Working out a planet's attributes

[undormant]

Maybe since me novel is set in a magical universe it doesn't matter all that much.

However, if someone can figure it out that would be great, willing to go to 0.5 gravity on the moons and a equatorial circumference of 10,000 km on each moon if that makes it more realistic. I suppose a planet that is only slightly bigger than the Earth would be ok as well.

R

 

[RJM Corbet]

... If a "spiritual" reality exists, it exists in one of two ways:
1) It interacts with our physical reality, in which case it is part of our physical reality, and can be measured and observed, once we develop the technology to do so.
2) It doesn't interact with our physical reality, in which case for all intents and purposes it might as well not exist, and is irrelevant to us.

You can't measure a heartbreak, or even a toothache, but you know it's there, now don't you?

 

[HMart]

even if we were to encounter it, there would be some underlying explanation which would essentially mean the laws of physics would still be universal.

Would this not be assumption? Why would the laws of physics still be universal if it's conceivably something that is beyond current scientific comprehension?

 

[Gumboot]

You can't measure a heartbreak, or even a toothache, but you know it's there, now don't you?

Both emotion and pain can be objectively observed (through an EEG, for example).

 

[Gumboot]

Would this not be assumption? Why would the laws of physics still be universal if it's conceivably something that is beyond current scientific comprehension?

For the "rules" to work differently, there would need to be some underlying reason why they worked differently, which would amend the rules so they remained universal.

A good example is gravity. Once we got into space we realised the old rule didn't work any more. But that didn't mean there were different laws of gravity in different parts of the universe, it just meant the law of gravity was incomplete, and needed amending. This happened, so that we got the Law of Gravitational Attraction, which applies both on earth and in space.

 

[RJM Corbet]

For the "rules" to work differently, there would need to be some underlying reason why they worked differently, which would amend the rules so they remained universal.

A good example is gravity. Once we got into space we realised the old rule didn't work any more. But that didn't mean there were different laws of gravity in different parts of the universe, it just meant the law of gravity was incomplete, and needed amending. This happened, so that we got the Law of Gravitational Attraction, which applies both on earth and in space.

So now we know everything about 4% of the universe, and call the rest dark matter and dark energy?

I don't think emotion (feeling body) or thought (thinking body) can be properly observed or measured. Love can't be measured? Not in any 'scientific' way, not really. But no-one denies it exists? I appreciate what you're saying: that one day we will be able to. But that's back to 'assumption', that one day we'll have the instruments. One day we might have the instruments for time-travel etc, too. But it's still not even close to a reality?

 

[Vertigo]

I would have to disagree with you there RJM your two examples are not even similar. Time travel goes against all our current theories (at least without negative energy it does) and so a major revision of our theories would be required before it became 'possible'.

On the other hand our ability to read our brains is progressing faster every year. I think it very much within the realms of possibility that we will be able to read feelings and emotions accurately within the forseeable future (we can already detect the activity created in our brains by such feelings and emotions). No new theories required, just improvements on the current technology. Love for example can easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

The constant desire for mankind to deny the purely biological nature of things like feelings and emotions is something that never ceases to amaze me. Why so many people believe these things have some unfathomable mystic nature when there is no evidence for that and yet deny the mounting evidence for them not being mystical, is both irrational and completely beyond my understanding.

It also never fails to amaze me how we can kid ourselves about how different from our current observations everything 'out there' is going to turn out to be. Once again, there is no evidence for it being so radically different (different laws of nature etc.); we have a remarkably good understanding of what is out there. We have directly observed the universe right back to moments after the 'big bang' (before that our physics does have problems admittedly) and almost everything matches our current theories. There are of course many unresolved details. But even things like dark matter and energy are just place holders for stuff that we will eventually figure out once we have the technology; they are not indicators that parts of the universe obey different laws. When we do figure those things out we will naturally revise our theories, but the key word there is 'revise' not replace with new laws.

However considering that all the observable physics in the universe is consistent (even if not yet fully understood), I really don't think there will be anything out there that completely turns our laws of nature on their heads. Modifies them yes but finding parts of the universe that have different physical laws to our own area of the universe no. Such an idea simply does not match our observations.

My apologies for the rather off thread post

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yes. I'm sorry, it's me who's hijacking undormant's thread and I think this is a discussion that goes round and round, with scientist saying 'prove it' and ... what? ... 'mystic'? saying: 'I can't'. Music can make you feel good (or bad). Why? There are deeds of pure altruism, or bravery, nothing to be gained. Why? It's not biological. It's 'spiritual'. I'm not saying the effect isn't caused by biological process. Happiness really is just a chemical in the brain. It can be triggered by a glass of wine. Thus endeth the lesson ...

 

[Gumboot]

So now we know everything about 4% of the universe, and call the rest dark matter and dark energy?

If we know everything about 4%, we'll be studying the other 96% and learning about that...

I don't think emotion (feeling body) or thought (thinking body) can be properly observed or measured. Love can't be measured? Not in any 'scientific' way, not really.

In all honesty, it doesn't matter what you "think", it can be measured, and is.

But no-one denies it exists?

No one denies it exists because it can be observed. It's worth pointing out that scientifically speaking "love" doesn't exist, rather there are different types of emotional attachment we feel for different people and things. These are a result of biochemistry, not some mysterious "force", and science has a very good understanding of how they work.

I appreciate what you're saying: that one day we will be able to. But that's back to 'assumption', that one day we'll have the instruments. One day we might have the instruments for time-travel etc, too. But it's still not even close to a reality?

No, that's not really it at all. Something like time travel isn't possible because of our understanding of how reality functions. What could arguably happen in the future is we could discover evidence that amends our understanding of how reality operates (like how going into space amended our understanding of gravity) which would then reveal that time travel is possible.

The thing is though, any new ground-breaking scientific theory still has to reconcile everything thus far we've discovered, because the existing laws are based on observable fact. You don't get laws which come along and totally reverse all science.

So the more we learn, the stronger our understanding of science is, and the less likely it is we'll discover any sort of ground-breaking new science.

 

[RJM Corbet]

The thing is though, any new ground-breaking scientific theory still has to reconcile everything thus far we've discovered, because the existing laws are based on observable fact. You don't get laws which come along and totally reverse all science.

Oh forget about time travel. You know exactly what I mean. Teleportation, then? And where have I implied totally reversing all science? Never mind, am not going to win this one ...

 

[Gumboot]

Oh forget about time travel. You know exactly what I mean. Teleportation, then? And where have I implied totally reversing all science? Never mind, am not going to win this one ...

Well... time travel would pretty much reverse all science, or at least enough of it that we basically wouldn't be able to be sure about anything else. The entire scientific process relies on a concept of cause and effect, which is a linear and irreversible progression through time. Were we to learn time travel were possible, it would totally undermine this entire principle.

Teleportation isn't really a scientific theory or anything like that, more a technological achievement. There are already hypothetical proposals for how teleportation might work, based on existing science.

You seem to be confusing our technological capability to do things with our understanding of what's scientifically possible, based on our current understanding of the universe.

A better example might be FTL travel. Our current scientific understanding is that this is impossible. We're unlikely to try develop technology to do it, because we don't consider it possible. However it's possible that scientific experiments such as those conducted in the Large Hadron Collider would change our understanding (we almost thought this had happened earlier this year, I recall) and we'd amend our science to allow that FTL travel is possible, in which case we might invest in trying to achieve it.

Another example is carbon nanotubes. Currently, we can't produce them in anything like a size where they have useful practical application, however we know they exist, and in theory we might be able to grow them bigger and keep them stable, so we're working on that, and there is already plenty of speculation about what applications they could be used in (such as a space elevator, for example).

 

[RJM Corbet]

Detecting/measuring dark matter (1hr video) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyV-LXXLN3c&list=PLFDBBAE492FBAF753&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Persevere with the intro, the sound/video quality improves

 

[undormant]

I thought that travelling forward in time was already considered possible, I think due to time dilation?

If you travelled to the nearest star and back again more time would have passed on Earth than on the spaceship, or something.

R

 

[Galacticdefender]

You can't measure a heartbreak, or even a toothache, but you know it's there, now don't you?

Don't know about units of measure, but we can scientifically figure out why both of those things occur.

 

[Galacticdefender]

The constant desire for mankind to deny the purely biological nature of things like feelings and emotions is something that never ceases to amaze me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Sorry I'm used to forums that automatically merge to consecutive posts...)

@Gumboot

I bet we'll have better carbon nanotubes within the next decade. I think orbital elevators aren't as far off as most people think.

 

[Gumboot]

I thought that travelling forward in time was already considered possible, I think due to time dilation?

If you travelled to the nearest star and back again more time would have passed on Earth than on the spaceship, or something.

R

Yes, this is true. Actually, it happens even with astronauts in the ISS, although only by very small amounts. But it should be pointed out that you're not actually jumping forward in time, rather relative to you the rest of the world slows down, and relative to them you speed up. Each of you still travels forward in time at normal "life" speed.

 

[Piousflea]

Although I'm a scientific type and I don't buy into the common occult stuff, I'm not so quick to rule out the existence of phenomena unstudyable and undefinable by human minds.

If you look at animal experiments, animal minds can be quantified by concepts that they can and can't grasp. Simple things like self-concept (looking in a mirror and recognizing oneself) either exist in an animal or they don't. I'm certain that there are concepts and forms of logic that are entirely incomprehensible to the human brain. It's possible that we'll eventually enhance our own brains (genetically or mechanically) to improve its limitations, but it will still have limitations.

It is also possible that truly incomprehensible natural phenomena could be more accurately understood through emotions and hunches than through rigorous study, in which case they would be indistinguishable from "magic" (ie nonscientific occultism).

 

[Ursa major]

I think we'll always have trouble understanding some things, outside the scope of mathematics, because we tend to like describing concepts in terms of how they're like things with which we're more familiar. While this can be useful on the surface (literally, in the case of rubber-sheet models of gravity), it often obscures as much as it reveals.

However, we do have a facility that allows us consider experiences with which we're not at all familiar: imagination. We don't have to see something in practice to imagine how it may be.

In a way, magic can be seen in this light. Yes, the concept of magic emerged from our lack of understanding of how things worked, and so has disappeared as an analytical tool as we've adopted science. However, magic has never been more visible, in terms of how we imagine it might be in a universe whose laws are not the same as ours. And yes, this is a cultural phenomenon, and not seen as adding to our knowledge of our universe, but the human mind is not constrained to the possible (even the as yet unimagined possible).