Indeed. I very much enjoy his works. Bravo, Center, for drudging up that quote.
Sure, Dyson spheres (especially of the shell variant) may seem completely unreasonable in wacky to us now, but once we're an advanced civilization with more resources and energy than we know what to do with, it might not seem so crazy then.
They once claimed the same things about aerial flight and undersea travel that you're stating about Dyson spheres now, rox, but that didn't stop us from achieving those things. "Implausible" is just another way of saying "challenge" in some scientists' minds.
Indeed. I very much enjoy his works. Bravo, Center, for drudging up that quote.
Agree and concur. One of the things I liked about Clarke's work was that his fiction was plausible. It was plausible in that it didn't discount the things we currently "know" about the universe in which we live. He extrapolated on our current understanding to what might be achievable from that point.
They once claimed the same things about aerial flight and undersea travel that you're stating about Dyson spheres now, rox, but that didn't stop us from achieving those things. "Implausible" is just another way of saying "challenge" in some scientists' minds.
Well I don't know who they are, but I haven't said anything about the Dyson Sphere (Shell), other than it would be more like a soap bubble than a sphere and I find the concept to be implausible.
I'm not so much interested in the discussion of the sphere, as I am in the lack of understanding, concerning the nature of scientific inquiry, which is being demonstrated in this thread.
Well I don't know who they are, but I haven't said anything about the Dyson Sphere (Shell), other than it would be more like a soap bubble than a sphere and I find the concept to be implausible.
I'm not so much interested in the discussion of the sphere, as I am in the lack of understanding, concerning the nature of scientific inquiry, which is being demonstrated in this thread.
It seems implausible to you because it's so far beyond our current resources that we won't be achieving the ability to build one anytime soon. But give us a million more years? We'll probably have been able to iron out the kinks in its feasibility by then.
is it actually implausible? it probably is in reality but this is not reality. Most tech in star trek is implausible from transporters, to time travel, to universal translators but you suspend your disbelief that either someone will solve the technical limitations in the future or just accept its scifi for entertainment and not everything will really be invented no matter what year.
whoever built the dyson sphere/shell is clearly at a point where building something about half the size of a solar system is not that big of a deal to them, so who is to say what incredible tech they have.
I fully understand the concept of developing theories and proving and disproving it. I'm just telling you that there are two schools of thoughts. Those who develop a hypothesis and do every damn thing possible to disprove it and those who see something on TV and do everything possible to make it real.
p.s. Clarke was disproven a few times, but he kept going because it fired the imagination. He's not wrong about the space elevator.
you do realise that science fiction actually has forced scientists to rise to the challenge to try to develop theories and concepts to prove them?
Warp drive was a concept that couldnt be proofed until recently. Now we've developed warp theory. Our only problem is, that the amount of energy required to warp space around us, is far beyond our means.
Star trek says it takes gigawatts of energy, to warp space, although it seems that Phoenix was done with megawattage. But at our current abilities, it would be in the tera range or even peta range. That's beyond our current output. If I recall correctly, the entire earth's output is barely in the tera range.
They just developed the concept for lightsabers. They're trying to figure out a way to create transporters. We have teleporters but that's not wanted as that destroys matter. Wormhole theory (from stargate) and tricorders, communicators, directed energy beams... cloaking, shields... there's many more
why? Because they saw it on tv and were determined to prove it was possible.
Right now, we can say that's not quite possible with our concepts so it's time to create new concepts. How the heck would that be possible?
See, humans don't go "oh that's impossible" and forget about it. We go "Hmm, that's currently impossible, so how do we make it possible?"
We take the rules of this universe and we challenge it, develop new rules or bend them. We're the universe's bad boys of science.
Hero Post of the Week.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I fully understand the concept of developing theories and proving and disproving it. I'm just telling you that there are two schools of thoughts. Those who develop a hypothesis and do every damn thing possible to disprove it and those who see something on TV and do everything possible to make it real.
p.s. Clarke was disproven a few times, but he kept going because it fired the imagination. He's not wrong about the space elevator.
The dyson sphere goes way beyond warp speed or replicator or transporter technology.
Its on the level of needing godlike powers.
If, heroic consists of making unsupported assertions about misunderstood concepts, yeah... that quote was pretty heroic.
For instance, the bit about lightsabers - that is not what the researchers did, nor was it what inspired them. They were working on a more secure method of quantum encryption, which this would enable. The "lightsaber" thing was entirely the creation of sensationalistic headline writers with less grasp of basic physics than my 7-year-old.
"Wormhole theory" dates back to Einstein and Rosen; the only problem is that opening such a passage requires a black hole at each end, which makes transiting it kind of problematic. The only thing inspired by communicators was the shape of the flip phone - the technology is basically WWII radios on steroids, and today we call those "satellite phones". Nobody's trying to create a "teleporter" - quantum entanglement doesn't work that way. (What they're trying for is instantaneous communication at great distances, which would be an immeasurable boon to the space program.) "Directed energy beams" were not inspired by fiction, they were inspired by a particular quirk of quantum physics; the laser was thought of as something entirely useless, no more than a lab toy, for years after its invention.
Miguel Alcubierre was inspired by Trek, but his original theory was pretty much useless, as his drive would have required an energy output equivalent to destroying the entire planet Jupiter in order to put a 30-meter spacecraft into warp. Harold White later refined the theory, but he was more inspired by trying to make existing space travel easier (you could use such a bubble to reduce the inertia on a spacecraft, enabling greater accelerations with less fuel).
There is much to praise in the intermingling of SF and science. But it's important, when doing so, to make sure you understand the science enough to know what's actually going on.
