World Builders Handbook/Book 6?

[rust]

Some Traveller players prefer to pronounce the genre science fiction, and
some prefer to pronounce it science fiction ...

Both is fine with me, variety is rarely a problem. While I am very much on
the science fiction side and like at least a "Wikipedia level" of realism for
my settings, I am also very much aware that Traveller can also be played
more space opera like with just as much fun.

Still, a certain level of "scientific accuracy" has its distinct advantages, es-
pecially for longer campaigns.

Staying within the framework of real world science as much as possible in
a science fiction game automatically prevents extreme contradictions and
creates a level of coherence that makes it easier to explain and to under-
stand the setting, which is good for the suspension of disbelief.

Referee and players can use the same real world sources for most of the
setting's science and technology. This makes it possible for the players to
look up basic informations about the setting's science and technology, and
also to use them in order to contribute their own ideas to the setting.

It also eliminates much of the problem that a character should know a lot
more about the setting than the player does, because the player at least
knows the basic rules of how things work in the setting if he knows - or
can look up - how they do it in the real world.

In the end, it usually takes a little more effort to design a mostly realistic
setting, but one gets a setting the players can more easily understand
and feel familiar with on a basic level - less new ropes to learn, and lo-
gical connections between those ropes.

 

[DFW]

Sorry that 'theory' was found in error quite some time ago...

Sorry, no theory involved there. Just observed physical universe phenomenon.

 

[DFW]

I made no 'interpretation of reality' - nor did I anywhere state 'scientists were delusional'*. You have misread my statement - and made some very invalid assumptions.

I've learned that in order to work Blix into a lather all one has to do is mention that a scientist is possibly not correct or 100% right. He'll hunt down the thread and make wild & inaccurate accusations as to what you write and think. Pretty sad really. I understand what point you are making BP.

 

[BP]

Sorry that 'theory' was found in error quite some time ago...

Sorry, no theory involved there. Just observed physical universe phenomenon.

Theory has multiple definitions in common use.

I put 'theory' in quotes in relation to the fact that the idea (including that such had violated Einstien's theories) had not been tested nor was widely accepted by the scientific community. As it was speculation based on the analysis of observations - it was most certainly a theory in the definition of the word.

I didn't state the measured observations were in error - it was the interpretations of the measured observations that were in error. The interpretations were the 'theory'.

Such has also been the case with 'observed' super-luminal velocity ejecta - simple explanations regarding the techniques of the observations and known phenomena have explained these without violating Einstein's theories.

In relation to Blix's posts...

Science progresses because of theories - and because of errors. Qualification and clarification of both play a huge role in advancing knowledge and are the subject of massive investments in resources. Many theories turn out to be wrong - and are simply discarded. Others are merely modified from general cases to special cases. It is all part of the pursuit of knowledge.

Our planetary and space probes are quite regularly changing our view of our 'reality' - disproving old theories and making way for new ones. Time and time again this has happened.

As to MGT - the problem is that reality does not conform to what has already been made (canon), the authors are not planetary scientists, and this is a field of active research where things are constantly being changed. Case in point - no probe has yet visited Pluto (New Horizons is on its way) - so we can expect some theories to be validated and some changed (and some, perhaps, completely discarded).

I quite concur with the idea that Traveller authors should make an attempt to create rule systems that maintain a semblance of attachment to reality in so far as areas we are already familiar with in science. But their main objective is to produce a playable game, not a science text (which are often invalidated in some way in short order anyway).

In the case of MGT there are further restrictions imposed by their license.

For my part, IMTU, I have a 3D TU and my solar systems are fully 3D and account for a great many 'scientific' aspects that, for me, make things more enjoyable. Adding these touches of 'realism' comes at a cost of complexity that is beyond the average gamer (I, in fact have been using computers with Traveller since day 1 of my exposure to CT). And, while I use this approach to provide a 'richer' universe for my players (including spectra plots for stars and planets complete with chemical compositions of atmos) - I am also quick to point out to them that my details are still based on application of over-simplified equations and theories. It is a game, not a science lesson (and would be a poor venue for such if it is to remain playable) - my details add flavor only.

