T5 vs Mongoose Traveler

[EDG]

why ?

Why what?

Again, why ?

I thought I just explained why - to avoid the arguments that the OP was complaining about. Arguments about planets having atmospheres that they shouldn't have - or guns that recoil when they shouldn't - arise because the systems used to design them are just plain wrong. If those systems are corrected however, then you end up with results that actually make sense, and therefore less arguments about such things. And no added complexity in the system either, since it's a matter of putting the right numbers in the tables etc.

Of course, then we'd end up with people complaining about how guns that they thought were recoilless really aren't, or how they actually like habitable planets with microgravity or whatever, so you can't please everyone I guess. :roll:

I guess part of the issue is always going to be that if I want to stand on research, most of my players have areas of knowledge far in advance of mine in various areas- what then ?

Unfortunately the nature of SF is that you are going to run into people who do actually know something about the science involved. Then you either make an effort to satisfy them by being realistic, or you say up front "OK everyone, this is just pure space opera/science fantasy, so don't jump on the lack of realism and just focus on the story". It really depends on whether they want a 2001-like realistic experience, or a cinematic/fantastic Star Wars-like experience.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

And there's nothing wrong with that. That said, I'd say that it's generally better all round if your planet isn't a scientific impossibility, and your gun is designed so that it does have the recoil that one would expect. From your perspective as a player, you shouldn't be inconvenienced in any way if that's the case.

why ?

Thing is, all this discussion is very much "behind the scenes". When you're playing the game or making your planets or tech, the results should ideally be realistic and at least should be be sensible/consistent. When you're using the results of those design systems that realism is still there but it's transparent. Then you can honestly say "yes, that gun should have X recoil", or "yes, this planet can have a breathable atmosphere" because they're actually designed on realistic principles, and not have arguments about whether it is or isn't possible because the writers of the design systems didn't do their research properly.

Again, why ?

Honestly, this would be a very valid issue for a dissertation - not doing research properly, or at least to the standards of the committee, but a game ? And honestly, I don't see that T5 or MongTrav have any differing approach to this issue - "make it real but very very playable."

I guess part of the issue is always going to be that if I want to stand on research, most of my players have areas of knowledge far in advance of mine in various areas- what then ?

"Okay, they fire a particle beam"

"In an atmosphere ?"

"Well, it's a charged PAW."

"Oh Christ, that old paper ?"

"Oh. Uh, well, its a magic disintegratorium wand, I guess."

"pshaw."

Me, I'm a professional and an expert. But not in High Energy Weaponry. One of my players is. Another is an Honest to God rocket scientist. Another helped invent the relational database concept. Ray guns, space flight and computing. Great.

Yeah, my Neuroscience and biology is spot on, but my lifetime is...well limited as far as getting several more PhDs for my game. So, there has to be a flow, a story to fall back on, to let them suspend disbelief...and let me tell you, handing out journal articles ain't gonna do it.

Cap

I agree, to a degree. But we all want or require different levels of details for different aspects of the game and I think discussing those issues, here on these boards, is a good thing, as we learn to understand where each of is coming from.

*And* if, say, a star system generation process, is created with enough thought and creativity, it would be perfectly possible to meet the needs of those who don't want/aren't interested in the science as well as those of us that are. It would just need some thinking about, is all.

[EDIT: for clarity]

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

...Guaran wouldn't have survived the D when it was in its Red Giant phase; it would have been swallowed up by the Red Giant as it expanded, before it becomes a D. Consequently, no Hivers in the OTU.

Hmmmmm. An excellent argument for increasing versimilitude. An OTU with no Mopheads. mmmmmmmmmmmm.

I kid. I love you guys. I have to. Now give me back the films.

No.

"Just imagine no more mopheads/It's easy if you try/
Just imagine all the starfish, bugg-ing some-one elseeee/
Oh you may say that I'm no Traveller/ but I'm not the only one...."

Johnniiinnniiii Lennonimanu
Vilani epic poet

... I can see we are going to have to educate you in the way of the Hiver. Come this way, Captain. Quietly. Now.

 

[captainjack23]

why ?

