Kathleen Marden and Denise Stoner

[Randall]

I am not wrong to the best of my understanding. Theoretical and hypothetical are not the same thing. There is no such thing as theoretical IT. Only hypothetical. HUGE difference. I'm in no hole Ufology.Well above sea level minus any vantage point you might feel you have at this point. What was my initial statement as I asked prior?

Theoretical and hypothetical are synonymous within the context of your comment, to quote, "That which is presently hypothetical is not science". And you still haven't provided the science you say supports your original position ... keep digging.

 

[Randall]

Jeff is right - In science a theory is not the same as a hypothesis.

Thanks for that definition but it's not relevant to the context of the discussion. Besides that ,even if we were to assume it was, Jeff's statement, to quote: "That which is presently hypothetical is not science" would still be in error because science makes use of both theory and hypothesis. Or are you saying you agree with Jeff that interstellar travel is unscientific? Maybe you can help him find the science he has to back that up.

 

[Randall]

@Ufology - why 'sorry goggs' ?

Oh ... I said Jeff was wrong, and I thought I saw you say somewhere that it wasn't good etiquette to do that. I do try to avoid it, but sometimes I don't think it's too harsh.

 

[mike]

Any one saying intersteller travel is not possible should check their history

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” – Lord Kelvin, mathematician and physicist, in 1895. Lord Kelvin refused an invitation from the Aeronautical Society saying he did not believe that there would be anything resembling an airplane invented. In 1902, he backed this up by saying “No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful.” The next year, the Wright brothers began the age of the airplane.

• “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” – New York Times in 1936. Well, as we know they were very wrong about this. Just over two decades later, the first satellite was launched by Russia and 33 years later man would walk on the moon.

• “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” – Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy for Ecole Superieure de Guerre in 1904. Only 10 years later, when his home country of France was invaded, airplanes would play a big part in the First World War. While he was wrong on this account, he made a prediction that was incredibly prophetic at the end of the First World War. He said, “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” The Second World War began 21 years later.

• “Space travel is bunk.” Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom in 1957. If he made this prediction in 1910 when he was 20, well we could see how he would say that. What makes this prediction so bad is that only two weeks after he said it, Sputnik was launched and the Space Race began. Only nine years after he died, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

History is full of experts and scientists who said it cant be done, they were wrong.

Its insane to think humans who've only been using electricity in a practical manner for a meer 200 years (Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821)
Could pronounce intersteller travel as technologically impossible.

Juxtapose the stupidity of such arrogance against the recorded flight characteristics of some of these structured craft as observed by pilots and radar, its clear they employ a technological mechanism not yet discovered and understood by us

Just over a hundred years ago a respected physicist said heavier than air flying machines are impossible.......

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it

 

[mike]

"We have no proof, But if we extrapolate, based on the best information we have available to us, we have to come to the conclusion that ... other life probably exists out there and perhaps in many places..."
-
Neil Armstrong, Oct 21, 1999.

 

[mike]

To label this research as jules verne style sci fi is inapproriate imo.

White’s team has been examining ways to continue that progression, but what is eye-catching is that he is working on a laboratory experiment to “perturb spacetime by one part in ten million” using an instrument called the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer to create the minute spacetime disruption.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf

At Johnson Space Center, Eagleworks has initiated an interferometer test bed that will try to generate and detect a microscopic instance of a little warp bubble. Although this is just a tiny instance of the phenomena, it will be existence proof for the idea of perturbing space time—a “Chicago pile” moment, as it were. Recall that December of 1942 saw the first demonstration of a controlled nuclear reaction that generated a whopping half watt. This existence proof was followed by the activation of a ~ four megawatt reactor in November of 1943. Existence proof for the practical application of a scientific idea can be a tipping point for technology development.

