The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Where do you draw the line between science and science fiction? Can science really be fiction? Is all science fiction until proven otherwise?

Do you really think science has limits, and can anything never happen?

All of the supernatural events have a certain amount of credibility until scientific proof deems them fiction, yet there is so much we have yet to understand in the universe.

One word

Probability.

Dang spell checker!

Plausibility.

Can science really "prove" anything? Science is all just theory really, for now anyway.

Guess what, the Proponents of Supernatural BS are unable to comprehend, or even agree on a summation of such supposed phenomena.

The cope out is cliché.. " Unknown", "mysterious"

Even " Science can't explain ( prove) everything" is cliché.

science, together with illusionist, and psycology have successfully exposed
what supernaturalist insisted was " proof" in support of their extraordinary claims. The very fact that not one die hard supernaturalist that claims to perform such feats has yet to demonstrate satisfactorly escapes the True Believers mind.

So really why bash science?

Pardon my intensity. It is just that sheesh really what significant contrabution has any " mysterious" event, or feat ever accomplished ( except for entertainment).

I do not dare to debate with you dabbler, but all science was "fiction" at one point or the another...that's all I'm sayin'.

Vampires are fiction now, in 100 years....you never know.

vampires are fiction as far as we know....
yet they recently figured out how the 10 plagues of egypt happened...why not vampires?


as for science and fiction...

in the 40 clark wrote a fiction story about a satalite that bounced radio signals back to earth allowing instant communication anywhere with anyone.
that was laughed at ...
today is common.

i had a student as me about the limits of science the other day.

if we do not kill ourselves, i suspect there may be no limits at all.

~W~

Thank you for not being offended by my urgency.

Science is a process, it includes, and exist along with many "oligies"

Fronteirs still exist. But junk science, and psuedo science are stumbling over progressive advancement, often with the intent to obtain grants for claimed development of break throughs. Mean while every legit project is
hyped by psuedo science as " Doom expirments", psuedo science, and metaphysist clog the trail if science progress.

They cater to people with sensational expectations that are jaded already by current actual engineering, and even medical science breakthroughs.

One needs to consider that science fiction writers where educated people with degrees, and their spectulation was based in part on
inside exposure to research and development.

To simply say, anything is possible is not rational, to ask what is perceivable, or plausible is what motivated engineers to design, and develop, not only the prototypes, but the means ( tools, and material) to fabricate such prototypes.

an example of hypathetical is Nanobots. Yet there are psuedo scientist ( guys without credible degrees or peer approval) that seek grants to develop on what they claim to be feisible designs for nanobots, but they are not forthcoming with journals, or any account for how they overcame the default
hurdles that defy engineers that keeps nanobots hypathetical.

Nanobots aren't hypothetical. Nanotech is something that's been around, at least as an idea, for a long time and there are many examples of basic nanomachines.

Now, a nanobot that can reproduce and fix say, a blood cell, ya that's hypothetical in the sense that it hasn't been created physically but it isn't pure theory. Numbers are theory in the sense that you can't hold a "5" in your hand, but numbers do exist. And with that, the foundational science behind complicated nanomachines is well studied, therefore there isn't anything that says a physical example of an advanced nanobot isn't possible.

Like Dab said, science is a process. The process of science gives way to the studies (-ology) of various fields (geology, biology, etc) and those fields are filled with hard, physical evidences as well as theories. Yes many things start out as theory but once it passes into "fact" the chances of it being debunked is rather small.

People say "well we used to think the world was flat, back then that was "fact"" no, I'm sorry it wasn't. It was an idea. It didn't have actual science backing it up. It had apparent logic supporting it for a time but if they were to use fairly simple mathematics they would have seen the fact of the Earths roundness.

According to quantum physics, at least one branch of it, not only are things plausible but everything literally is possible and happens/happened at every moment, in some universe. Now, our universe is governed by certain laws but so is the greater multiverse..we just don't know many of those laws. If it's possible that in some other universe you are able to walk through walls then by the pure numbers it is possible that, at least once, someone may at one time walk through a wall in our universe, even if its just a dimensional bleed through.

Science is a process, fiction lacks evidence, science fiction is fiction that uses science to help support the idea for entertainment purposes or is fiction that is "sciencey" in its nature.

Things may seem fiction today but it isn't because science can't prove it it's because we haven't learned about that area of research yet. In 1800 a nuclear bomb might have been sci-fi but it isn't because science couldn't prove it (science did, it just took time) it's because we had yet to discover that field, the field of nuclear physics.

