1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

Our tax dollars now tell us that Star Trek's "transporters" are not possible.

Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Jack Briggs, Feb 10, 2005.

  1. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    You still don't get it. You're doing it on purpose or what? What I said is that I don't want a firm conclusion about something we don't have all the information from. That's just asking for another "ether" fiasco. The universe out of the world of science? How ridiculous.
     
  2. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    You missed it because you are not a scientist (and you confused technology with science, again). There is a theory of the universe (along with the workings of the human mind) that everything is based on a hologram-like structure (Bohm, Pribram et al) and "reality" is not reality at all. Depending on who you belive, the universe is a holographic projection from far beyond our space and time (or anything that resembles it) or it is really just an overlap of the projection within the holographic map of the "human" mind (of course, the sense of the traditional human mind is completely scrambled by this idea). If we take this theory to the extreme, there can be overlapping holograms where the thoughts of a human mind can overlap into the holograms of another mind (or universe) and our thoughts can thusly become reality in another universe. The "pulp" physics writer Michael Talbot has used this holographic model to make fantastic explanations for "telepathy, out-of-body and near death experiences, 'lucid' dreams, and even religious and mystical experiences such as feelings of cosmic unity and miraculous healings" (Amazon product description)- and yes, even the existence of a "real" Fred Flintstone. I have now exceeded any amount of scientific reason that you have offered for the "anything is possible" that you are so enamored of, and I've even given a chance for Fred Flintstone to be real.



    Still think scientists always take the easy way?
     
  3. RobertR

    RobertR Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Now here's an amusing turn: Jeff showing how the outrageous is plausible, and Steeve reacting by saying "no no, stop talking about the fictional, the imaginary!" [​IMG]
     
  4. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    Well to tell the truth, the reason I got really involved in this thread was Steeve's (I'm going to be blunt here for I have no communication skills) arrogant statement that he's a non-scientist so he's "allowed to think of the maybe", as if no scientists ever think of the "maybe". Jeepers Christmas, I'm a lowly engineer and I think of the maybe every day of my life. Thinking of the "maybe" is what draws me to books like the above. I'm just humble enough to know I'd get my ass handed to me in a battle of the minds with those guys, even if I'm right and they are wrong, so I don't often criticize minds greater than mine out of fear of public embarrassment. But I'm just an arrogant scientist, what do I know about decorum.
     
  5. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    Thanks for the lesson, Jeff, but it still doesn't change anything about my main point.

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. What am I gonna do with you? I love you man! Are you happy now? [​IMG]
     
  6. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    I hope I have demonstrated that making thinly veiled derisive comments about something you are unfamiliar with is probably not the way to endear yourself to a particular group who are familiar with the object of your comments. I know, your "arrogant" comments morphed from calling scientists know-it-alls to a critique of their people skills, but I did not forget the former and I could care less about the latter. Couple that with not acknowledging the "scientists must follow where the data leads" idea of the Scientific Method while simultaneaously using the "scientists should always take the easy way" part as a point of derision and you can see why I took the tact I did. Do I think anything may be possible? Yes, I sure do. Do I think a non-scientist has the right to critique a scientist (within the realm of science) simply because he "thinks" differently than them? Nope, not at all.**

    ** Critique of their people skills are A-Ok, but will probably be ignored. Just don't say #99 was a better all around hockey player than #4 or I'll have to come up there and we'll duke it out on St. Catherine St., and nobody who backs Orr will ever lose a fight to a Gretzky fan.[​IMG]
     
  7. Brad Porter

    Brad Porter Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 1999
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    One of the books that I enjoyed the most in the last 15 years or so was Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened. It discussed plasma cosmology (along with many other topics) in attempt to point out the flaws of the Big Bang Theory circa 1990 and support an infinite in time and space model of the universe. It was compelling, interesting, and it appealed to my emotional desires for an open, endless universe and it spoke directly to my distrust of the concept of "dark matter". Now I haven't been following the developments in cosmology very closely in the past fifteen years, but I have been made aware that many of Lerner's criticisms have been overcome by new data. Do I still dislike the "dark matter" concept? Hell yes I do. But I'll go where the data leads. I still think TBBNH is a good read, and I would be very interested in a revised edition if the author would like to address the progress in Big Bang theory made in the past 15 years. I still hold out hope that the Big Bang was just a localized phenomena and the infinite universe is still out there, but I wouldn't spend any time arguing in support of my special emotional needs, especially against qualified arguers.

    Brad
     
  8. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    See, I would have said "stupid people should not waste their time arguing with smart people". Boy, I do have a lot to learn.:b
     
  9. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    I think Roy was better in Montreal. He won 2 Cups in Montreal with average teams at best. He was pretty much the only reason why we won those Cups. He won 11 consecutive overtime playoff games. That, also, won't be beaten for a very long time. With Colorado, he was quite good too. But, he had some great teams there.
     
  10. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    That's fair, since you never saw Orr. 102 assists and 35 goals, leading the league in points as a defenseman, 10 years before the "run and gun" even began. Also was +140 for a season. Led his team in points and PIMS one year. Orr is the only player I saw that complete virgins to the game of hockey could watch and say "why is #4 so much better than everyone else?" If he only had the protection that #99 had, maybe he could have saved his knees. If you can get your hands on it, watch his NHL highlight tape. I think you will be amazed.
     