Why what?

Again, why ?

Actually I asked that. The "why" and "again why" refers to your premise that complete realism is an inherently necessary and sufficient goal for an RPG. Okay, it's a premise, but hardly a self-evident one. It requires a static truth to exist. Which isn't there yet.

Actually, I think I can stipulate that any planetary system table that is presented today as complete and realistic, has a better than 50% chance of being unrealistic in one year...and certainly so in ten. Proper research is an ongoing thing - an actual snapshot of the truth currently is....well, religion. Or an imaginary story.

I thought I just explained why - to avoid the arguments that the OP was complaining about. Arguments about planets having atmospheres that they shouldn't have - or guns that recoil when they shouldn't - arise because the systems used to design them are just plain wrong. If those systems are corrected however, then you end up with results that actually make sense, and therefore less arguments about such things.

Of course, then we'd end up with people complaining about how guns that they thought were recoilless really aren't, or how they actually like habitable planets with microgravity or whatever, so you can't please everyone I guess. :roll:

Yeah, I have noticed that.......

I guess part of the issue is always going to be that if I want to stand on research, most of my players have areas of knowledge far in advance of mine in various areas- what then ?

Unfortunately the nature of SF is that you are going to run into people who do actually know something about the science involved. Then you either make an effort to satisfy them by being realistic, or you say up front "OK everyone, this is just pure space opera/science fantasy, so don't jump on the lack of realism and just focus on the story". It really depends on whether they want a 2001-like realistic experience, or a cinematic/fantastic Star Wars-like experience.

Well, to each his own players, I guess. The thing is, the choice isn't as particularly clear cut/black and white as you put it. I'd like to think I make an effort to satisfy them by having a good solid interesting story/plot, one that allows them to suspend their disbelief somewhat, and have fun, not play the part of an adoring class taking notes at my lecture. Which I admit is my particular dichotomy; and an inaccurate one at that.

Honestly, if the details of the surface temperature of a star is the key glue holding your plot together, and the only thing you have to fall back on is claiming realism, where are the thrusters, FTL, Virus, and cold(ish) fusion going to fit ? I understand that planetology/Astrophysics is your thing; I'm sure you know a lot about it. But why is accuracy there so much more of an issue than violating the basics of the physical universe ? Yes, stellar evolution and planetary formation is part of the basics, but so is the rest.

2001, actually is a good illustration of my point. Like it or not, 2001 isn't without its own share of gaffes. The design of the Discovery, for one, and the gravity in the pod bay for another. We don't need to even point out the completely imaginary plot-mover jumpgate, I hope ?

That said, 2001 succeeds, and succeeds brilliantly because it is a heck of an involving story - while lots of people hate it for its pacing, or its lack of face coherence, I've never heard one person dis it for it's science flaws. Which it has. (Less than star wars, admittedly, but....) It ISN'T just a success because of its "hard" SF approach. Lord knows more than a few NASA and Famous Scientist co-produced movies have failed miserably, with science just as good; as have plenty of books.

[edited for bonehead spelling error]

 

[captainjack23]

...Guaran wouldn't have survived the D when it was in its Red Giant phase; it would have been swallowed up by the Red Giant as it expanded, before it becomes a D. Consequently, no Hivers in the OTU.

Hmmmmm. An excellent argument for increasing versimilitude. An OTU with no Mopheads. mmmmmmmmmmmm.

I kid. I love you guys. I have to. Now give me back the films.

No.

"Just imagine no more mopheads/It's easy if you try/
Just imagine all the starfish, bugg-ing some-one elseeee/
Oh you may say that I'm no Traveller/ but I'm not the only one...."

Johnniiinnniiii Lennonimanu
Vilani epic poet

... I can see we are going to have to educate you in the way of the Hiver. Come this way, Captain. Quietly. Now.

Okay, just let me run this mop thru the wringer, here...oh, sorry...honest mistake.

Wow. That looks painful.

 

[EDG]

Actually I asked that. The "why" and "again why" refers to your premise that complete realism is an inherently necessary and sufficient goal for an RPG. Okay, it's a premise, but hardly a self-evident one. It requires a static truth to exist. Which isn't there yet.

