The motivated Assupmtion

Ah, BrunosStar, you're back... Two things.

First of all, I will gently say that regardless of who is more correct about the physics, you need to be able to explain it better. Everyone's who's said anything about it in this thread has made sense to me, except for you. You need to define your terms more clearly and describe the hypothetical configurations with some precision. Otherwise it makes it hard for people not to assume that you are just throwing around technobabble to hide a lack of understanding.

Secondly, I'd still like to hear your answers to repeated questions from earlier. Do you think that there is a difference between knowledge based on faith and knowledge based on evidence? Do you believe that Ouranosism represents the truth?

Given how many times you've doged these questions, it's getting hard not to assume that you don't think you can defend your answers.
 
FutileJester said:
Secondly, I'd still like to hear your answers to repeated questions from earlier. Do you think that there is a difference between knowledge based on faith and knowledge based on evidence? Do you believe that Ouranosism represents the truth?
Click to expand...


The perception of an experience is what we call evidence. Just two hundred years ago a person could be burned as a witch. A great deal of people experienced phenomena that they could only explain with gods and devils. Today we collectively verify evidence with a different philosophy and converge on a common agreement. This common agreement is usually very gray. It will always be gray because everyone's experience is unique from each other. Theories will change, but not just because of new evidence that refutes it. Theories will change because human beings can derive new ideas by re-examining old ideas. So to answer your question, do I think that ideas based on faith are different that those based on evidence? I would say no. Faith is just as much of an input to our intellect as what we today would call evidence.

There's a program on PBS called connections, perhaps you've seen it. What I really like about the program is how it can connect historically the relatedness of ideas and inventions to modern theories and technologies. Ideas have a start or influence. That influence may or may not look or sound like the final idea, but somewhere in the influence lies the roots to a new beginning.

We all believe that the future of space travel will be giant star ships like Star Trek. Only because a few promoted the idea as the only way it can happen. Ouranosism doesn't and so its ideas as to how to solve galactic exploration are radically different from Star Trek. Could ET be here? Sure, but what would we consider evidence for an ET being here? If it uses van Neuman nanobots that manufacture devices here on earth, then the material of the ET devices will have earthly origins. So even if something were discovered from ET, it wouldn't prove an ET existence. So then what are you left with, if you have such an experience or made such a discovery? All you would be left with is speculation. But at least the speculation is based on ideas we can reproduce.


Bruno
 
What does BS stand for other than BrunoStar?
I say we leave him to drown in it.
 
BrunosStar said:



By creating an environment where you can implement the Pauli exclusion principle, then yes you can encode a particle to a state.
Click to expand...
No, you just exclude particles ALREADY set to the state that your environment isn't consistent with. Very big difference.

And the tunneling does make sense. What about tunneling don't you understand?

Bruno.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense in this context, i.e. quantum communications.
 
BrunosStar said:
do I think that ideas based on faith are different that those based on evidence? I would say no.
Click to expand...
No.

Faith is belief despite the total lack of evidence.
 
BrunosStar said:
The perception of an experience is what we call evidence.
Click to expand...

I can see why we disagree at sentence one. I don't call the perception of an experience evidence; I call it an anectdote. It's evidential value is very low. Observing, creating a hypothesis, making a prediction, precisely observing that prediction, submitting all this to peers to be attacked and replicated... now that's evidence you can hang your hat on. The history of science is the history of realizing all the ways our perceptions may mislead us and finding ways to control for that.

If there is no difference between ideas based on faith and ideas based on evidence, doesn't that nullify all of science? Faith is a lot easier than science. If they're equally effective, why not rely on faith alone? Why do you consider it important that your faith has a scientific basis, if there is no difference between faith and science?

We all believe that the future of space travel will be giant star ships like Star Trek. Only because a few promoted the idea as the only way it can happen.
Click to expand...

Bit of a strawman here. I don't know anyone who thinks that's the only way it can happen. There's no question that robotic exploration will at least precede biological exploration, and yes, possibly replace it. You're still being unclear as to why Ouranos is the preferred explanation out of all plausible explanations. The Raelians claim scientific plausibility; why are they wrong and Ouranos believers right?

Assuming that you believe Ouranos is 'right', which you still haven't exactly answered. Do you see Ouranos as the truth and other ideas about ET exploration as false?
 
garys_2k said:

No, you just exclude particles ALREADY set to the state that your environment isn't consistent with. Very big difference.

It makes no sense in this context, i.e. quantum communications.
Click to expand...


However you want to describe it, the point is; the particle can be manipulated to change states to a predetermined value.

The tunneling is used to allow for the interaction between the filtered particle and the entangled particle. How you came to the conclusion it was used to communicate with the receiver is beyond me.


Bruno.
 
FutileJester said:
Assuming that you believe Ouranos is 'right', which you still haven't exactly answered. Do you see Ouranos as the truth and other ideas about ET exploration as false?
Click to expand...

Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.

Bruno
 
BrunosStar said:
Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.
Click to expand...

But Ouranos says a lot more than that, right? It claims that there is an ET presence on Earth. It says that ETs cause paranormal, occult and psychic phenomenon. It says that ETs are the source of the miracle of Fatima. It makes very detailed explanations of how actual ET ships are constructed. The fact that they've addressed issues about interstellar travel and economics is no reason to assume that all of this is true.

And in any case we've just pushed the issue a level deeper. If all knowledge is faith, why does it matter at all that Ouranos incorporates some plausible physics? If faith A is invalid unless it includes faith B, doesn't that imply that faith B is somehow superior to faith A? This seems inconsistent with your earlier statement that there's no difference between B (evidence-based) and A (faith-based).

This is related to another unanswered question from my last post. If faith and science are equally useful, why not discard science? Faith is a heckuva lot easier.
 
Originally posted by BrunosStar
Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.

From the Ouranos site:

A solar sail propels the pea size ship. The sail is super thin much like an insect’s wings only thinner! The ship tacks around ET’s sun to accelerate to 30 percent the speed of light.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know the exact equation, but given that we already have spacecraft that can escape the gravity of the sun, I believe that the escape velocity is much lower than 30 percent the speed of light. What keeps the ship in orbit as it "tacks" around the sun? Not gravity. It must be some other power source, which would negate any benefits of "solar sail" technology.

Maybe the gravity of ET's sun is much greater than ours? Nope. Such a star would have a significantly shorter lifespan, making development of an advanced civilization impossible. Even if it were possible, when the ship got to our solar system, how did it slow down when it's speed was so much greater than our sun's escape velocity? Maybe it's possible if it got close enough (again, I don't know the exact equation for the sun's escape velocity), but it take forever, as it negotiated immense eliptical orbits.

I only say this in response to the above quote: "The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds". I don't believe that it does.

PS, I know of very few reputable scientific publications that require such liberal use of exclamation points...
 
Didn't do my homework

Sorry I didn't do my homework on the last post.

At 30% the speed of light, an object is moving somewhere around 145 times the speed necessary to escape the sun's gravity if it started from the surface of the sun. If it were as far away as Mercury, it is over 1000 times escape velocity.

Pretty much what I expected.

I don't see how "tacking" around a star can achieve such great speeds. Maybe I'm wrong? :confused:
 
BrunosStar said:
The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.
Click to expand...

How do you apply this to, say, gravity?

{snip}scientific speculation{snip}
Click to expand...

That's a new form of white black.
Science is a process for forming testable, falsifiable hypotheses and then testing them.
If you're going to make a lot of very white black, be extra careful at zebra crossings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom