Re: starship-design: PseudoScience?

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>]

> From: 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.
> 
Thank you for the confirmation. I was not sure.


> > Scientists making such claims do not cry about "conspiracy"
> 
> I don't believe in these conspiracy ideas.
> 
That sounds promising ;-)


> > 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.
> 
Ehem, I wonder...
Usually any sensible physical idea has a lot of different 
physical consequences.
Some of them may require an access to space to be fully
tested experimentally, but many would not.
Derive rigorously and theoretically these factual consequences 
of your ideas that CAN be tested here on Earth (I am sure there are many), 
test them (or publish them so that others can test them), 
and when they show true, you will have strong arguments 
with which to go and ask for money on space experiments.
In this way relativity was tested too.


> > > 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.
> 
I am not a specialist in relativity, so I go by the opinion
of specialists in that field. Steve is one (at leat far better than me ;-).
I may say, that there is at least a "not forbidden" evidence -
current physical theories of space-time are tested at very many 
points in the range of their applicability, and nothing in them
prevents the possibility of macroscopic objects flying near light speed.
And being contracted/time dilated at that. 
Of course, we cannot be sure.
But because it fits into a theory otherwise very well tested,
we can be many times more sure that it will work that way
than not - the latter claim backed only by a word of honor
of certain Kyle Mcallister  ;-)


> > > 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
> and I'm not going to say them again.
> 
How come I did not see them?


> > > 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. 
>
Huh? You will throw me out of my research position?  ;-))


> 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?
> 
No. 
We were displeased NOT by your CARING for your ideas,
but by advancing them frocibly with only your holy fervor as the evidence.
It is quite bad you do not care for them any longer -
you should still care enough, either to work toward finding
more hard evidence for them, or toward disproving them
(you know, the negative result is also a valuable scientific result -
spares a lot of time of other researchers spent on wandering in
blind alleys).


> > 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.
> 
Good news!


> > 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. 
>
Not everything seen as proof (especially by a beginneer in the trade) 
is indeed a proof. 
One of the qualities of a scientist (hard and long to learn too) 
is an ability to find holes and weak spots in "proofs"
(including his/her own).

[Remember also Sagan words, and read something about Randi 
and the Skeptical Inquirer.]


> 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.
> 
Easy bet. Everybody knows that much.
But can you specify what and how it changes?
If you can, you are really a GREAT scientist (or a Prophet... ;-)


> > The choice is yours.
> 
> The choice is yes, I am a scientist, and will remain so.
> 
Good to hear that.
Provided we understand the word "scientist" in the same way.

Best wishes,

-- Zenon