We will never know everything so it's stupid to think that just because we smart folk haven't figured it out yet that people should ignore science, logic, fact and reason and jump to "the unexplained". Be patient and use your higher judgment, after-all that's what your frontal lobe is for lol.

Well stated again Xavier and even dabbler,

Pondering points of my opinion That gives less on science for they have to see and feel it before it is Plausible, yet if not than it is fiction, yet technology shows us that early fiction has become reality. So with fiction can become science of today.

This is just my opinion.

Thanks Xavier, nanotech ( different from nanobots) is a breaking frontier.

Have nanobots appeared in any contemempary science fiction?

I read an article in Omni that pointed out the hurdles that involved to make nanobots feisible to design, and engineer.

If there is current info on prototype nanobots I am serious seeking a link.

The pending advances that will cone from nanostructuring ( fusing nano components) are promising.

I bring Cold Fusion to the table.. Sci fi, or Science potential?

ummm yanno rayguns used to be in sci-fi comic books and movies but they have them in the military now although it is mounted on a humvee i tripped out watching them show the tests they ran with it and the senator lady who helped it along went and got zapped by it to see if it really was true and what it felt like was to funny to watch the people in it when they got hit by it oh yeah and what about communicators like on star trek do you see a close resembelance and function with a cellphone who knows what they will do next with cell phones and what about these things we are on now the computer wasnt really that long ago these were thought of as pure sci-fi personal computers what a joke LMAO

Cold fusion, if I'm not mistaken it's happened on a very -very- small level. The problem is getting it to produce more energy than was put in. The US Navy reported in 2002 that they have continued to study cold fusion since 1989, primarily at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.

Nanobots have appeared in contemporary sci-fi, Star Trek: Voyager for example with their ex-Borg crew member 7 of 9. The Borg use nanobots (aka nanoprobes) in their assimilation techniques, self-maintenance and other things.

Nanorobotics: Creating robots OR machines at the nano scale (10^-9m)

http://nanolab.me.cmu.edu/

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Nanobots-Flip-Off-Cancer-Switch-in-Cells-69597.html?wlc=1271225358

I tried to find actual pictures of some machines but most were drawings, it's much easier to put up a cgi image than take a snapshot with a 1/2 million dollar imager lol. Plus most of the things created were just proofs of concept so not widely distributed.

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.[1] Someone who studies metaphysics would be called either a "metaphysician"[2] or a "metaphysicist."[3]

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge" of epistemological origin. The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

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

1. Metaphysics" article by Peter van Inwagen in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. "Aristotle's Metaphysics" article by S. Marc Cohen in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
3. "Object" article by Henry Laycock in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Everything changes and viewpoints as to what is accepted and what is not accepted. Nothing is static it changes over time as man learns and grows. I could vouch for that just with rearing children. When I first had children they sent water home from the hospital for babies. Now they say they shouldn't have it because it leeches something out of the blood. I don't remember because I have had to get a book every so many years to take care of respite babies because they change their minds about things. Could what they thought previously have been Pseudoscience or what they think now an advancement in knowledge? There are some really interesting things people use to say in the name of science and no, Dabbler, I am not giving links or going to discuss it further, lol...just making an observation from what I know over 50 years. After all, they use to make me duck under my desk during the cold war thinking that would save me from the atomic bomb.

That's a totally cool question!! I think with the way the human race is progressing, the possibilities of what could happen scientifically are endless!

Transporters,

If hypathetically one was prototyped, I would reason that it would be used primarially for non-organic material for quite a period if time before they transported any humans..

I agree with Zavier so I wont post a duplicate.I also feel that it will be science in the end that lends substance to the exsistance metaphysics.I know I have have researched and found a number of "theories in science' that could explain certain metaphysical phenomena..not junk science,but actual science.Resonance isnt junk science,Torsion fields are not based on junk science casimir forces , circadium rythms and the like.Its just a matter at looking at things a bit differently and a matter of time.Hell,those little flip phone things in Star Treck where once science fiction..now everyone has them.

You're right about that Dab w transporters. We've haven't been able to transport more than a single photon, although it has happened.

There are masses of problems, mostly information transfer, with transporting complex molecules and organic/living things.

Something that is "sci-fi", seems to have some science behind it but isn't possible at all (at least not with current knowledge) are things like phasers and ray guns. You can't shoot a bolt of light (lasers) or plasma..it just doesn't work.

Any laser tech recquires massive power sources, and very large machinery.

There are plasma torches.

Gamma Ray guns are still science fiction, but microwave " beams" are in use for crowd control, as mentioned in an above post.

I remember watching something on the discovery channel about the particle ( proton) transporter.

