Can We Create a Sci-Fi Science Discussion Board?

[Secret]

I think it'll be great to look into these issues seriously such as time travel etc.

 

[ZapperZ]

We have had many requests for new forums dedicated to this and that. Rather than repeating all the previous discussions, you may want to look at previous threads on this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=286660
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=356450
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=340370

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

I recommend consulting your copy of the "Star Trek, The Next Generation Technical Manual", page vi, Introduction by Gene Roddenberry for a perspective on the fallacy in attempting to use science fiction as a basis for actual science:

We certainly don't pretend that our television starship is a blueprint from which NASA or Intercosmos or ESA can immediately begin construction.

Sorry, Secret: sometimes fiction really is just fiction, cool as it may look on a big screen tv.

 

[Moonbear]

Though, if you'd like to discuss the literary merits of science fiction, feel free to do so in the "History and Humanities" subforum. https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=148

Though, when I Skype with my boyfriend, I sometimes am reminded of The Jetsons and their video phones that seemed so futuristic when I was a kid. Again, I'm sure that the influence of science fiction or cartoons on the direction of technological development would be fine as a history topic. But I think that's the safest route is to discuss it in retrospect as an historical topic rather than discussing it prospectively.

 

[Evo]

Though, when I Skype with my boyfriend,

Use something like yahoo! chat instead of skype if you are doing computer to computer, and you can do video at the same time, and it's free and has more features. If you call each other and the phone doesn't answer, it will automatically send your voice message to each other's e-mail, not a notification. AND it doesn't require any software. And you can use it on your cell phone. Skype is so "1990's" as a person said the other day.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Moonbear]

Use something like yahoo! chat instead of skype if you are doing computer to computer, and you can do video at the same time, and it's free and has more features. If you call each other and the phone doesn't answer, it will automatically send your voice message to each other's e-mail. AND it doesn't require any software. And you can use it on your cell phone. Skype is so "1990's" as a person said the other day.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Skype has video. We actually switched to Skype from Yahoo because Yahoo was absolutely awful for dropping the calls and lagging when we were video chatting. We can use Skype on our cell phones too. I guess you haven't used it in a while to know how updated it is.

 

[Count Iblis]

Or ask here:

http://forums.syfy.com/index.php?__source=Syfy_Global_Nav

if they can create a physics forum for you.

 

[Evo]

Skype has video. We actually switched to Skype from Yahoo because Yahoo was absolutely awful for dropping the calls and lagging when we were video chatting. We can use Skype on our cell phones too. I guess you haven't used it in a while to know how updated it is.

Evo Child added Skype because of her BF, and when they saw my yahoo chat, they could not believe the better quality and features (last week). They aren't using Skype anymore.

 

[insaneah]

I recommend consulting your copy of the "Star Trek, The Next Generation Technical Manual", page vi, Introduction by Gene Roddenberry for a perspective on the fallacy in attempting to use science fiction as a basis for actual science: Sorry, Secret: sometimes fiction really is just fiction, cool as it may look on a big screen tv.

LOL nice way to put down a brother!

 

[EnumaElish]

I don't see how this thread justifies locking of Secret's GD thread on "darkness emitters." In that GD thread, at least one serious, scientific response was posted in reference to luminance wave interference patterns (to which both DaveC... and I responded).

More generally, let's remind ourselves that not a few decades ago anything approaching "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" as physical phenomena would have been nominated as sci-fi, unless sooner derided as crazy.

Yours respectfully,
EE

 

[berkeman]

I don't see how this thread justifies locking of Secret's GD thread on "darkness emitters." In that GD thread, at least one serious, scientific response was posted in reference to luminance wave interference patterns (to which both DaveC... and I responded).

I agree with the lock. The OP was definitely overly speculative, and had way too much bad science mixed in. Bringing up standard photon interference was a useful counterpoint to the OP's post, but not enough to salvage the thread, IMO. I suppose we could try pruning out the comedy and trying to see if the OP is willing to understand why what he wrote is wrong, and what standard photon interference is, but based on his OP in this thread here, I don't think that would interest him much.

More generally, let's remind ourselves that not a few decades ago anything approaching "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" as physical phenomena would have been nominated as sci-fi, unless sooner derided as crazy.

Yours respectfully,
EE

Boy, you got that right. Albert and his $$\Lambda$$

 

[Evo]

EE, you know we stick to discussions of mainstream science. If we start making exceptions, we can no longer enforce the rules.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Now I will never learn how to use dilithium crystals to control a matter/anti-matter reaction or how to make transparent aluminum.

Sigh.

 

[Secret]

Actually, some poeple did consider sci fi as a possiblilty
Such as theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, who wrote "Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel".

Also what we take for granted nowadays are just pure scifi in the past such as traveling to space, internet etc.

But I never aware that this forum is for mainstream science only
The intro of the GD board wrote something like this

Topics outside the realm of science and tech
Politics & World Affairs - Games - Philosophy - Relationships

So I thought scifi might fit here

In fact there's no obvious hints or rules that the forum is only for mainstream science discussions only.

Now that i know the rules, i'll stick to mainstream science discussion and leave my ideas for later in the future

Edit: @TM, transpareant aluminium does exist, some scientists have made that, however it is transparent only to UV.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/090726.html

 

[Pengwuino]

In fact there's no obvious hints or rules that the forum is only for mainstream science discussions only.

Please see the global forum rules that are provided upon registering.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

 

[Count Iblis]

Mainstream science as published in peer reviewed journals can still be science fiction like. There is plenty of stuff in journals such as the Physical Review D about how one can (or cannot) theoretically use cosmic strings, wormholes, etc. to make a time machine.