Re: starship-design: PseudoScience?

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Zenon Kulpa wrote:
> 
> Of course I must agree (mostly...).
> However, as someone said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Carl Sagan, I think.

> Scientists making such claims do not cry about "conspiracy"

I don't believe in these conspiracy ideas.

> if other scientists doubt in their claims and ask for more evidence.
> And then they work hard to provide that evidence and they withdraw
> their claim when hard evidence does not materialize, without
> vails of being "not listened to" or otherwise suppressed.
> This is how real science works.

I can't prove some of my ideas (yet) because I don't have access to
space.
> 
> > I wonder why no one is cut down when bringing in a concept like
> > "cellular universe" or Lorentz contraction, (neither of which has been
> > proven, which violates everything said here),
> >
> Concerning "cellural universe" it was pure speculation of the
> "what if..." type, nobody discussing it claimed it to be
> at all sure and ready for use in designing starships or whatever.
> Such discussions on the speculative-hypothetical level are valuable,
> if only to open minds for wider space of possibilities,
> provided everybody understands them for what they are -
> just speculative-hypothetical thought experiments.
> Concerning Lorents contraction - see the answer by Steve.

I still say this: No one has propelled a macroscopic object up to near
99.999+ lightspeed, with an inboard propulsion system, and seen what
happened. As steve pointed out, actions on the quantum level don't
necessarily apply to the material world. Who knows? Maybe the limit on
material objects (unlikely) is 50%C. As said: show me the evidence.

> 
> > but when I bring up a
> > concept, I'm instantly shot down with a barrage of messages
> > whose basic line is: don't bring up something you can't prove.
> >
> You are not simply "bringing up a concept".
> You are additionally claiming that is it sure,
> proven [here a few WWW links], working and ready
> to mount on a starship.
> And this certainly may be a little unnerving...

I've given plenty of arguments about that, and I'm not going to say them
again.

> 
> > If you
> > want some example of commonly accepted science that has never been
> > proved, e-mail me. There's something not right here if unproven ideas
> > invented by proffesionals are accepted, but amatuer's ideas are canned.
> >
> The answer is simple - professionals, just because of their
> professionalism and experience, far more often than amateurs
> bring up ideas that are eventually proven to be valid.
> This of course does not mean - and nobody at this list said that -
> that amateur's ideas are certainly always wrong,
> just because they have been brought up by an amateur.
> But they deserve at least the same (or even larger)
> amount of doubt and requests for hard evidence as any others' ideas.
> Certainly, the holy fervor of their proponents
> is NOT evidence enough.
> Nobody (almost) listened to Wright brothers before
> their plane flied safely in the air several times.
> 
> > Kyle Mcallister
> >
> > P.S.: I'm not taking this personally, but speaking in the name of science.
> >
> As it was remarked by Steve, become a scientist before you try
> to speak in the name of science.

I am a scientist, for I am not too far out, and not too stuffyheaded.
I'm right between. If you want to keep calling me pseudoscientist, watch
out: one day you may resent that. Also, have you realized in my last few
messages how I don't seem to care much about my ideas anymore? Does this
please the group?

> And I must warn you - it is a very tiresome and often unrewarding job.
> Generating great ideas is only a tiny part of it.
> 99.9% of science is painstaking testing and search for evidence
> (and error) - all too often ending with the "false!" answer...
> Are you ready for that toil, Kyle?

I have already began. Closer to 99.99%, I think.

> 
> Otherwise, you will be nothing more than an amateur pseudoscientist,
> generating tens of unsubstantiated ideas a minute (that is VERY easy)
> and crying about "conspiracies", suppression of thought
> by "hard scientists", and the like.

And what do professional scientists do? Generate tens of unsubstantiated
ideas and try to see if their true. Thats what I do. I require proof,
but I've seen proof to may things still unnacepted by mainstream
science. I hope I live until 2060, just to see how much physics has
changed. I'll bet you it will be changed in many a way.

> 
> The choice is yours.

The choice is yes, I am a scientist, and will remain so.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> -- Zenon

Thank you.

Kyle Mcallister