Oceanne Junk, and psuedo science is distingusged by practices that set out with bias, then adapt any randomly produced occurence to default support if their pet hypathatical.

They seldom publish any significant data, yet still want to be exceplified by
established fields.

Have a look here,this is all kinds of si fi stuff .

Or is it?..
http://www.sew-lexicon.com/



GAMMA-RAY LASER (GRASER) - A DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON (DEW) under DoD's WEAPONS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES (WST). The projection of coherent electromagnetic (EM) energy to a distant target at the speed of light. [www.dtic.mil] Also called Gamma X-ray laser. NOTES: (1) Grasers can be small-size devices. (2) GRASERs penetrate deeply into targets and can produce a range of lethality from SOFT KILL to HARD KILL. (3) GRASERs are being considered ( circa 1999 ) for space appkication against missiles and satellites. (4) Propagation through the atmosphere is attenuated, but a GRASER could attack targets from space to as far down as 40 km above the ground. (5) Countermeasures against GRASERs are difficult because of the deep penetration of its beam. See also ANTIMATTER PARTICLE BEAM (APB), CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM (CPB), HIGH POWER MICROWAVE/RADIO FREQUENCY (HPM/RF), KINETIC ENERGY WEAPON (KEW) and NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM (NPB).

You can get in this way if that link blocks you .

http://www.dod.mil/ddre/index.html

Thanks for clearing that up for me Dab...I always took it as litteral .Silly me.
Anyway,I looking at some pretty damn kool stuff right now with all the sci fi weapons stuff...Only..
it doesnt appear to be future tense..
Looks like they actually do have some of this stuff in development .

I remember hearing on Coast to Coast ( back when Art still did it) a former intern at a project came forward, the whole objective of the project was to
fabricate marginal concepts, and sketch skimatics for outrageous weaponry, and crafts.

All to examine the leak potenial for varies contract employees that attatch to such projects ( in support capacity), in the term they ran the project, one particular journalist ( tabloid grade journalist) obtained a very big file of what dubbed Top Level Secret.

Everytime I hear a person imply that " The Gov' Ment'" is with holding
astonishing technology.. I cannot help but recall this Program.

Though many contempary technologies were once exclusive to military application.

Yes,I understand..But there are no drawings of what Im looking at.Pretty sci fi looking to say the least.

And if you can have a look in here,theres some pretty inovative stuff going on.

http://www.darpa.mil/

Microwave weapons are fact, laser weapons are fact etc. I was talking about sending a "pulse" of laser or plasma like you see in modern sci-fi weapons, *that* is not possible. You can't send a "bullet" of light, and a "bullet" of plasma will cool down before it hits the target.

As for the gov...the US military has between 10-20 years of technology more advanced than is in common use, it's been that way for some time. But to say that they have a device that can transport humans, hand held laser guns, "UFO-esqu" aircraft etc..that is all false.

Some types of lasers actually don't require that much energy. Lasers can double up on themselves and increase their energy output. For instance, you could take the energy of a 60w light-bulb and turn it into a laser beam that can cut through objects. It's all a matter of how you do it, the types of light etc.

Oh yes Zav,I understand.But what Im saying is some of that stuff is looking pretty sci fi to me.Well,I got kicked off where I was over on DOD cause I kept getting onto https but I got to see a little.All the smart bomp tech and guidance systems etc..Some of the space tech and robotics where wild too.And hey,not all that long ago,even a rocket was sci fi.

Active Denial Systems

Youtube has demonstrations of crowd dispersial by the microwave generator.

Audio frequency devices as well. I'm thinking " The Brown Note" made popular in a South Park episode.

Eww

Xavier, aren't most current lasers used in industrial cutting?

Some are used in painting targets too Dab.I was looking at embedded computer systems in missles that link up with the lasers /gps and such that lock in on targets.
Go to the tactical section on that dod site.

Ya most of the more powerful lasers are used in industrial settings. One difference is the distance that they're useful at.

Military lasers can work over a course of miles and can take down plans and missles. Indstrial lasers might only be dangerous to humans for a few yards to maybe 300'. I'm talking about dangerous in the sense of burning skin etc. Even a weak laser can be dangerous to vision for hundreds of feet and much farther.

Most military lasers are still in the development phase but the ones that are out are pretty amazing.

Another use for super lasers is in physics research. Some projects use lasers in the 100 TW range in "laser fusion".