It doesn't "require a static truth to exist", it just requires sticking to what is currently known. Of course things are going to become less realistic as our knowledge of what we know of how the universe works evolves over time.

Realism in SF isn't some static, absolute thing. It's dynamic and relative to what is known at the time of publication.

Actually, I think I can stipulate that any planetary system table that is presented today as complete and realistic, has a better than 50% chance of being unrealistic in one year...and certainly so in ten. Proper research is an ongoing thing - an actual snapshot of the truth currently is....well, religion. Or an imaginary story.

Just because knowledge changes, that doesn't mean that it's not worth pursuing a realistic system. The problem with CT and most of the Traveller worldgen systems is that they're not even realistic on the most basic level - they have habitable planets orbiting red giants and white dwarfs, or worlds smaller than our own Moon with dense habitable atmospheres that they can't have. I'm not expecting super-high standards of realism, but I would like to see those howlers removed at the very least.

Honestly, if the details of the surface temperature of a star is the key glue holding your plot together, and the only thing you have to fall back on is claiming realism, where are the thrusters, FTL, Virus, and cold(ish) fusion going to fit ? I understand that planetology/Astrophysics is your thing; I'm sure you know a lot about it. But why is accuracy there so much more of an issue than violating the basics of the physical universe ? Yes, stellar evolution and planetary formation is part of the basics, but so is the rest.

The surface temperature of a star has little to do with anything (well, apart from the fact that it determines its colour...). The way I see it, a SF setting has certain axioms to it that make it what it is - mostly along the lines of whether or not FTL or aliens or psionics or usable lasers etc exist. But most don't specify much about the setting itself - unless those axioms specifically refute them, the assumption is that all the other physical laws of the universe are the same, and if they're not then you're really going into the realm of science fantasy which isn't grounded in our universe at all.

So to me at least, it's perfectly fine to have FTL and Virus and reactionless thrusters and all that because for all we know we may yet discover new scientific laws and energy sources and so on that allow us to access or create those. Maybe it's realistic, maybe it isn't, but there's still a lot of room to speculate in those arenas.

But Astronomy and Astrophysics is something we know a lot about already and as such it's a lot harder to justify a lack of realism there. You can say there's a habitable earthlike planet around a red giant star, but we KNOW that red giant stars are evolved main sequence stars, so any planet currently in the red giant's habitable zone had to be an iceball in the outer system (most likely a large icy moon, like Ganymede or Titan in our system) for most of the star's life, and only got warm now during the much briefer time that the star is a red giant. And we know that such bodies can't hold onto heavier atmospheres when they warm up, let alone nitrogen and oxygen. And we know that the luminosity of the star is changing on a relatively fast timescale while in the red giant phase.

All of that means that realistically you can't have a habitable, earthlike planet around a red giant. So saying that one is there throws the whole thing firmly into the realms of science fantasy because we KNOW it's completely impossible. Whereas saying that FTL or aliens or psionics or reactionless thrusters exist is stilll science fiction because they're still speculative - the possibility exists that a new physics will come along and allow those things to exist.

That's the difference really - it's the completely impossible (science fantasy) vs the speculative (science fiction).

 

[hdrider67]

Seems to me I've read a few stories in the last year or two that indicate we're not as sure about Red Giants being unable to support a habitable zone long enough for life to develop. To be sure, they wouldn't likely have sentient beings but if they managed to have vegetation, they would support colonists, if only for a few hundred million years at best.

 

[EDG]

Seems to me I've read a few stories in the last year or two that indicate we're not as sure about Red Giants being unable to support a habitable zone long enough for life to develop. To be sure, they wouldn't likely have sentient beings but if they managed to have vegetation, they would support colonists, if only for a few hundred million years at best.

A one solar mass star's relatively stable Horizontal Branch (HB) phase lasts about 90 million years. During that time the luminosity varies between about 11 and 13 Sols, and this is after its Red Giant Branch (RGB) phase where it went from 10 to 120 Sols in about 60 million years (see http://evildrganymede.net/rpg/traveller/stellar.htm for a layman's guide to stellar evolution).