Harold White Warp Field Mechanics Update

ASA/JSC is implementing an advanced propulsion physics laboratory, informally known as "Eagleworks", to pursue propulsion technologies necessary to enable human exploration of the solar system over the next 50 years, and enabling interstellar spaceflight by the end of the century. This work directly supports the "Breakthrough Propulsion" objectives detailed in the NASA OCT TA02 In-space Propulsion Roadmap, and aligns with the #10 Top Technical Challenge identified in the report. Since the work being pursued by this laboratory is applied scientific research in the areas of the quantum vacuum, gravitation, nature of space-time, and other fundamental physical phenomenon

Still Verne did make a number of predictions that are reality today, History again shows

Yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact

Dr Harold White is not a fictional character,
Dr. Harold "Sonny" White | Icarus Interstellar

NASA and the Johnson space centre are not fictional places

 

[mike]

Few people know this but NASA actually has a warp drive program underway at Johnson Space Center.

Clarifying NASA's Warp Drive Program - SpaceRef

The device looks like a large red velvet doughnut with wires tightly wound around a core, and it's one of two initiatives Eagleworks is pursuing, along with warp drive. It's also secret. When I ask about it, White tells me he can't disclose anything other than that the technology is further along than warp drive ... Yet when I ask how it would create the negative energy necessary to warp space-time he becomes evasive. "That gets into . . . I can tell you what I can tell you. I can't tell you what I can't tell you," he says

 

[Randall]

To label this research as jules verne style sci fi is inapproriate imo.

Excellent references there Mike! Thanks for the backup. I think those guys know it too and are just razzing me for the sake of argument . Nuthin' serious.

 

[mike]

No worries mate, again i find it astounding anyone could pronounce something "technologically impossible" given weve only had the electric motor a couple of hundred years.

 

[mike]

Interesting stuff

Scientists create device that tears a hole in time, enabling undetectable secret messages to be sent (so long as you do it in 0.00012 of a second)

• A 'time cloak' which bends light to tear holes in time has been created

Scientists create device that tears a hole in time, enabling undetectable secret messages to be sent | Mail Online

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Thanks for that definition but it's not relevant to the context of the discussion. Besides that ,even if we were to assume it was, Jeff's statement, to quote: "That which is presently hypothetical is not science" would still be in error because science makes use of both theory and hypothesis. Or are you saying you agree with Jeff that interstellar travel is unscientific? Maybe you can help him find the science he has to back that up.

Nope, that's not what I was saying - I was just pointing out a common mistake people make in using the word theory in the context of science. Interstellar travel is not possible for us right now, but we can't predict what we will be able to do eventually. And if there is an advanced civilization out there, and chances are quite good that there is, they may have figured it out. Are they visiting Earth? There isn't enough evidence to support that, but it could be...

 

[Jeff Davis]

Thanks for that definition but it's not relevant to the context of the discussion. Besides that ,even if we were to assume it was, Jeff's statement, to quote: "That which is presently hypothetical is not science" would still be in error because science makes use of both theory and hypothesis. Or are you saying you agree with Jeff that interstellar travel is unscientific? Maybe you can help him find the science he has to back that up.

The above emboldened statement is an absolute truth in the specific context in which it was clearly used by myself earlier.

Science when used as a general description is much like stating or capitulating that everything from heavy metal to pillow soft rock music is just "Rock Music" and to state otherwise is most likened to having a dreary day by over complicating things needlessly. Not so much so. Science when used as a definitive marker (the word science as I have used it that is) to correlate scientific reality, that which *is* science, the items or concept in consideration that our initial marker points to, must have been tested via repeated results and determined as natural law in order to *be* science. In short IT must already exist post the proper scientific methodology including, $observation/hypothetical consideration./theoretical testing, any of which which IMO, Ufology is attempting unsuccessfully to pass off in this little debate as what is "science". When in fact what they are specifically are the scientific means by which *science* is produced.

Only when used in a trick bag of a thesis does scientific fact proper (the word "science") become confused or arbitrary. Science is ultimately the product of the scientific means, to me anyways, this is what is ultimately *science*. Is that wrong? Within the context that I used the word the scientific process itself is not the "science" I referred to contextually, it's the specific scientific means by which the end product of that which *is* science takes place. These are the scientific actions required in sequence to establish definitively what I have been attempting to qualify/disqualify, and thereby refer to as "science" or scientific fact. It really does not get anymore obvious IMO.

Observation/HYPOTHESIS (this hypothetical stage is where we presently find IT)/Theoretical testing resulting in scientific law which produces that which *is* "science", by definition.