  11. Holadem

    Holadem Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong thread
     
  12. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    Okay, but don't do it again. [​IMG]
     
  13. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Continuing to sidetrack the thread, there is a reason the Great One chose to wear #99—and it was #9.

    I’m sure you never saw him at his best either Double E—but he was the real deal.
     
  14. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
  15. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610


    Sure was. Big (real big), strong farmboy with fists the size of country hams. Only guy to have a special hat trick named after him - The Gordie Howe Hat Trick, consisting of 1 goal, 1 assist and a 5 minute major for fighting. Tougher than any goon who ever played and as good or better than any scorer who ever laced em up. Longevity unlike anyone in any sport ever, except maybe Satchel Paige, but no one really knew how old Satchel was.
     
  16. BrianW

    BrianW Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 1999
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Brian
    If I may, there's something I'd like to clarify for the “non-scientists”. Science, despite what you may think we think, is not a source of knowledge. Take these definitions to heart:

    Observation, not science, is the source of ALL knowledge.

    Science is merely the application of a process that yields reliable conclusions about that which we observe.

    We all live our lives based mostly on theory, because the fact is that most of what you think you know is not true knowledge, but conclusions based on what little you actually do know through observation.

    If you see an apple fall from a tree, what do you know from that observation? Do you know that apples fall from apple trees? No, that's a conclusion. All you know from that observation is that that apple just fell from that tree over there. Nothing more. From that one observation, you could just as easily conclude that apples fall from all trees everywhere, or that trees may be chaotic and some don't even produce apples, or that fruits fall but vegetables don't. As you see more apples fall from more trees, you may begin to see a pattern emerge, and you could then formulate a conclusion (theory, model, whatever you prefer to call it) that doesn't contradict any of your observations.

    Of course we know that apples fall only from apple trees, right? Well, no, we can't possibly know that. In order to truly know that, we'd have to observe every apple that has ever fallen from a tree and tabulate what species of tree it fell from. We'd have to observe every tree that is not an apple tree for its entire life so we wouldn't miss any incidences of apples falling falling from them, if they ever did. Only then would we be able to say that we conclusively know from direct observation that apples fall only from apple trees.

    The trouble is that we all (scientists and non-scientists alike) often state conclusions as if they were knowledge, or even fact. Spring follows winter; all frogs are vertebrates; hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts like the dickens – these commonly known facts are actually conclusions or theories based on what little we've observed so far. They have been promoted to “fact status” only because of their extraordinary reliability, not because we've actually gone to the trouble of hitting every thumb with every hammer for conclusive proof.

    So when a scientist says that all galaxies are held together by gravity, or that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame, don't be so hard on him and declare that he can't possibly know these things with certainty since we haven't visited all galaxies or experienced all reference frames. He already knows that. Just like you, he may carelessly state these things as fact, even though his statements are actually conclusions that arise from what little he has observed so far. Trust me when I say that he's looking for every opportunity to discredit the reliability of these conclusions, even the ones he casually states as fact instead of theory. He knows he can't possibly know these things with any more certainty than he can know that apples fall only from apple trees, so please give the poor guy a break.

    We all, scientists and non-scientists alike, actually know only that which we observe, and we go through life guessing at all the rest. The only difference between scientists and non-scientists is that scientists employ a formal process in an effort to improve the guesswork.


    And, oh yeah: Yay hockey! (Please don't give me a wedgie.)
     
  17. Jeff Gatie

    Jeff Gatie Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    5,610
    Thanks Brian, once again you bail us out with your knowledge and your people skills.[​IMG]



    Hey, I know how you feel. I went all through Junior High and the first few months of High School wearing a big fat "geek" sign. Nobody knew I played hockey, because the Junior High did not have a team. When I finally got to High School and wore my jersey to class on the day of the first game, the goons left me alone and a girl actually asked me "You are on the hockey team? All this time I thought you were a skinny geek." I wish I could say I told her off, but here I was a skinny geek who finally got a position on a popular sports team to help me infiltrate the fairer sex. I suavely replied "Yes I am. If you are going to the game, maybe I'll see you there." She replied "Oh I'll be there watching my boyfriend, he's the starting center." I crawled back into geekdom and never returned. But I can say the goons got the message and left me alone from then on.:b
     
  18. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm drinking my typical weeknight Tecate tonight.
     
  19. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    How do you do it, Brian? Everytime you explain something, you leave me speechless. Believe me, that's not easy to do.
     
  20. Kenneth

    Kenneth Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Wow, Brian cuts to the chase once again. Certainly a number of us (myself included) fell into the trap of using the word impossible. Modern science and technology is built on probability and statistics so finding a true statistic impossibility is difficult. Generally you end up with various levels of improbability (those nice probabilities that Mr. Spock loved to quote on Star Trek ).

    Some of the ideas proposed in this thread could be very improbable, however, since it is difficult to collect 100% of the data for anything, we can not say statistically that any of the ideas (including mine [​IMG] ) are impossible. The fact that we have yet to observe a situation where the laws of the universe break down would make the chaos zone highly improbable, but as Steve likes to note, we might be located on the center of the Bell curve and not have discovered the interesting data way over on the tails of the curve. I find the possibility that WE are on the tail and missing the data in the center much more improbable. [​IMG]

    Cheers,

    Kenneth
     

Share This Page