So the habitable zone goes from around Mars orbit at the end of the subgiant phase, to near Jupiter at the start of the RGB phase, out to to Pluto at the end of the RGB phase, and then back to between Jupiter and Saturn for the HB phase. All of that in less than 150 million years... and that's the slowest evolution you can get during those phases since less massive stars haven't had anywhere near enough time to even reach their subgiant phase yet.

And as I said, you're not going to get rocky earth-size planets at those distances from the stars - they all form within the snow line. Even if you got one that was somehow ejected from the inner system (not an impossibility), the chance that it'd end up in a stable orbit in the star's future HB phase habitable zone is minimal at best.

 

[captainjack23]

The surface temperature of a star has little to do with anything (well, apart from the fact that it determines its colour...). The way I see it, a SF setting has certain axioms to it that make it what it is - mostly along the lines of whether or not FTL or aliens or psionics or usable lasers etc exist. But most don't specify much about the setting itself - unless those axioms specifically refute them, the assumption is that all the other physical laws of the universe are the same, and if they're not then you're really going into the realm of science fantasy which isn't grounded in our universe at all.

So to me at least, it's perfectly fine to have FTL and Virus and reactionless thrusters and all that because for all we know we may yet discover new scientific laws and energy sources and so on that allow us to access or create those. Maybe it's realistic, maybe it isn't, but there's still a lot of room to speculate in those arenas.

But Astronomy and Astrophysics is something we know a lot about already and as such it's a lot harder to justify a lack of realism there. You can say there's a habitable earthlike planet around a red giant star, but we KNOW that red giant stars are evolved main sequence stars, so any planet currently in the red giant's habitable zone had to be an iceball in the outer system (most likely a large icy moon, like Ganymede or Titan in our system) for most of the star's life, and only got warm now during the much briefer time that the star is a red giant. And we know that such bodies can't hold onto heavier atmospheres when they warm up, let alone nitrogen and oxygen. And we know that the luminosity of the star is changing on a relatively fast timescale while in the red giant phase.

Okay. If all of the criticism of CT and Scientificism is based on the problem of red supergiant planets, fine. It seems to fall under the category of "draw a line thru it and move on", but who am I to say what ruins a game for you. However, read on.

All of that means that realistically you can't have a habitable, earthlike planet around a red giant. So saying that one is there throws the whole thing firmly into the realms of science fantasy because we KNOW it's completely impossible. Whereas saying that FTL or aliens or psionics or reactionless thrusters exist is stilll science fiction because they're still speculative - the possibility exists that a new physics will come along and allow those things to exist.

Five to ten years ago torch orbit Jovians were impossible. Let's start there.
If you are willing to deal with a violation of causality and lightspeed by waving "new physical laws into existence, I do not see why you can reasonably be so doctrinaire about much less well developed areas of physical science.

The fact is, you are wrong. Red giants often have inhabited planets; their evolution is grossly misunderstood by our crude science. similarly, small rockballs can and do have reasonable atmospheres, water, and native life. How do I know ? I posit (or allow for) a new theory of stellar evolution. Why not ? FTL is up for grabs. A fundamental building block of the universe. One which no serious science has shown any evidence for violation of on any kind of macro scale if at all.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just do not see where one is sound and one isn't. If you want one, then you need to deal with the other. Or admit that what you have is a personal view of the game, and not an ironclad primary truth. AND that is fine. Just don't try and pass it off as other than what it is.

That's the difference really - it's the completely impossible (science fantasy) vs the speculative (science fiction).

FTL and reactionless thrusters are impossible. Period. By laws as immutable as what you cite for starsytems say so. I'm fine with deciding where to draw the line for your personal preferences, really I am.
You want what you want, and you call it what you want and to pick and choose what works and doesn't . Fine. Why the need to wrap your ideas in the flag of science ? In the final analysis, all you are is playing "lets imagine" which is fine, but also" my imagine is better because I claim it isn't imaginary".

Its just hard to take the mantle of "respect for realism" seriously in this case because of the amazingly lopsided approach that you have to what is real and what isn't; or at least to your judgement of what scientific realism is and what it isn't.

 

[captainjack23]

see http://evildrganymede.net/rpg/traveller/stellar.htm for a layman's guide to stellar evolution).

Actually, that is a pretty good summary - but -is it recent ? Are there citations ? is the author you ? Citing yourself as a source for your opinions isn't exactly the most solid foundation for an argument. I mean, even professional experts have to provide citations.

 

[EDG]

Five to ten years ago torch orbit Jovians were impossible. Let's start there.

They were never "impossible". Theory just couldn't explain how they'd get in such orbits.

If you are willing to deal with a violation of causality and lightspeed by waving "new physical laws into existence, I do not see why you can reasonably be so doctrinaire about much less well developed areas of physical science.

That's your problem then - personally I see no reason why it has to be "all or nothing".

The fact is, you are wrong.

No, I'm actually correct.

Red giants often have inhabited planets; their evolution is grossly misunderstood by our crude science. similarly, small rockballs can and do have reasonable atmospheres, water, and native life. How do I know ? I posit (or allow for) a new theory of stellar evolution. Why not ?

Because existing theories of stellar evolution aren't going to get overturned. The physics is rock solid and backed up by extensive observation. The only way you'd be right is if physics did a backflip between now and the future posited in Traveller, and it won't.

FTL is up for grabs. A fundamental building block of the universe. One which no serious science has shown any evidence for violation of on any kind of macro scale if at all.

Wormholes are theoretically possible and are FTL. You can even get them to not violate causality if you're in them for a length of time equivalent to their length in lightyears. Plus you have other exotic alternatives like the Alcubierre drive.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just do not see where one is sound and one isn't. If you want one, then you need to deal with the other. Or admit that what you have is a personal view of the game, and not an ironclad primary truth. AND that is fine. Just don't try and pass it off as other than what it is.

I've never tried to pass it off as anything other than my personal view of SF. But by the same token you also shouldn't try to pass off your view that it's "all or nothing" as an ironclad truth either.

FTL and reactionless thrusters are impossible. Period. By laws as immutable as what you cite for starsytems say so.

That's very much a matter of your own opinion. In the 1800s, scientists would have scoffed at claims that it was impossible to age more slowly by travelling fast, but then Einstein came along and showed that it was actually possible. I'm not so close-minded as to believe that relativity is the ultimate expression of physics - something is bound to come along and expand on it later (just like it expanded on Newtonian physics), and for all we know that theory will show that FTL and reactionless thrusters are a possibility. Or maybe it won't - but the option is there nonetheless.

In the final analysis, all you are is playing "lets imagine" which is fine, but also" my imagine is better because I claim it isn't imaginary".

Maybe you're unaware of this, but I do actually know about this stuff - I studied it for 11 years and have a PhD in it. My claims are backed up by a lot of scientific papers.

Its just hard to take the mantle of "respect for realism" seriously in this case because of the amazingly lopsided approach that you have to what is real and what isn't; or at least to your judgement of what scientific realism is and what it isn't.

I know a fully realistic game is going to be a very different beast to what Traveller is. No Scifi is fully realistic - the whole point of it is that it's speculative fiction. By its very nature it has to have something in it that extrapolates or conjectures about what is or isn't possible. That's why I said that SF settings usually have their own reality-bending axioms that make them what they are, but everything else remains the same.

By your logic, if scifi bends one of the laws of nature then it has to bend all of them, and that just isn't borne out by any of the scifi that's been published. Star Wars may be science fantasy with laser swords and The Force, but gravity is still gravity, and objects are still attracted to large masses.

 

[EDG]

Actually, that is a pretty good summary - but -is it recent ? Are there citations ? is the author you ? Citing yourself as a source for your opinions isn't exactly the most solid foundation for an argument. I mean, even professional experts have to provide citations.

It's a layman's summary I wrote that I thought would be useful for RPGs. I wrote it a few years ago but it's still generally current.

It's true that there's no references (yes, I should probably list some there) - I collated the info from a lot of sources including the Geneva Stellar Evolution Grids and their associated papers, various textbooks ("Stars and their Spectra" by James Kaler and "Stellar Structure and Evolution" by Pralnik), and various course outlines on the web (which themselves have been summarised on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution ).

 

[captainjack23]

I sure feel that you missed what I was trying to say: I didn't doubt your qualifications, or your facts, I just think they are , well , over inflated. I'm sure you're right, it's just irrelevent and inconsistent, as I see it.

It's pretty clear that you are only reading my posts for arguing points. In all fairness, I'm probably doing the same.

Since we have gotten to the point where waving our Vitae and beating our chests is next, AND we're the only ones left in the room, shall we just disagree with no concessions to either side and move on ? Irreconcilable differences, I guess.

Turn out the lights on the way out, okay ?

Cap

Quick note: I was editing this post while EDG was responding - sorry about that; my kids interrupted my first post, and I needed to come back to it.

 

[EDG]

Okay, since we have gotten to the point where waving our Vitae is next, AND we're the only ones in the room, shall we just disagree with no concessions to either side and move on ?

I'd rather you actually understood and responded to what I was actually saying rather than claim that I'm saying something else, but whatever - it's clear that we're talking past eachother.

 

[SableWyvern]

Because existing theories of stellar evolution aren't going to get overturned. The physics is rock solid and backed up by extensive observation. The only way you'd be right is if physics did a backflip between now and the future posited in Traveller, and it won't.

That's an unfortunate claim to need to rely on, even if it's perfectly defensible.

From the layman's (ie, my) perspective, it's nothing more than scientific arrogance at its worst. Given that we have a history of solid, inviolable truths that turn out to be flawed or incomplete, and a lot of cutting edge science that's utterly unintuitive, contradictive and outright crazy (and often controversial within the scientific community as well), it doesn't take more than a healthy, realistic dose of cynicism to disregard such grandiose claims.

Unfortunately, even if there is an excellent basis for that sort of claim, it would require either blind faith or years of study to be able to rely on it. It's one thing to say to the layman, "This is the truth as we know it, and you should work on the assumption we're correct." I take a lot of scientific opinion at face value, on that basis. It's another entirely to expect someone to accept that, "We'll never be proven wrong in any significant fashion."

 

[EDG]

Unfortunately, even if there is an excellent basis for that sort of claim, it would require either blind faith or years of study to be able to rely on it. It's one thing to say to the layman, "This is the truth as we know it, and you should work on the assumption we're correct." I take a lot of scientific opinion at face value, on that basis. It's another entirely to expect someone to accept that, "We'll never be proven wrong in any significant fashion."

Well the basis for that claim is in the solidity of the science. There's plenty of areas of science where the uncertainties are such that one simply can't say "this is never going to change". Relativity was proposed because there were a a few major uncertainties and oddities about Newtonian gravity, and it solved those problems... but there are still a few more nagging issues with relativity even though they're a lot more obscure and much less obvious to anyone who isn't a deep student of the field. So maybe one day someone will come up with a testable theory that will extend the relativistic universe and reveal new possibilities to us that for all we know may include more options for FTL travel (and as I said, there are already options for FTL travel, like wormholes).

But stars? There are no such fundamental uncertainties there (at least, none that are remotely credible. You get the odd wacko claiming that all stars are powered by black holes or something, but there's no evidence for that whatsoever and a lot of reasons why they can't be). We went through the "uncertainty" stage there a couple of centuries ago (e.g. when Kelvin proposed that stars were powered by gravitational contraction alone, but that generates far too little heat on its own), but now we KNOW how they're powered and how they work. They fuse hydrogen atoms in their core to make helium, and that releases energy. When that hydrogen fuel is used up, we know how the structure of the star changes because we know how the interplay between gravity and pressure works in the star. So we know it'll get bigger and cooler when it burns hydrogen in a shell around the helium core, or when it starts to burn helium and so on. We know there's a lot less helium than hydrogen, and so we know the stage where it burns helium can't last for long, which is how we know the red giant phases are short.