IT, like anything else for that matter, cannot be considered "science" simply because it's being considered "scientifically". If the scientists doing legitimate scientific process are considering IT hypothetically, that still in no way makes IT "science". That's simply ludicrous and serves to effectively eliminate scientific process. It's illogical. IT is presently hypothetical. IE. not established "science" as I have used the word. My best to those considering the matter scientifically however.

 

[Randall]

Nope, that's not what I was saying - I was just pointing out a common mistake people make in using the word theory in the context of science. Interstellar travel is not possible for us right now.

Now if you could just get Jeff to put it that way, I'd almost have to agree with him, depending on what you mean by "us". There's still the matter of Voyager 1 which seems destined to leave our solar system ( perhaps any second now ), in which case it will be in interstellar space, which means interstellar travel will be taking place in real time ... that makes it seem pretty "possible for us right now" to me.

 

[Randall]

... IT, like anything else for that matter, cannot be considered "science" simply because it's being considered "scientifically". If the scientists doing legitimate scientific process are considering IT hypothetically, that still in no way makes IT "science" ...

Because something is being considered "scientifically" doesn't make it "unscientific" either, which is my point. So perhaps you're caught up on the difference between what constitutes being scientific and what constitutes proven science. Had I said interstellar travel is a scientifically proven fact, you would have had a point. But that's not what I said. And you still haven't provided the science you say supports your position. Remember my first question, "What Science?" Where is it. I'm still waiting.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Any one saying intersteller travel is not possible should check their history

No one that I am familiar with here has stated it would be impossible. It's just that it's in no way a reality right now which logically makes it currently impossible. All we can do is fantasize about the matter for the time being, but there are MANY relative and proper fantasies to be had. All just as scientifically considerable as the next.

Look, I gotta make something clear out of sheer forum respect. It has never been my intention to limit the hypothetically prospective in the least, but rather to help shift attention away from the ridiculous notion that "space is the place" ETH, very possible, not likely via our present understanding, but very possible. But in my book that goes for about 100 other completely differing, and just as provocative possibilities as well. Same with IT, but that doesn't make any of the aforementioned a science at this point.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Neither does it make it "unscientific", which was my point. And you still haven't provided the science you say supports your position. remember my first question, "What Science?" Where is it. I'm still waiting.

What in the name of reality are you talking about?...I know! You mean that old school Ufology is going down quick speech I give routinely. Well look, there has been so many scientific doors open in terms of mathematically tested PROOF (note, this is the LAW stuff I was referring to earlier, the stuff that actually *is* science at this point, unlike IT) with respect to Quantum Physics alone, only the outer space, interstellar blinded, could even ask such a question. Wow, I am shocked you would ask that question. That's the problem with refining one's focus upon the "unknown" a little too much. More or less leaves a lot yet to be considered.

 

[Randall]

What in the name of reality are you talking about?

Reminder: You said here: "... I'm sorry guys, but science now CLEARLY points to the probable fact that UFOs are NOT spaceships that bring sight seeing aliens from other planets located in outer space ..."

So again: Where's the science you say CLEARLY points to the probable fact that UFOs are NOT spaceships that bring sight seeing aliens from other planets located in outer space?

I've pointed to actual scientific work that shows that there are other planets in outer space around other stars and that there is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel. That all clearly adds to the probability. In contrast, all you've done is try to argue that because we don't have a craft in interstellar space yet that interstellar travel is unscientific. I'm sorry but your argument remains really weak. Please consider revising your position.

 

[mike]

No one that I am familiar with here has stated it would be impossible. It's just that it's in no way a reality right now which logically makes it currently impossible.

No it doesnt, by that logic heavier than air flight was "impossible" in 1895

The reality is heavier than air flight has always been possible, but it wasnt actually done until the wright bros did it.

Because we are not doing it, doesnt make the feat "impossible"
I cant play the drums, that doesnt by extension make drum playing impossible.

