World Builders Handbook/Book 6?
- Thread starter DaltonCalford
- Start date
DFW said:
Case in point: cite a reference for this "falsification" please. Give us a link that specifically explains why E=MC² (and therefore relativity) has been proven to be incorrect because of this gamma-ray burst. And that shows how and why exactly the discoverer was "vilified".
Indeed, they were 'vilified', but not by everyone - more objective scientists sought answers and derived alternate theories that supported the observed measurements in a way that avoids violating dE = dMC^2.DFW said:
Einstein himself, went to great lengths to try to disprove his own theories (although he was not an applied physicist) - even to the point of declaring himself wrong in one key aspect - only to have experiments and others 'determine' that he was wrong about being wrong.
I myself, retain a very open mind regarding such things (and must admit to having a certain wish that speed light constraints can be overcome - which ties into the derivation of dE = dMC^2.)
Stating that dE = dMC^2 has been 'falsified', is however, rather a blatant, absolute, and obvious approach designed to get a reaction. It essentially 'vilifies' the scientific community and those who might put some credence in them.
Practically speaking, I fail to see little difference in stating that one of Einstein's theories has been uncategorically 'falsified' than implying that Scientists are never wrong and theories never abandoned.
At any rate, as with scientists who try to 'buck' conventional theories - both yourself and Blix have my respect for having your own opinions - regardless of how they fit with my own - just sharing mine in response.
Blix said:
Start with the history of GRB investigation. If you are a really a science type of person, as you've claimed, it'll take you about 5 minutes to track down. Actually, I'm shocked that you've never heard of this before. Now, if you are a kid you might be missing some of the pre internet era data like the declassified material from the US gov in ~73 or 78. But, with a little work you can find it....
DFW said:
Provide a reference here.
You're the one making the claim, you have to provide the reference. It's not up to everyone else to do your work for you.
While you're at it, provide a reference that proves that relativity is "falsified". I've tracked down a lot of links about GRBs, and while most say "there's a lot of energy released", none claim that relativity has been disproved as a result.
a very tedious discussion.......
What , exactly, does it have to do with any potential remake of Book 6, or World Builder's Handbook?
How exactly would any new planetary formation theories change the already inaccurate methods used in Traveller since 1977?
Would it be enough of a change to be noticeable?
If not, wouldn't it be better to use tools we have, such as Starform, or other obsolete model to make our 'astonishing realistic hard-science' TU? ( for the sake of internal consistency )
If so, then why not write a new sequence similar to the old one in the SRD?
or is it not important ( or noticeable ) enough to be worth the effort.......
What , exactly, does it have to do with any potential remake of Book 6, or World Builder's Handbook?
How exactly would any new planetary formation theories change the already inaccurate methods used in Traveller since 1977?
Would it be enough of a change to be noticeable?
If not, wouldn't it be better to use tools we have, such as Starform, or other obsolete model to make our 'astonishing realistic hard-science' TU? ( for the sake of internal consistency )
If so, then why not write a new sequence similar to the old one in the SRD?
or is it not important ( or noticeable ) enough to be worth the effort.......
DFW said:
No, you're just using weasel words again (as you did on CotI), and you're still not providing a reference when it is required of you (exactly as you did on CotI) because you evidently think that you're above offering proof for your statements.
I'm not asking you to link them for me here, I'm asking you to link them for everyone else to judge whether you know what you're talking about. You seem unwilling (afraid?) to do that though.
Fact is, relativity is has not been disproved, and has not been falsified by GRBs.
DFW said:
That's all?
<shrug>
been there, done that
It was even posted on these forums, but so long ago that the link is probably dead. Maybe I'll spruce it up a bit and post it again someday....
That's hardly related to all the new advances in planetary science that everyone goes on about, so why the arguments?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
DFW said:
which, actually, is a pretty good argument for simply choosing one that you like. :twisted:
Honestly, even trying to give the social stuff even the same veneer of accuracy that the current worldgen has is probably impossible simply due to the lack of quantifiable data on human behavior; or, one can equally argue, due to the overwhelming mass of data available. Either way, at the level the UWP represents, good luck.
Example: Atmos B or C + high Pop. Common traveller wisdom- impossible, who would live there (except native species, obviously) ? But, turns out that a world like Venus is potentially highly habitable and could support vast populations in earthlike environment. (see thread here somewhere). Plus de Change......
Example: The OTU: the OTU is so thouroughly meddled with, old and messed around that any attempt to make detailed prediction based on one planet (earth), about which we have limited data to start with (or too much) is not going to be much more than a statement of opinion.
Why ? Because The question isn't how does this make sense in terms of earth, but rather : how does this make sense in terms of societies that develop on what they know isn't their homeworld, are likely transplanted from a non-terran culture, are conquered or absorbed repeatedly, may or may not have to have base technology to survive, may or may not have interaction with profoundly alien cultures, creatures or environments that may or may not reflect intelligent meddling; and are able to import instead of innovate or speculate and then spend what 4000 years doing so ? And what does that have to do with earth ?
One can then simply work with the model we have (earth) but it shouldn;t surpriise us that it looks surprisingly earth like, and is pretty vague in any case.
Was that blathery enough ? God, I hope so.
Okay: to sum up and move back on topic: Book 6 was either fine or a travesty. Given the level of change in the science, nitpickery in the audience, and general reliance upon opinion for lack of anything better, I can't see how a new iteration would be much better, if even different.
On the other hand, the social and cultural data of any future society arecaptainjack23 said:
far more easy to handle than the physical data of the planet they inhabit,
because there is nothing that could contradict a description.
If someone tells me the diameter and density of a planet, I can find out
rather quickly whether the surface gravity he mentioned is plausible, but
if he tells me that the inhabitants of Planet Z love to go naked with a li-
ving Prozuppl around their neck, because this is how their ancestors ima-
gined the deity Schnupp-Butupp to look like, all I can do is nod wisely.
Aha!
Now we've come to the idea that the standard planet generation is okay enough
It's just the social stuff that's naff...
my system takes planet characteristics into account for population.
it takes a Pocket Empires social profile into account for tech level and after that, starport type.
3000 years of human experience?..WHICH human experience?????
Inuit?
Maori?
Apache?
Bedouin?
Sillan or some other Asian culture?
Norse?
Toltec?
all the rest is cultural stuff and tables and dice can gives hints but can't really take you too far.
A better approach is to work out the ecosystems and food chains, because so many cultural traits and beliefs have to do with food and food acquisition ( such as territory needs...look at the Aslan, for example, and compare to medeival Japanese. :twisted: ). Many large scale historical events as well....
Climate beyond simple temp table, which affects food production in the ecosystem sense.
Now we've come to the idea that the standard planet generation is okay enough
It's just the social stuff that's naff...
my system takes planet characteristics into account for population.
it takes a Pocket Empires social profile into account for tech level and after that, starport type.
3000 years of human experience?..WHICH human experience?????
Inuit?
Maori?
Apache?
Bedouin?
Sillan or some other Asian culture?
Norse?
Toltec?
all the rest is cultural stuff and tables and dice can gives hints but can't really take you too far.
A better approach is to work out the ecosystems and food chains, because so many cultural traits and beliefs have to do with food and food acquisition ( such as territory needs...look at the Aslan, for example, and compare to medeival Japanese. :twisted: ). Many large scale historical events as well....
Climate beyond simple temp table, which affects food production in the ecosystem sense.
