can't believe I'm talking about SW like this. I don't even consider myself a fan!

In my mind, both flicks are sci-fi with elements of the fantastic. My very favorite flick--Bladerunner--is sci-fi, drama and noir all wrapped into one, in my estimation.

The whole genre thing seems negotiable to me anyway; most films fit comfortably within more than one.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Hmmm, okay, no comment!


Here's the MSN quote of the day:

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

That's from Carl Sagan. I think the quote is fitting with our discussion. So, I'm sharing it with you all.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. No question. Look at how the world has changed in the last 100 years and project forward another century or two. Inventions, technologies, and applied science that we cannot begin to anticipate will no doubt be developed and interwoven in the fabric of society, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out. No one is arguing that.

But, just as surely as these things will happen, they will happen in accordance with the basic laws of physics that govern the universe.

- The principle of F=M*A will not change no matter how much we learn.
- The laws that govern celestial mechanics are immutable. The billions of years that the Earth has orbited Sol is testament to their longevity.
- Kinetic Energy is not suddenly going to stop being equivalent to 1/2 Mass times Velocity to the 2nd power.

and so on, and so on.

Science and applied technology will enhance and amplify our knowledge of the universe; no argument. Einstein, and others, certainly gave us new ways of considering the universe; but the important point is that their discoveries and new paradigms did not invalidate the Newtonian model of the Universe. Those principals are still valid, and merely represent an incomplete view of the Universe. That is the distinction - just because we have an incomplete model of the laws that govern the universe doesn't give us carte blanche to make up anything we want - especially it if violates that which is plainly observable and logical within the framework of contemporary science.

- Walter.

 

[george kaplan]

Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's fine that you are so positive that there's no way at all that in a galaxy far far away, a long long time ago, that some dimensional crossing of parallel universes didn't somehow create a region of space in which F M*A. I still think it's amazingly arrogant to think that we know so much that it's impossible.

Let's put it this way. If you had to bet your eternal soul (or the lives of your loved ones or whatever you hold most dear) that it was absolutely impossible, that anywhere in the universe at any time could a spacecraft make acrobatic movements in space, would you do so? I certainly am not that confident even of things I'm certain of.

I think too many people know physics, but don't fully understand where equations like F=M*A come from, how they were actually derived, and the assumptions behind them. In mathematics 0!=1. On the surface that's the most ridiculous thing imaginable when x! is defined as x(x-1)(x-2)...(3)(2)(1). But it has to be defined in that ridiculous way, cause otherwise arithmetic falls apart.

To paraphrase the Princess Bride. "Impossible? I do not think that word means what you think it means."

 

[RobertR]

I would absolutely make that bet with respect to aerodynamic forces in the near-absolute vacuum of space.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I'm done. Believe as you will.

Assuming one were in "normal" space, I would confidently make that bet, since my existence and the operation of the universe around me demonstrates the immutablity and certainty of the basic mechanisms governing the operation of the universe.

- Walter.

 

[george kaplan]

Wow! I'm really stunned!

We don't even know if the universe is contracting or expanding. The foremost authority on black holes recently came out and put forth a whole new opinion about how they work, but you guys are positive about the impossibility of something billions of years ago, millions of light years away.

I'm sure there were millions of people in the past who would have made that exact same bet, with just as much confidence that the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, etc., etc. :frowning:

Frankly, that much certainty over something like that is really the antithesis of the scientific method. All of what we "know" including F=M*A is THEORY. Theory that lots of evidence supports, but still theory that could be disproven, or need to be expanded like Quantum mechanics did to Newtonian physics. Until you guys come up with a Unified Field Theory, then I don't even start to think we have a theory that could pretend to know what's impossible billions of light-years and billions of years ago.

What you guys are doing is turning today's science into a dogmatic religion, which you are accepting on faith.

 

[RobertR]

As with Walter, I'm done. I'm seeing a lot of "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, I believe it could be", whereas I simply accept what is. Mere reality never fazes a believer.

 

[george kaplan]

Please. You are making an ASSUMPTION that certain theories of physics, such as F=M*A are 100% accurate in all details under all possible conditions, for now and forever, amen. Yes, once you assume this, then aerodynamic spacecraft, "don't make sense", and it's ridiculous to "believe it could be".

As is only too often the case, there are two debates here, and they're getting mixed up. One debate is "IF our understanding of physics is Godlike in it's accuracy, could you have Star Wars?" The other debate is "IS our understanding of physics Godlike in it's accuracy?"

It is not the first issue where we have disagreement, it is the second one.

 

[Walter Kittel]

No George, I know that our understanding of physics and the universe is incomplete. I've stated as such in previous posts. But that doesn't mean that "anything" is possible.

Cheers,
Walter...

 

[Jack Briggs]

What Walter and Robert said.

Moral of this thread: Believing in something hard enough still don't make it so.