Just because humans havent yet found a way to acheive IT, doesnt by extension make IT impossible

Given the mathmatics of Dr White and Alcubierre show its mathmatically possible, the fact we dont have it is more likely the result of our technological infancy, rather than it being "impossible"

although a practical warp drive is long way off, serious efforts to learn more about it are being undertaken now.[17] At the second 100 Year Starship Symposium, White told Space.com, “We're trying to see if we can generate a very tiny instance of this in a tabletop experiment”, the project is a "humble experiment" but said it represents a promising first step, “The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation

White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible

Impossible/impractical/implausible/plausible/possible

On that scale we are well clear of "impossible"

 

[mike]

Another one from Eagleworks

Impulse engine


If the Woodward effect is confirmed and if an engine can be designed to use applied Mach effects, then a spacecraft may be possible that could maintain a steady acceleration into and through interstellar space without the need to carry along propellants. Woodward presented a paper about the concept at the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program Workshop conference in 1997,[25][26] and continued to publish on this subject thereafter.[27][28][29][30]

Even ignoring for the moment the impact on interstellar travel, future spacecraft driven by impulse engines based on Mach effects would represent an astounding breakthrough in terms of interplanetary spaceflight alone, enabling the rapid colonization of our entire solar system. Travel times being limited only by the specific power of the available power supplies and the acceleration human physiology can endure, they would allow crews to reach any moon or planet in less than three weeks. For example, a typical one-way trip at 1 g acceleration from the Earth to the Moon would last only about 4 hours; to Mars, 2 to 5 days; to the asteroid belt, 5 to 6 days; to Jupiter, 6 to 7 days.[31]

Warp drives and wormholes


As showed by the transient mass fluctuation equation above, exotic matter could be theoretically created. And yet large quantity of negative energy density in scientific literature would be the key element needed to create warp drives[32] as well as traversable wormholes.[33] So if proven to be scientifically valid, practically feasible and scaling as predicted by the theory, the Woodward effect could not only be used for interplanetary travel, but also for apparent faster-than-light interstellar travel:

• The negative mass could be used to warp spacetime around a spaceship according to an Alcubierre metric.[21][32]
• Enough exotic matter could also be concentrated into a point of space to create a wormhole, and prevent it from collapsing. Woodward and others also state that exotic matter could defocus energy at the outer mouth of the wormhole (making it a white hole) and shape the throat of such a gravitational singularity flat enough to avoid horizon and tidal stresses, resulting in an "absurdly benign traversable wormhole" linking two regions of distant spacetime, a concept well spread in science fiction as stargates.[21][33][34][35][8]

Patents and practical devices


Two patents have been issued to Woodward and associates based on how the Woodward effect might be used in practical devices for producing thrust:

• In 1994, the first patent was granted, titled: "Method And Apparatus To Generate Thrust By Inertial Mass Variance".[36]
• In 2002, a second patent was granted, titled: "Method And Apparatus For Generating Propulsive Forces Without The Ejection Of Propellant".[37]

Woodward and his associates have claimed since the 1990s to have successfully measured forces at levels great enough for practical use and also claim to be working on the development of a practical prototype thruster. No practical working devices have yet been publicly demonstrated.[2][3][20][6]

Woodward effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mike]

While i try and avoid absolutes, the reality is a thing is either possible or impossible.
Whether or not we can do it is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the equation

Heavier than air flight was not "doable" in 1895, but it was and has always been possible, not impossible
Circumnavigating the globe underwater without surfacing was not "doable" in 1895, but it was and has always been possible. we "do" it today with nuclear subs

So IT and FTL is either possible or impossible. The math and general relativity say its possible, that we cant yet do it is irrelevant.

Heavier than air flight has always been possible, that we couldnt do it prior to 1904 doesnt change the absolute that it was always possible.

Heavier than air flight wasnt impossible in 1804, it was simply not yet done, it was always possible. The physics behind its being possible never changed.

On the balance of probability, including our own maths and experiments and the observation of craft that exhibit flight characteristics that defy our current knowledge, i'd say like heavier than air flight, and submarine circumnavigations its possible. All thats left to do is discover and understand the mechanisms and use them

The premise that its "impossible" fails imo. That its currently undoable is not in question, but undoable is not the same as impossible as history has demonstrated time and time again