Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6738047" data-attributes="member: 177">&quot;Never&quot; is a bit broad, especially when you have already noted that you have to take into account the mechanism.&nbsp; You are positing that you can open a wormhole, but that wormholes so opened do so to *random* places in spacetime?&nbsp; That sounds plausible to you?&nbsp; You wouldn't instead presume that the mechanism for opening a wormhole and keeping it open would have to be known, and thus controlled?&nbsp; Or that you could not infer something from measurements of the wormhole itself?Actually, this generalizes, so that the mechanism actually doesn't really matter.More like, what isn't observable isn't science - if we cannot even in principle observe it, we are in the realm of the non-falsifiable.So, in order to question the science, you bring in something unobservable - a mechanism for travel where you don't know where you are going?&nbsp; In reality, science deals with a *lot* of things that are not directly observable, but can be inferred from observations.&nbsp; Nobody, for example, has ever observed a lone quark.&nbsp; It is expected by many that seeing them, even in principle, is not possible.If we are all limited to normal sub-light speed travel, you are correct.&nbsp; There is never any way to communicate from A to Z.But *you* are then positing what happens when you go to Z!&nbsp; I then say, any method you can use to go to Z, I can in principle use to measure the distance.&nbsp; The ability to travel to some arbitrary point in spacetime implies the ability to measure the distance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6738047, member: 177"] "Never" is a bit broad, especially when you have already noted that you have to take into account the mechanism. You are positing that you can open a wormhole, but that wormholes so opened do so to *random* places in spacetime? That sounds plausible to you? You wouldn't instead presume that the mechanism for opening a wormhole and keeping it open would have to be known, and thus controlled? Or that you could not infer something from measurements of the wormhole itself? Actually, this generalizes, so that the mechanism actually doesn't really matter. More like, what isn't observable isn't science - if we cannot even in principle observe it, we are in the realm of the non-falsifiable. So, in order to question the science, you bring in something unobservable - a mechanism for travel where you don't know where you are going? In reality, science deals with a *lot* of things that are not directly observable, but can be inferred from observations. Nobody, for example, has ever observed a lone quark. It is expected by many that seeing them, even in principle, is not possible. If we are all limited to normal sub-light speed travel, you are correct. There is never any way to communicate from A to Z. But *you* are then positing what happens when you go to Z! I then say, any method you can use to go to Z, I can in principle use to measure the distance. The ability to travel to some arbitrary point in spacetime implies the ability to measure the distance. [/QUOTE]

Verification