All of this follows on from what came before. It's well known and well understood, and it's not going to change on a general level, any more than our understanding of what fire is, or what liquids are is going to change. While there are mysteries on an specific level - for example, why does one star act a certain way while others act differently (probably down to differences in chemical makeup), or how do shockwaves travel through stars - the knowledge about their general evolution is rock solid.

Ditto for planets - there's a lot of specific mysteries, but we know that a planet with a given mass and radius needs to be at a certain temperature to be able to hold onto specific gases, and if those conditions aren't met then it will lose them. Again, specifics can change that - strong solar wind could strip atoms off faster than anticipated, or maybe some chemical effects in the atmosphere or a strong planetary magnetic field can delay the atmospheric loss - but all things being equal, the general details are solid.

And all of it is based on observation and experimentation. When the theories of relativity or radioactivity came along they didn't change reality itself - just our understanding of it. Planets continued to move around their orbits as they had always done before, and radioisotopes continued to decay and emit particles just as they'd done before. The only difference was that we had a better idea of what was going on (and in some cases had learned to actually recognise what we were seeing for the first time). We didn't suddenly throw away Newtonian Gravity and declare that things like F=Ma weren't valid anymore, because they still worked and still agreed with what was observed in general situations.

So even if a new theory of stellar evolution was to come along, it wouldn't change anything I've said about it here. Stars will still shine by the fusion of light elements into heavier ones in their interiors, and they'll still expand and contract based on how quickly they burn their fuel and what they're burning. Any brand new theory of stellar evolution still has to explain everything we've already observed, after all.

Perhaps I overstated it by saying that it'd never change, but I am extremely, supremely confident that the general picture of stellar evolution that I described in my article is valid and that sequence of events will not be changed even if any new theories come along and supplant what we know already.

I am not, however, anywhere near as confident that Relativity is anywhere near as inviolate and that it will remain unchallenged in the future, and in fact I am quite sure that something better will probably come along to expand on it within the next century. For example, we don't have a unified "theory of everything" yet, where gravity is wrapped in with the other unified forces - if relativity was so inviolate and so certain then we surely wouldn't be searching so hard for such a theory and investigating all these exotic membranes, string theories and multidimensional sub-quantum knots in the process. If and when we do pull it all together then the resulting theory may tell us that yes, actually it is possible to circumvent the speed of light in certain circumstances. Or it may not - but the "fundamental principle" that captainjack claimed is inviolate clearly has a question mark hanging over it. Whereas we know exactly how much energy one gets out of fusing hydrogen to helium and how that works, so it isn't so dubious.


Maybe part of the problem is that while the statement "This is the truth as we know it, and you should work on the assumption we're correct." is perfectly valid, a lot of laymen that I've seen appear to twist that into "This is the truth as we know it, but you should work on the assumption that we're wrong" with no good reason to do so, and then use that as an excuse to toss science out of the window on general principle because they don't like the implications. That might be part of the reason why I come out as so defensive about it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Maybe part of the problem is that while the statement "This is the truth as we know it, and you should work on the assumption we're correct." is perfectly valid, a lot of laymen that I've seen appear to twist that into "This is the truth as we know it, but you should work on the assumption that we're wrong" with no good reason to do so, and then use that as an excuse to toss science out of the window on general principle because they don't like the implications. That might be part of the reason why I come out as so defensive about it.

When you take the number of anecdotes and historical examples of science being shown to be wrong (even if many of these stories are actually exagerated in the telling) and combine that with stuff like crazy (but experimentally proven) quantum physics, I don't think it's any surprise that people want to dismiss claims of scientific certainty, or focus on the qualifications that come with those claims.

How does the average (or even above average) person differentiate when wild fringe theories and solid science can look just about identical? How often do accepted current models rely on making observational data fit the theory, and how do the uninitiated tell when this is happening? Why accept unintuitive and crazy sounding theories that aren't going to have a measurable effect on your daily life anyway?

I came across Universal/Stellar Plasma theories a while ago (can't recall the actual term, but I'm guessing you'll know what I'm talking about), and it took me quite a while and considerable effort to reach the conclusion that it appeared in fact to be bad science.

