Cliches about tech and travel

@GingerCoffee What do you mean about leaving it out? I tend to info-dump things, what would be called techno babble. I find things like that comforting, like as example.

Edited

or

Edited

(its something I made up, not an excerpt, so its rough literary)

@jannert I may be a cynic but I think it has more to do with money. They can't or haven't figure out a way to milk us of all our money using space or space exploration. It's why science and technology is as stagnant as a swamp. Apps, smart phones are only meant for advertizing, not for doing truly innovating things to make out lives easier.

Yes, they can browse amazon quicker, but if you dont shop online, then what does a computer do now that it couldnt do 20 years ago? In fact, my 10 year old computer is still a powerful near top of the line machine, and work stations are just as pricey now as they were 20 years ago.

Dont get me started on cars. They are safer on paper, dont last nearly as long, and arent as efficient. I have both old and new and the old ones will last 100 years. My new ones will not. I know, I'm odd that way. I love old iron but I complain about not enough space interest. I'm like Tom Paris in Voyager, helmsman of an Intrepid class star ship, but works on a 67 Camaro on the holodeck

AB

 

"Run, the section is blowing!" He said making [made] the quick left towards section 17. then right to reach the starboard stairwell. It would have been a short run to the next section if not for the power core in engineering. The engineering room took up a lot of space, five decks vertically and two entire sections lengthwise. Previous designs had the engine cores at the lowest deck or at the aft of the ship, but recent designs placed them in the center of the ship, not just because it offered protection against enemy fire, but it also made running power conduits easier. Why had they reconfigured the dam ship design? Circumnavigating the power core would be the death of him.

In the first I would say that all tension dissipates with a lengthy and extraneous description. An idea above.

 

I am getting totally lost with this thread discussion, but to answer the original post, ever since Einstein said c was as fast as anything can go and it became mainstream knowledge and accepted, it opened the door to criticism to use FTL. At least that is my opinion. If you want to write sci-fi and not have it regarded as fantasy it is hard to reach the stars. The concept of folding the universe and finding worm holes (whatever they are called) seems as much a fantasy than simply ignoring the FTL restriction. Personally I like alternative dimensions and suspect that most people would view that as folding the universe but personally I see it more like the Great Arcs that planes use to fly from point to point over large distances, doesn't appear to be the shortest route but it is.

 

Me too.

But, to round out my participation in that other topic... Science Fiction isn't predictive or expectative. It never really talks about the future. It talks about the now. I can hear the eyerolls in the forum because I know it's the umptybillionth time I've said it. But really, Science Fiction is no different to any other genre in this respect. Writing is art and the function of art is to comment on the culture of the day. Science Fiction from the heyday of the 50's and 60's tells us nothing about who we are today in the early 2000's, but it does tell us a huge amount about the concerns and thoughts of people living in the 50's and 60's, just like any other kind of book written in that period of time. Does Science Fiction sometimes peg a thing here or there that comes true? Of course! But those exceptions do not make the rule.

 

Physics today has little to do with facts and more to do with politics. Been there done that. It's why I'm a mathematician. My hypothesis is that FTL is possible (and I'm not alone)

I was going to link the site but googling things like warp, NASA, Glenn, Dr White, offers so many BS articles. It reminds me of the Area 51 tactic of flooding the media with false info to drown out the actual work being done.

I still saved the initial files posted on several websites (PDFs etc) from several universities, NASA and even Lockheed-Martin. I don't think they did it, although if they did that's one secret they're keeping the lid tight then pouring concrete around it, burring it a mile deep...on mars.

@Wreybies it is about the now. Like any story, it explores potentials in a present, not future.

"Shields up" he will say.
"Aye sir!" she will answer

Just sounds weird lol. I know I will sound weird, but anyone that has been in academia knows that the best work isn't what gets published. It's all about which click you're in. Yes, similar to only everything out there, but, as somebody that has had a few careers (some knows for their backstabby-ness) academia is by far the absolute most definitely treacherous one. Einstein was in one of those clicks. It's why every kid nows E=mc^2 although F=ma is just as important, and more widely used by just about everyone.

To show how much clicks matter, Teichmuller was a German mathematician. He was brilliant, and his work was carried on by more popular types. Even his name is carried on in Teichmuller spaces and Teichmuller Theory.

Oh, he was a nazi. A bona fide SS nazi too. While I don't like discarding work, but his name, we could have done without.

This is a bit off topic, but related. The sound barrier was equally fought against (and even had equations nearly identical to Lorenz equations) until of course the X-1 and Chuck Yeager (actually before, with the propeller tips of some aircraft)

AB

 

@Masterspeler That White? Though the math certainly is ugly because the implications of usable FTL are so low. Still interesting. It has been a few years since I got to play in the lab, but I set up an He-Ne (like the one used) on a 12 inch optical table and I was getting strange results in a test. I was brushing against the side and the beating of my heart was causing a jitter in the stability. That and moving your hand under the beam and seeing the distortions caused by the warmth of your body in a cold room. Ruined my hologram production but totally worth it!

Also - it took me like 10 seconds to find it ha. Lots of junk out there for sure. Was surprised when I didn't pull it up and I had to grab the proper name for it to get the document.