There is much to praise in the intermingling of SF and science. But it's important, when doing so, to make sure you understand the science enough to know what's actually going on.
Exactly. Science-Fiction is not a substitute for Science-Education.
I like this little gem from the end of Stargate:SG-1's 200th episode.
To me, "plausible" is too much a matter of opinion for it to be a viable topic of discussion. Discussing whether we know how to do something is a viable topic of discussion. That is based on fact, but plausibility is just opinion.
Do we know of a workable way to build a Dyson Sphere or Dyson Shell? nope. Might we figure it out eventually? who knows?
I know this is an old thread, and someone else may have already left a similar comment, but I felt the need to reply to your question with: you actually want to apply the concept of "plausibility" to the Star Trek universe? Good luck indeed.
I know this is an old thread, and someone else may have already left a similar comment, but I felt the need to reply to your question with: you actually want to apply the cconcept of "plausibility" to the Star Trek universe? Good luck indeed.
Back when Star Trek was still Star Trek and good (that means before jar jar, although in that particular case probably before voyager) they actually payed a lot of attention to scientific accuracy within the limits of possible. A lot of the technologies shown are theoretically possible.
I know this is an old thread, and someone else may have already left a similar comment, but I felt the need to reply to your question with: you actually want to apply the concept of "plausibility" to the Star Trek universe? Good luck indeed.
You realize you could have simply started a new thread about this? Necroing is a no-no.
Back when Star Trek was still Star Trek and good (that means before jar jar, although in that particular case probably before voyager) they actually payed a lot of attention to scientific accuracy within the limits of possible. A lot of the technologies shown are theoretically possible.
Enh. sometimes they did a decent job of imitating real science. but every season has had things that are absurd.
But to be serious for a moment, the Dyson Spheres were built by the Solane using Iconian technology. They are explicitly beyond reverse-engineering by even Voth technology, much less Federation/Klingon/Romulan technology. The Federation has about as much understanding of how to build a working Dyson Sphere as we here and now have of how to build a working Odyssey-class cruiser with warp 9.97 engines.
Comments
Great guy he was.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
Indeed. I very much enjoy his works. Bravo, Center, for drudging up that quote.
Sure, Dyson spheres (especially of the shell variant) may seem completely unreasonable in wacky to us now, but once we're an advanced civilization with more resources and energy than we know what to do with, it might not seem so crazy then.
They once claimed the same things about aerial flight and undersea travel that you're stating about Dyson spheres now, rox, but that didn't stop us from achieving those things. "Implausible" is just another way of saying "challenge" in some scientists' minds.
Agree and concur. One of the things I liked about Clarke's work was that his fiction was plausible. It was plausible in that it didn't discount the things we currently "know" about the universe in which we live. He extrapolated on our current understanding to what might be achievable from that point.
Well I don't know who they are, but I haven't said anything about the Dyson Sphere (Shell), other than it would be more like a soap bubble than a sphere and I find the concept to be implausible.
I'm not so much interested in the discussion of the sphere, as I am in the lack of understanding, concerning the nature of scientific inquiry, which is being demonstrated in this thread.
It seems implausible to you because it's so far beyond our current resources that we won't be achieving the ability to build one anytime soon. But give us a million more years? We'll probably have been able to iron out the kinks in its feasibility by then.
At the moment, it's only a pipe dream.
whoever built the dyson sphere/shell is clearly at a point where building something about half the size of a solar system is not that big of a deal to them, so who is to say what incredible tech they have.
Created by the great magical unicorn, who farts pixie dust.:D
p.s. Clarke was disproven a few times, but he kept going because it fired the imagination. He's not wrong about the space elevator.
Hero Post of the Week.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
If, heroic consists of making unsupported assertions about misunderstood concepts, yeah... that quote was pretty heroic.
The dyson sphere goes way beyond warp speed or replicator or transporter technology.
Its on the level of needing godlike powers.
"Wormhole theory" dates back to Einstein and Rosen; the only problem is that opening such a passage requires a black hole at each end, which makes transiting it kind of problematic. The only thing inspired by communicators was the shape of the flip phone - the technology is basically WWII radios on steroids, and today we call those "satellite phones". Nobody's trying to create a "teleporter" - quantum entanglement doesn't work that way. (What they're trying for is instantaneous communication at great distances, which would be an immeasurable boon to the space program.) "Directed energy beams" were not inspired by fiction, they were inspired by a particular quirk of quantum physics; the laser was thought of as something entirely useless, no more than a lab toy, for years after its invention.
Miguel Alcubierre was inspired by Trek, but his original theory was pretty much useless, as his drive would have required an energy output equivalent to destroying the entire planet Jupiter in order to put a 30-meter spacecraft into warp. Harold White later refined the theory, but he was more inspired by trying to make existing space travel easier (you could use such a bubble to reduce the inertia on a spacecraft, enabling greater accelerations with less fuel).
There is much to praise in the intermingling of SF and science. But it's important, when doing so, to make sure you understand the science enough to know what's actually going on.
Exactly. Science-Fiction is not a substitute for Science-Education.
I like this little gem from the end of Stargate:SG-1's 200th episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2o2-k3kM6A
Overcharged credit balance where credit is due.
Do we know of a workable way to build a Dyson Sphere or Dyson Shell? nope. Might we figure it out eventually? who knows?
My character Tsin'xing
Also:
Back when Star Trek was still Star Trek and good (that means before jar jar, although in that particular case probably before voyager) they actually payed a lot of attention to scientific accuracy within the limits of possible. A lot of the technologies shown are theoretically possible.
You realize you could have simply started a new thread about this? Necroing is a no-no.
My character Tsin'xing