Even then I 'handwave' many aspects of science I know to exist and mechanics that are too much work to simulate (relational movement between star systems, orbital position based variations in planetary 'days', wobble, effects of solar winds, etc, etc.).

One thing I like to do is make MTU conform, where possible, with things like the UWP (even my 3D TU conforms when directly projected). I've never really had a problem doing this - as long as the design rules remain somewhat vague. I.e., providing an equation that generates average planetary temperature range is vague enough - trying to 'define' the temperature for a given location 'based on UWP' is not (way too freaking simplistic it is silly - random selection is more 'believable'). Likewise, providing orbital slots is fine (even if they conflict with existing or future theories) - providing 'exact' distances easily breaks playability or reality (can't have it both ways).

A well designed WBH would provide for enjoyable roleplay in the Space Opera format as well as the non-conflicting opportunity for 'hard science' lovers to extend their universes (with a few smiles and snickers to certain fictional rules). CT Book 6 was by no means realistic, but it was general enough to work with a hard science setting (if one ignored certain facts) and also meet the needs of the majority of gamers who neither cared about 'reality' in their game, nor had the knowledge to realize its discrepancies.

Traveller can be a great exposure to science for people of all ages. But, like cartoons and movies, it should not be mistaken for, nor defined as, 'realistic', that is simply not its venue. It has never been even remotely 'hard science-fiction' - gravitics, jump, psionics, to name but the basics, all preclude that. It also does not account for relativistic effects, specific health issues with abnormal gravities, high velocity and high energy impacts to ships, etc., etc. Doing so in the vaguest of terms is possible - being 'realistic' about it is impractical as a pen and paper game.

 

[rust]

Traveller can be a great exposure to science for people of all ages. But, like cartoons and movies, it should not be mistaken for, nor defined as, 'realistic', that is simply not its venue.

I suspect the main difference between our points of view is where we see
the border between a "realistic" and an "unrealistic" setting, in other words
the degree of scientific accuracy required to make something "realistic".

For me, a setting is "realistic" if it does not violate the basic laws of nature
as we currently understand them, except for those pieces of "magic" like
FTL drives that are necessary to create a science fiction setting.

 

[DFW]

Such has also been the case with 'observed' super-luminal velocity ejecta -

I think you have a confusion. This isn't about super-luminal speeds. It is about how much energy a given mass can create based on E=MC2...

 

[rust]

It is about how much energy a given mass can create based on E=MC2...

Since the current theory of high energy gamma ray burst progenitors is
one of a neutron star-black hole-merger, and the given mass of a black
hole is rather difficult to determine, this is a somewhat moot point.

 

[Sevya]

Since the current theory of high energy gamma ray burst progenitors is
one of a neutron star-black hole-merger, and the given mass of a black
hole is rather difficult to determine, this is a somewhat moot point.

Can't the mass of a black hole be determined by local gravity, as observed by gravitic lensing?

Sevya

 

[BP]

Such has also been the case with 'observed' super-luminal velocity ejecta -

I think you have a confusion. This isn't about super-luminal speeds. It is about how much energy a given mass can create based on E=MC2...

Nope - that was an added example of a similar case.

I suspect the main difference between our points of view is where we see the border between a "realistic" and an "unrealistic" setting, in other words the degree of scientific accuracy required to make something "realistic".

Certainly. That is the reason I use quotes around the word. It has various interpretations.

I try to provide context - like some specifics about my own TU and gaming details - but alas, we are at the mercy of the medium.

To me, realistic means it can be applied in reality - and work. Such is not generally even the case for say first year study physics, engineering or electrical formulas, for example. Much less what can be encompassed in a gaming book.

My definition of 'realistic' is a lot stricter than most - which is part of my point. The vocal critics of CT: Book 6, for example, due to its 'unrealistic' nature are a minority. Because of a minority, at least as far as I can tell, Mongoose is not producing the equivalent.

This is a shame, as the majority would be happy with whatever they produce. (I myself would, like with so many other books - buy it and then only use maybe 10% that suits me )

 

[rust]

Can't the mass of a black hole be determined by local gravity, as observed by gravitic lensing?

