BrianW
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 1999
- Messages
- 2,563
- Real Name
- Brian
Not knowing everything about the universe is not the same as not knowing anything about the universe. If there were no universal truths, no law of nature on which we could depend, there would be virtually no technology. But because there are universal truths, because there are laws of nature on which we can always depend, we have cell phones, laser pointers, steam engines, and fizzy drinks. And these things never, ever fail because the laws on nature on which they depend let us down. The four forces of nature and all their consequences (electromagnetic spectrum, nuclear interactions with stars, elements in nature, etc.) are observed to be true in every galaxy we've ever looked at. This is as universal as truth gets, and unless you can identify a phenomenon that you're attempting to explain by introducing the hypothesis that laws of nature are not universal, your hypothesis has absolutely no merit whatsoever.
Personally, I think we know a great deal about the universe. There are very few observed phenomena for which we don't have a standing theory, and we are at a time when we are discovering what the universe will and will not allow even without the ability to actually do everything allowable. In other words, our knowledge presently exceeds our ability to take advantage of all the things we know. I believe we are at the cusp of a transition period where we will begin to put our knowledge of the universe to greater use as we harness more energy. Singularity-powered X-ray lasers, wormholes, even time portals are outside our reach not for lack of knowledge, but because of our current inability to harness the energy required to build such structures. We understand how these things would work if we could only build them.
Transporter technology, however, is something that is so far “out there”, that we don't know how it would work, even if we could harness the energy to build it. I think my method would work best (as opposed to Kenneth's lousy methods ), but even my method presupposes that we can build a device like a “quantum probability wave generator” – a device that we have no idea whether the universe will allow. We know we need to vary quantum probabilities, but we don't know how it can be done, or even if the universe will allow us to do so. This necessarily puts my suggested transporter technology in the realm of magic since it is an idea unsupported by observations in nature. As such, I have no problem declaring that my method of building a transporter is impossible. It's an elegant idea, though. But so is antigravity, and I don't see any data or observations in nature to support that, either (at least at non-intergalactic distances).
Personally, I think we know a great deal about the universe. There are very few observed phenomena for which we don't have a standing theory, and we are at a time when we are discovering what the universe will and will not allow even without the ability to actually do everything allowable. In other words, our knowledge presently exceeds our ability to take advantage of all the things we know. I believe we are at the cusp of a transition period where we will begin to put our knowledge of the universe to greater use as we harness more energy. Singularity-powered X-ray lasers, wormholes, even time portals are outside our reach not for lack of knowledge, but because of our current inability to harness the energy required to build such structures. We understand how these things would work if we could only build them.
Transporter technology, however, is something that is so far “out there”, that we don't know how it would work, even if we could harness the energy to build it. I think my method would work best (as opposed to Kenneth's lousy methods ), but even my method presupposes that we can build a device like a “quantum probability wave generator” – a device that we have no idea whether the universe will allow. We know we need to vary quantum probabilities, but we don't know how it can be done, or even if the universe will allow us to do so. This necessarily puts my suggested transporter technology in the realm of magic since it is an idea unsupported by observations in nature. As such, I have no problem declaring that my method of building a transporter is impossible. It's an elegant idea, though. But so is antigravity, and I don't see any data or observations in nature to support that, either (at least at non-intergalactic distances).