I am not trying to steal this thread but I would like to hear about how the group thinks about the "science of evolution" and the "science" behind the climate change debate. The term "creation science" is used by those who wish to deny the "theory of evolution" and other Darwinian concepts. There is even a museum somewhere in Ohio I believe, where exhibits show that man and Dinosaur co-existed on this planet at the same time. Even the most favorable scientific "theory" on this issue would put the advant of the first thing even close to modern man at 4 million years ago while the dinosaurs were snuffed out some 65 million years ago. Yet there is the "scientific proof" offerred daily at the Creation Science museum and there are people who pay to see it.

But just because it is called "a theory" does not mean that the science that upholds the theory is fiction until proven as true to all non-scientists. If the scientists agree that the big bang theory is the most likely explanation for the creation of the universe that we have at this time and considering the available knowledge, it does not follow that it is "fiction". It is what it is. The explanation of the origin of the universe most likely to be the truth according to the experts that spend their lives studying this.

If one claims that all science is fiction until "proven" to everyone then isn't he really saying that science can never provide us with any truths? Yet if the climate change science is even probably or most likely true, then shouldn't we be much more concerned about the future of human life on this planet and how man continues unabated his contribution to its perdicted demise?

Every attack on science itself should be agressively attacked by everyone concerned about life on this earth because the motives of many behind such anti-science attacks are simply to give themselves more time to denigrate the land and the environment for personal gain until they are too polluted to provide the sustenance for our present lifestyle. Then those supporting the anti-science crusade have made a lot of money but perhaps lost their chance to have any greatgrandchildren that survive them.

To belittle science is a dangerous political game when the survival of civilzation as we know it is possibly at stake.

Stay after them Dabbler.

food4thought

This topic can get carried away fast, and as interesting as it is, in the interest of VR forum regulations we want to stay as far away from politics and God as possible.

What do you feel the line is between science and science fiction? "Science fiction" is a tough label to make. To say something is "fake" or "not possible" when talking about science is a long-shot in my opinion.

well many a thing was considered science fiction up until science either made it happen or explained it and I am sure many more are to come. We live in a very strange world and scientifically speaking we are just babies in the grand scheme of things but we as a species are coming along and advancing further at great strides. Great post btw.

Blessings,
Bella

Mikey,

Science fiction is relative to the era.

Arthur C. Clarke is a fine example of a man who speculated upon engineering potential.

Thus he forecasted satilittes, and other tech devices.

The key word here is practical spectulation.

exactly what dabbler said.

the evolution/global warming topic is one that tempts me, but not really what the thread is about.
~W~

"What do you feel the line is between science and science fiction? "Science fiction""

Simply put Mikey,for me the line is..Time.
Seems like the fiction comes first,then its just a matter of time before the science of that fiction manifests.

Well then is it really fair to call something "impossible" or "fiction" when it really can be possible?

No,not in my mind.When it is written it is pretty much just a concept.Sure there ARE things that dont eventually come to pass,But then again,many things do.It kinda foolish to say that all fiction is impossible.

I have to agree with Oceanne. Time is the factor I think. Here are two articles I put up today in various places because they were so unusual. One where people basically are getting exonerated of cannibalism and the other to do with something many people thought was science fiction. It seems to be those dedicated people in science who sometimes are called fringe who want to step over that line between science and science fiction.

Donner Party Ate Family Dog, Maybe Not People
Did ethnic prejudice spur the now infamous legend of the Donner Party's cannibalism?

Analysis of bones discovered at the Donner Party campsite found no evidence for cannibalism.•The members did resort to consuming the family dog, cattle, deer and horses. •Slate pieces and china shards reveal the members tried to live with dignity.

Victorian Era journalists, who embellished the accounts provided by the 47 survivors, largely fueled the legend of the Donner Party cannibalism. The survivors, 11 men and 36 women and children, fiercely denied the allegations. Although one man, Louis Keseberg, filed and won a defamation suit, he was still forever known as Keseberg the Cannibal.

http://news.discovery.com/history/donner-party-cannibalism.html

Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist
By John Brandon
- FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/

It is possible to imagine anything, yet few things imagined are probable.

Dab,your last statement got me to thinking about something....Even though there are alot of things we find impossible or improbable today,there is a good chance they might not be impossible or improbable tomorrow.good example is the car.Years ago,even a car would have been deemed impossible to exsist.But imagination and a lot of enginuity made it possible.

Yet is it a scotoma in which something is not dirived from. Imagination gives way to future reality.

It just gets so sone people are never content with the present accomplishments. They are ready to write modern breakthroughs off as obsolete even before the full immudiate potential is actualized.

Have we become a culture of jaded individuals, staring off into " what it's" to hope for astonishment?

Dabbler, modern inventions or technoligy is ever changing, by the time you have something it is time to upgrade. The world always has looked for big and better and heck with what was.