Something similar happens over on RPG.net whenever somebody starts questioning global warming. These people get jumped on and told that the evidence is self-evident and any moron can work out global warming is real, man-made, and a serious problem. The reality is, if you're starting from a clean slate, it's damn hard to sift through everything out there and determine what is and is not credible science.

Finally, the lack of credibility inherent in any random forum post is, for many people, going to hinder any attempt to educate them (as it should). I've got no reason to doubt any claims you've made in this thread, and I'm assuming you're mostly correct. But (and I say this with no disrespect intended), if I discover tomorrow that every scientific fact you've rested your case upon turns out to be utter garbage, I will be utterly unsurprised. 'Cause, you know, it's the internet. 8)

 

[EDG]

How does the average (or even above average) person differentiate when wild fringe theories and solid science can look just about identical? How often do accepted current models rely on making observational data fit the theory, and how do the uninitiated tell when this is happening? Why accept unintuitive and crazy sounding theories that aren't going to have a measurable effect on your daily life anyway?

Well ideally they differentiate it by educating themselves (preferably from as many sources as possible). But the problem is that most people are too lazy to do that, or too entrenched in their own opinions to be bothered. Plus, frankly, people don't respect scientists or science (or even just plain knowledge) nowadays. It's just easier to pour scorn or doubt a claim from someone than to check its veracity - particularly if (as is the case with quantum physics) it "feels" wrong. "Truthiness" tends to win over "truth".

I came across Universal/Stellar Plasma theories a while ago (can't recall the actual term, but I'm guessing you'll know what I'm talking about), and it took me quite a while and considerable effort to reach the conclusion that it appeared in fact to be bad science.

"Electric Universe"? Yeah, it's a load of codswallop. There are certainly plenty of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, but the EU nuts would have you believe that EM is responsible for absolutely every physical phenomenon in the universe.

Finally, the lack of credibility inherent in any random forum post is, for many people, going to hinder any attempt to educate them (as it should). I've got no reason to doubt any claims you've made in this thread, and I'm assuming you're mostly correct. But (and I say this with no disrespect intended), if I discover tomorrow that every scientific fact you've rested your case upon turns out to be utter garbage, I will be utterly unsurprised. 'Cause, you know, it's the internet. 8)

Sure. But I know my claims can be backed up from reliable sources and by observations and experimentation - otherwise I wouldn't make the claims . But it's true that there are plenty of people on the internet who don't think like that and post with other motivations.

 

[SableWyvern]

Why accept unintuitive and crazy sounding theories that aren't going to have a measurable effect on your daily life anyway?

Well ideally they differentiate it by educating themselves (preferably from as many sources as possible). But the problem is that most people are too lazy to do that, or too entrenched in their own opinions to be bothered. Plus, frankly, people don't respect scientists or science (or even just plain knowledge) nowadays. It's just easier to pour scorn or doubt a claim from someone than to check its veracity - particularly if (as is the case with quantum physics) it "feels" wrong. "Truthiness" tends to win over "truth".

Note the section of my comment I didn't cut in the quote. It can be a lot of work to educate yourself on these sorts of things. If the benefit of that effort is marginal at best (my quality of life is unlikely to affected whether or not I understand the principles behind Schroedinger's Box), then why bother? OTOH, if you can't be bothered, you're not really justified in trying to argue vehemently with someone who has put in that effort.

For myself, I've learned to reserach when I care, and if I can't be bothered doing so, or make the attempt but get lost in the esotericism of it all, I just fall back on, "It's true because they say it is, until they say otherwise."

"Electric Universe"? Yeah, it's a load of codswallop. There are certainly plenty of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, but the EU nuts would have you believe that EM is responsible for absolutely every physical phenomenon in the universe.

That sounds like the one. It seemed pretty cool, and I was disapointed when I had to discard it as worthless.

 

[GamerDude]

I'm going to sum my evaluation of Marc Miller's "reality and proper use of science"...

WTF? the game works, its fun, and it's a classic.



Now everyone to their own corners and stop yer arguin. {grin}