Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Do you believe we are alone in the universe?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7766951" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>I'll let the GPS guys they can stop with the relativistic corrects, yeah?</p><p></p><p>Then there's refraction across different media, theory directly derived from relativity concepts. Or that transistor width is constrained by quantim tunneling effects, which are also based in relativity and not Newtonian physics.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is a subtle misrepresentation. Firstly, I'm discussing theory and models, not observations. The switch to pretend I'm talking about observations is a bit disappointing. Of course a new theory has to continue to explain our observations. This is trivial, and frankly insulting that you'd even attempt to lecture that obsevations already made don't change.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, you slyly elide the fact that observations are by no means comprehensive. Just like Newton observed falling apples (apocryphally) but could not detect relativistic effects on falling apples doesn't mean that this missed bit didn't lead to nuclear bombs. What we observe is incomplete.</p><p></p><p>Finally, restrictive boundaries have always existed. A bomb that creates short-lived minature suns wasn't contemplated during Newton's time -- there were some restrictve boundaries in place. But a new theory leading to new observations, consistent with old, led to a moving of boundaries.</p><p></p><p>The characteristic of believing you're at the end of history, scientific or otherwise, is evergreen. Ironically.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We have to experiment to determine the value of G, which is not directly measurable but instead is the constant we've invented to make our math balance, because we have no theory to explain it. G usn't a theoretical value we're confirming, it's a value we have to experiment to find out how big it should be (and what units we need to assign it) to balance an equation. Same with any other constant we use to balance our maths. The habit is to forget these represent failures of understanding because they're so damn useful.</p><p></p><p>[Quite]</p><p>"that much" isn't really all that much, though. We don't need to know much to make FTL travel a highly questionable proposition.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Of course it's questionable. I've said that multiple times, including in the post you just quoted. (You elected to snip that bit, I suppose so you could chastise me?) Questionable is what science is about. I just don't believe we're at the end of history for science. I rationally accept we could be, but it seems we've been too oft proven wrong on that account to have faith.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7766951, member: 16814"] I'll let the GPS guys they can stop with the relativistic corrects, yeah? Then there's refraction across different media, theory directly derived from relativity concepts. Or that transistor width is constrained by quantim tunneling effects, which are also based in relativity and not Newtonian physics. This is a subtle misrepresentation. Firstly, I'm discussing theory and models, not observations. The switch to pretend I'm talking about observations is a bit disappointing. Of course a new theory has to continue to explain our observations. This is trivial, and frankly insulting that you'd even attempt to lecture that obsevations already made don't change. Secondly, you slyly elide the fact that observations are by no means comprehensive. Just like Newton observed falling apples (apocryphally) but could not detect relativistic effects on falling apples doesn't mean that this missed bit didn't lead to nuclear bombs. What we observe is incomplete. Finally, restrictive boundaries have always existed. A bomb that creates short-lived minature suns wasn't contemplated during Newton's time -- there were some restrictve boundaries in place. But a new theory leading to new observations, consistent with old, led to a moving of boundaries. The characteristic of believing you're at the end of history, scientific or otherwise, is evergreen. Ironically. We have to experiment to determine the value of G, which is not directly measurable but instead is the constant we've invented to make our math balance, because we have no theory to explain it. G usn't a theoretical value we're confirming, it's a value we have to experiment to find out how big it should be (and what units we need to assign it) to balance an equation. Same with any other constant we use to balance our maths. The habit is to forget these represent failures of understanding because they're so damn useful. [Quite] "that much" isn't really all that much, though. We don't need to know much to make FTL travel a highly questionable proposition.[/QUOTE] Of course it's questionable. I've said that multiple times, including in the post you just quoted. (You elected to snip that bit, I suppose so you could chastise me?) Questionable is what science is about. I just don't believe we're at the end of history for science. I rationally accept we could be, but it seems we've been too oft proven wrong on that account to have faith. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Do you believe we are alone in the universe?
Top