 

Sounds fun. My lab is wherever I can work out some equations lol. I was into physics before, but the clicks were absolutely, soul-crushingly disgusting. Not that math was any better. I think I'm officially fired for having a handicap. Or might be because they don't like my political beliefs, or previous careers (Baby-killer is old, at least come up with a new one relevant to my generation, right?)

Any way, I still have a lot of those pdfs. I'm just worried a bit that the searches reveal a lot, but none of the old stuff, like actual papers, not opinion articles on BS click-bait sites. Yeah, reliable source there...

And then there's my work, which is good, very good. Too good for somebody that had 4 careers before (not jobs, as in careers, with extensive training. Think aircraft mechanic...still have certs for 707, 737, dc-10 and md-11 woohoo) This would be number 5, and I got lucky to stumble on this solution, but like I said before, I'm the new guy, the former_____ that has greasy hands (I like to work on cars, so I have oil under my nails at times) how dare he even claim to have something relevant, right?

Now I'm bitter thinking of how that dream was shot down before it took off. I'm heading for surgery. Handicapped more, less or dead. I don't know the odd for each. I didn't want to know lol

AB

 

The speed of sound was the unsurmountable barrier not that many years ago. When finally cowboy test pilots dripping the right stuff climbed in their old jets and with a yee haw blew past it now we take it for granite, and dont give it a second thought as the speed barrier is broken again and again by different things. planes, cars, etc. The speed of light is just like that a barrier. In the future that i imagine it has been broken and is common place and hardly worth mentioning ya go and your vessel goes. Energize!! Engage!!!! boost in 3 2 1!!! how ever ya ina=magine it just go with it like ya breaking the sound barrier only different.

 

can someone translate this?

 

Chinspinner I think they call this rock-it science.

Since there are things that are FTL, but I imagine most are sort of virtual such as wave interference patterns and the Big Bang event, who knows what the future holds. I believe Wreybies has stated it well, and writing within todays knowledge and simply applying some handwaving is the best we can really do.

I am a bit puzzled by the E = mc^^2 reference that pops up with FTL. I guess I need to go back and check but I thought it had to do with the energy that a mass could be converted to at the atomic level, like a capful of gasoline is equal to a stick of dynamite sort of thing.

 

E=MC^^2 says that ya cant go faster than the speed of light. At the risk of being too geeky lets go country boy for a bit. The faster ya go the harder it is. ya reach a point where no matter how hard ya push ya cant go faster. That is the speed of light. The closer to it ya get the harder it is. Volumes have been written and folks dedicate a lifetime of study to see if this is true. For travel to work tween the stars it cant be. Is Einstein right only "Time" will tell.

 

Not entirely correct:
*When not in a vacuum, it is c/n (where n is the refractive index) - Basically, going faster then the speed of light in the material results in Cherenkov radiation - which is still slower then the speed of light in a vacuum. This is not FTL.
*Moving a beam of light across a distant marker faster so that the arc-speed upon the object ends up being faster than light is not FTL, but the relative appearance from an observer would still have the line "move" faster than the speed of light itself.
*However, the EPR paradox is estimated to allow quantum non-local connection to be at least 10,000 times the speed of light. If conclusive and able to allow FTL communication, yay. Otherwise we are left with useless, but probably slightly faster-than-the-speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum virtual particles.

 

EPR is a whole nother animal. I may be able to buy that the speed of light is naturally a limit in the universe. EPR (one of them, since there are several, likw the half mirror paradox and this, also known as spooky action at a distance) sounds closer to worm holes that actual travel over vast disances. One of the EPR's was something I worked on a few years ago and came to a solution. (An answer as to why the emitters light up, and predicting which one up, the side one or both would light up)

But I pissed on the physics department with that, because how dare an undergraduate (i was one at the time) a former blue collar and mathematician and not a physicist come up with the answer. I didnt publish it because at the time I didnt think it was that special. Now it might be part of the bigger picture, of a theory (in the sense of collection of theorems and proofs, not, "Oh, I have a theory on who the pumkin ghost is!" said Shaggy) so I would mention this EPR solution as a chapter of this theory. It would be a duesie, already at 900 pages long of proofs, stemming from the first elegant proof thats only 2o or so.

Funny though, that I'm turning into a cliche myself, bitter mathematician that hasn't published anything, either because he's a quack, or who knows what else.

AB

 

FTL is the bread and butter of Sci-fi. Though the universe is made up of dark matter and is not as 'empty' as we originally thought. And as anyone with a very basic understanding of physics and molecular structure, you can manipulate the particles at an atomic level. So in theory with the right mathematics could manipulate the very fabric of space itself, without having to rely on things such as worm holes and jump gates to travel the vast distances between stars through out the universe. Though it would not be as instant as we think. The farther you want to travel the more time it will take to get there, though it would be immensely less than if you were to rely on only standard and accepted methods of space travel.

I think that artificial gravity generators are another staple of the genres, cause it saves time from having to get a ship up to inertia (also it cuts the maneuverability substantially). So naturally we cheat by using the grav-generator. Otherwise all the precision and order on board the craft would be a CF of chaos, especially the more crew and equipment you have.

One that I myself try to maintain is there is no sound in space. If something hits the hull of a ship, then the vibration will be heard, but from an outside observer they will only see the impact but hear nothing. Likewise with engines, weapons, and so on. I think that it would change the tone to have an acoustic universe outside of the radio frequency spectrum. As well as having to counteract the forces of using weapons in space by using thrusters, or engines to maintain a position or trajectory while firing them. Otherwise your space battles will be like watching ducks using large cannons against each other in a pool full of jello.

 

I know not the trend of which you speak (the trend you speak of) although I've read a lot of science (and probably pseudo-science) articles of late which state quite bluntly that FTL is a no-go.

To them I say, get thee to a nunnery! I shall write of science with tongue planted firmly in cheek and if the science don't get ya, the humour will (or at least, one hopes it will).

(Why I wrote this in pseudo-middle English I have no idea.)

 

I like this. I think it comes much closer to describing the job.

As a fiction writer, I think it's detrimental to the process to be hemmed in by so-called 'truth.' From a philosophical POV, with seven billion people on this planet, that gives us seven billion versions of the truth.

As long as your truth is interesting, it's truth enough for me... or fiction.

 

Now I have to wonder if some of the classical science fiction writers weren't also in this predicament and that's why they turned to writing. I know that not all of them were, but did Clarke, for instance—even after inventing the satellite—still need another job to put food on the table?

And on the subject of homelessness, I know a lot of those people are artists (writers, musicians, painters, all the arts) and now I'm wondering how many are scientists. The film, A Beautiful Mind comes to mind. In fact, this whole train of thought gives me an idea for a story.

I will say no more... for now.

 

Which is one of the reasons the entire Star Trek universe bugs me. No one ever talks about how much it'll cost to pull that magical bit of cutting-edge technology out of Spock's (or Data's) ass so they can save the day. It's a good thing those shows depend mostly on character rather than technology.

 

About the only thing I can think of is: they can run the current versions of the same old software.

The only innovation for a lot of years was speed, but the emphasis changed somewhere along the way. In fact, perhaps you can confirm/deny something for me...

Back in the 1980s, I first heard of Moore's Law and it was stated to be: computer speeds will double every 18 months.

But now they say it's about the density of transistors on a chip, quick a different animal.

And this change only came about (unless I'm remembering wrong) after the speed of computers stopped doubling every 18 months.

And interestingly, if you Google "computer speed doubles every 18 months" you get hits for Moore's Law. But if you Google "Moore's Law" you get hits talking about the density of transistors on a chip.

 

And further to this, what I found interesting was a Ted Talk I watched wherein the guy (don't remember his name, but a qualified scientist of some kind) said that the speed of light varies depending on circumstances, that some experimenters had, in fact, got light to travel at 38 mph (which is mind-blowing in its own right).

And that makes me wonder if C really is the speed limit. If light can go slower, why can't it go faster? Or did God (Einstein's dice-playing God) equip light with a governor?

 

LOL! I love that you went out on a limb (for the record, it's the first time I've read about your views on science fiction and now) and didn't cut it off.

And of course, you're right. Science fiction is about the now (except for time travel stories; they're about romance).

So one could say: Science fiction speaks of the now in past tense in the future.

 

That's a good explanation. Me being a country boy (despite all my years in cities) I relate to it.

But I also studied karate and learned something about pushing through. Just before my black belt test, it was time to learn to break boards with toes, fingers, etc. I tried bullying the boards, but hurt my toes (and knuckles) until my sensei told me to close my eyes. Broke the board and I was barely aware of hitting anything.

Makes me wonder if the key to breaking the speed of light is to stop trying to and just do it. (Yoda: Do or do not; there is no try.)

 

The universe governs itself by having space and time interconnected.

Spoiler: Physics

The speed of light is not special, in physics, it's actually the speed of causality: the translation constant between space and time. Light is in no way special, in fact, everything else is. The laws of physics dictate that everything travels at the speed of light, the only reason things with mass don't is because they're dragging through the Higgs field. If you had zero drag (no mass), you would travel at c.

 

The speed of light is a speed limit. You can slow light down depending on the medium it's traveling through. You can also stop it altogether with an opaque object. It can also be bent by gravity and refraction.

There have been experiments in quantum tunneling that purport to send photons faster than the speed of light. Looked convincing to me but some physicists disagree (or they did last time I heard anything about it which was decades ago).

Another physics oddity is the direction of time seems to only be in one direction but the math suggests there is no reason it couldn't go backward.

 

Yep, it's the medium that causes it to travel slower than light, but while it's in a photon form, it only travels at exactly c, this is also what causes refraction. Gravity doesn't actually bend the path of light, the path of light is perfectly straight and it's space itself that's curved (called a geodesic.)

It was a neutrino, and it was determined to be a faulty timer, I've met some people who were there for that experiment. If you're referring to quantum entanglement, that can affect things on opposite sides of the universe instantly, but it doesn't actually violate the causality speed since no information has to be sent.

That's true, but not for everything. Entropy, for example, can only work in one direction.