We have become machines attached to machines, for they help us play, walk and run. yet what happened to the old times of doing it for our selves.

It just gets so people are jaded.

The very people that repeat the montra " Anything is possible" and defy science to " get with it" are in no way engaged in supporting their far reaching hyperbole.

The common denominator of psuedo science, and junk science.

Caters to people with lofty ideals based on sci-fiction.

I see your intent, yet alot of what has come was based on fiction from the past. planes, cars , and cell phones.

Science is science, yet without plasability from the minds of others we would not have the technoligy we have. Do you think they just woke up one morning and said hey lets create a cell phone and did it. Ideas or information was there already in science fiction movies.

it is not just science that is involved, there are engineers, physisist, etc.

Those who imply engineers are obliged to create every fantastical idea dreamt up by fiction writers are often irrational in their expectation.

If " anything is possible" then equally possible is the possibility that something will never be actualized.

Hope springs eternal.

What, is possible? And How is it possible?

Who is able to produce such " possibilities"? And why have they not done so?

What is interesting about this thread is, I just saw a documentary that included Temple Grandin. It wasn't the movie about her but one about autism that had some interesting aspects to it. There is a type called Asperger's Syndrome. These people have average to extremely high IQs. Some just think of it as High Functioning autism. The debate still goes on but some perceive the world in a very different way. Grandin invented livestock pens and associated things. It was the way she perceived things visually. They said there were others that fit in society, go to college or not and many of these people are the ones who invent all these gadgets like iPODs, Cell Phones, testing and creating new video games and equipment that people now think of as commonplace. They seem to be able to solve certain things the average scientist doesn't but they are the inventors they went on to say. Not all of course but there is a large grouping of these people who are doing the inventing and making breakthroughs. I thought it was very interesting and I could believe it because of my experiences with the autistic doing respite not to mention many with Aspergers.

To me those who are so adimate about the possibility of sci-fi becoming sci-fact is the implication that, Science is inadecute unless it breaches their expectations.

As if science, and engineers are so incompitent, people that are uneducated
and generally lack basic knowledge of physics appear to constantly nitpick science.

To often people with strong beliefs in supernatural phenomena attempt to discredit science to elevate the " relavency" of their faith, or adgenda.

Azure,I have followed that womans work for several years.Through observation and intuition,she was able to make some very important findings ,therefore modifying how we treat and contain livestock that eased their fright etc...to be sure.That isnt paranormal however,as there are many who have good instinct when it comes to animals and their behaviour.
Breakthroughs are made every day,every minute.some are really wild but eventually can and are made reality.Again,StarTrek and some of their gadgets are a prime example...
Something I would like to touch on in this thread is a question.
Has anyone ever noticed that when someone comes up with an idea,there are actually others across the planet who have the same idea close to the same time? Its just a matter of putting the idea out there for others that determines who gets the credit.But I have seen this happen time and time again.

Yes, Temple Grandin is unique, paranormal no, never thought of that. She just visualizes things differently. It was explained in the movie made about her and in interviews about the making of the movie. She was talking about the others in a documentary that was on recently. I had heard of such thing prior. I did respite for over ten years so after going to Rimland's seminars and talking to parents, etc. it was amazing what some could do and her name came up frequently. She is truly amazing and it is outside the realm of science as we know it but it isn't anything to do with the paranomal. It is sort of like nature fills in the blanks for what other things are missing so to speak.

These people who are inventing things are similar in nature and they have a natural ability to invent and create. Can science explain it, I don't know? It definitely is not science fiction it is science fact.

Azure,yes indeed she is amazing.But not within the realm of science? I disagree.Why? Because Ive been working with animals all of my life.Everything fom film work to the little pleasure ponie that pulls a cart.Been called an animal whisperer ,the whole nine yards.But in truth? Once one gets an understanding of an animals 'language' body language and where to place your body in regards to theirs ,what triggers a certain behaviour etc..it isnt outside science really.Its more like someone who can speak different languages.When training an animal..a horse lets say,there are good trainers and crummy ones.The difference being two things.a good one can make a horse WANT to work for them,a crummy one simply exerts their will over the horse because horses operate on a dominance/submissive hierachy.And two,a good trainer sees things a little different in that they are instinctive as to what methods they can come up with that will work on a level other than dominance.And they do not make the mistake of thinking an animal thinks like a human.They also do not see as a human does..Anyway,I can go on and on but I think that while yes,its amazing,it isnt beyond science to explain it.And horse whispering? not fiction.

There is a time and place for everything, and yet nothing is more important than other aspects. Scienc does move us further yet fiction or fantasies help move science along in a chain reaction for the total outcome.