The problem is that all high energy gamma ray burst progenitors were ex-
tragalactic, and there are no reliable data about the objects in question for
the time before they created the gamma ray burst - they were simply too
far away to be part of the databases.

So all we can do is to observe the gamma ray burst and then calculate its
energy and come up with an event that would be powerful enough to pro-
duce this energy - and the current theory favours neutron stars falling in-
to black holes.

To determine whether this is the right guess, and not just fancy mathema-
tics, we would have to observe the neutron star and the black hole before
they merge. Unfortunately there is not much of a chance to discover any
neutron star at an extragalactic distance, and only really giant black holes
like those at the centers of some galaxies can be found by the gravitatio-
nal effects they cause.

 

[DFW]

Nope - that was an added example of a similar case.

I'm not talking about a similar case. Similar isn't the same...

 

[BP]

Since the current theory of high energy gamma ray burst progenitors is
one of a neutron star-black hole-merger, and the given mass of a black
hole is rather difficult to determine, this is a somewhat moot point.

Can't the mass of a black hole be determined by local gravity, as observed by gravitic lensing?

Sevya

Don't forget that the accuracy of our measurements of physical phenomena that are light years from us can be rather limited - and distance factors into all the interpretations of the data. (Doubly so in the case of gravitic lensing).

For most of the observable universe, measures of distance are extremely difficult and astronomers are happy if they get within a factor of two.

Hipparcos greatly increased our accuracy of 'nearby' objects (within 100 pc.), hopefully the Space Interferometry Mission will make even better accuracy possible (don't know that that mission has been approved or funded, though).

 

[BP]

Nope - that was an added example of a similar case.

I'm not talking about a similar case. Similar isn't the same...

That is the definition of the word, yes.

The case was of a 'theory' violating Einstein's theory, being disproved.

 

[DFW]

Since the current theory of high energy gamma ray burst progenitors is one of a neutron star-black hole-merger, and the given mass of a black hole is rather difficult to determine, this is a somewhat moot point.

No, it isn't. Using the scientific method, one can't propose a theory that isn't subject to current falsification attempts to resurrect a falsified theory. Scientists do this because they go into a major spin trying to cling to what they are comfortable with. Which is why for 5 years they vilified the scientist who discovered they phenomenon even though the evidence of discovery was childsplay to duplicate and as plain as the nose on your face...

 

[rust]

Don't forget that the accuracy of our measurements of physical phenomena that are light years from us can be rather limited - and distance factors into all the interpretations of the data.

Indeed, and the gamma ray burst that caused the debate about Eintein's
theories originated 12 billion lightyears from us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_971214

 

[rust]

Using the scientific method, one can't propose a theory that isn't subject to current falsification attempts to resurrect a falsified theory.

On the other hand, one cannot falsify a theory with only an interpretation
of observation data, especially when there are other interpretations of the
same data that do not contradict the theory in question.

 

[DFW]

Using the scientific method, one can't propose a theory that isn't subject to current falsification attempts to resurrect a falsified theory.

On the other hand, one cannot falsify a theory with only an interpretation
of observation data, especially when there are other interpretations of the
same data that do not contradict the theory in question.

The amount of energy received on this end and the distances involved aren't really in question. Ergo, see inverse square LAW and E=MC2. Like I said, the discoverer was vilified and pilloried because it meant a successful falsification of the formula... Which of course shows that the scientists involved are more kin to priests that scientists...

 

[Blix]

I've learned that in order to work Blix into a lather all one has to do is mention that a scientist is possibly not correct or 100% right.

No, you just have to make wild and inaccurate accusations about what scientists claim and what their motivations are, and go on about how "myopic" or "deluded" or "wrong" they are. You did that on CotI, you refused to justify or provide evidence for any of your claims there, and now you're starting it again here.

 

[rust]

The amount of energy received on this end and the distances involved aren't really in question.

This runs straight into the problem of cosmological redshift. Since the rate
of expansion of the universe over the last 12 billion years is not known with
any degree of certainty, the redshift measurement of an object 12 billion
lightyears distant is at best an educated guess. So, yes the distance is in
question.

 

[DFW]

So, yes the distance is in
question.

Not to the degree that it puts E=MC2 back into play. Sorry to break the "bad" news to ya.