Another Setting: Traveller-esque

[Shawn Wilson]

This is a setting I have been working on for a while, basically its a
significantly alternate Traveller so expect the same tech at high
levels.

No aliens. No psionics.

in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity manipulation.
This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in the 22nd century
leads to a jump drive. This differs from the Traveller usial in that
jumping out requires a high tidal force so it must be done close to a
star and gas giants won't do. Arrival will be about 10AU out. The
jump itself is instantaneous. 'Aiming' is very difficult. Jumpijng
to empty space is flatly impossible, its like a pool shot on an
infinitely large frictionless 3d pool table where time does not
exist. You travel through the hyper universe until you meet the
conditions to re-enter ours, and then you do and time exists again.
The physics guarantee you will arrive in the vicinity of a star, with
bad luck that star could be 5 billion light years away. Jump distance
is the 'maximum' (with some slop) at which a safe jump can be made.

So, hurrah! The stars are open! Mankind builds a handful of
extremely expensive starhips and starts exploring and colonizing.

A few decades later one of the colonies is destroyed. It was caused
by an energy wave. (I forget the proper name just now) A trivial
thing on a cosmic scale. The wave will reach Earth in 70 years. It
is possible that nothing will happen. It is also possible that Earth
will be sterilized. Most likely there will be ecological
devastation. Earth starts preparing. The existing colonies are dead
meat.

Starships are massively expensive and nothing can be done that way.
But...

The expensive part of a starship is not the jump drive itself, but the
equipment that lets you steer. If you are willing to jump blind
(almost blind anyway), a starship is 'reasonable'. But you will never
ever see home again. Even private organizations could so it.
Typically a group of about 100,000 people with common beliefs would
all contribute. About 5000-10,000 would give everything and become
the colonists, travelling in cold sleep. They would buy and outfit a
ship and the specialty (and very durable) gear for the colony.
Governments woud acquire, replicate and provide biological samples
(seeds, fertilized egs, etc) It starts small, but soon develops into
an industry. There are schools that will train colonists, and much
thought devoted to building successful colonies with no resupply or
further contact with anyone. Even the craziest regimes got into the
act and sent out a few of these ships. People said their goodbyes to
each other and wondered which, if either of them, had a future.

The crews jumped, not /quite/ as blindly as later legend would have
it, and looked for a habitable planet at their destination. If they
found one they settled. If not they tried again at a new star.

Earth is lost.

Thousands of ships left earth in those 70 years, no one knows how
many. Many failed tragically in space. Some colonies landed but died
out or regressed to savagry and never recovered.

But not all of them.

1000 years later and human starships are once again built and empires
built in the stars, conflicting, trading, or cooperating with other
expanding colonies. Empires rose. Empires fell. New empires rose
from the ashes.

6000 years later is 'now'. There are about 100,000 inhabited worlds.
The richest and most advanced human political entities all occupy a
compact region at the center of human space and compose maybe 5000
worlds total. Around them is everyone else, with varying levels of
technological advancement. The 'Core' powers are not monolithic.
They are about a dozen Core 'nations' of varying sizes.

So...

Its the 17th-18th-19th century. The Core is Europe. They are
Traveller tech 15. Everyone else is is wogs. Some are tech-14 wogs
who can hold their own. Others are barely tech 1 wogs. And
everythign in between.

The Game is Colonization, Commerce, Diplomacy and Politics (with
occasionaly Conquest), with all the usual Traveller elements (except
the aliens and psychic powers). The PCs are from the Core.

The usual dynamic is betewn Avalon (UK), Alys (France) and [uhhh...]
(Germany). With the other powers (the rest of europe) showing up here
and there. There are no designated good guys or bad guys, everone has
fought wars both with and against everyone else in the past. The
powers are all equally advanced and developed.

Much like the Imperium, but here the Imperium itself is not a
monolithic entity. The rest all all different independent powers. No
'Imperial rules of war' or overarching authority of any kind, except
that occasionaly the core powers (and others) cooperate on this or
that.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Shawn Wilson
in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity manipulation.
This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in the 22nd century
leads to a jump drive. This differs from the Traveller usial in that
jumping out requires a high tidal force so it must be done close to a
star and gas giants won't do. Arrival will be about 10AU out.

What's your motivation for these differences from Traveller? They're
intriguing, but would change the game in ways I haven't considered.

Post by Shawn Wilson
The jump itself is instantaneous.

That one I find unhelpful. If the jumps are instantaneous, there will be
no feel of distance between the stars; each one is essentially
next-door. The culture will not have travel-time distances to create the
diversity of an empire, and instead will feel like a single country.

Is that an effect you want? I'd find it to be much less interesting, I
think.

Post by Shawn Wilson
So, hurrah! The stars are open! Mankind builds a handful of
extremely expensive starhips and starts exploring and colonizing.

How frequent is travel between the colonies? Is communication limited by
light speed and jump distance? How many people visit colonies,
travelling back and forth rather than living there?

Post by Shawn Wilson
Starships are massively expensive and nothing can be done that way.

If their massive expense dictates that they can't be used to save
humanity from the imminent devastation of Earth, why didn't the same
massive expense prevent them from being used for colonisation?

Post by Shawn Wilson
Thousands of ships left earth in those 70 years, no one knows how
many.

I don't understand what the previous paragraph quoted above is saying,
then.

Post by Shawn Wilson
1000 years later and human starships are once again built and empires
built in the stars, conflicting, trading, or cooperating with other
expanding colonies. Empires rose. Empires fell. New empires rose
from the ashes.

The instantaneous travel time means this just doesn't work for me. Why
are the cultures so different if any state or trader can arrive in a
large starship at any other state instantanenously?

Post by Shawn Wilson
Much like the Imperium, but here the Imperium itself is not a
monolithic entity. The rest all all different independent powers.

I think this is desirable, but you can't have it convincingly at the
same time as instantaneous travel. That was, IIUC, the whole reason
behind the week-long jump time in Traveller.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity manipulation.
This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in the 22nd century
leads to a jump drive.  This differs from the Traveller usial in that
jumping out requires a high tidal force so it must be done close to a
star and gas giants won't do.  Arrival will be about 10AU out.

What's your motivation for these differences from Traveller? They're
intriguing, but would change the game in ways I haven't considered.

I wanted an SF universe for my own purposes, I like Traveller so I
incorporated many features.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
The jump itself is instantaneous.

That one I find unhelpful. If the jumps are instantaneous, there will be
no feel of distance between the stars; each one is essentially
next-door. The culture will not have travel-time distances to create the
diversity of an empire, and instead will feel like a single country.

The JUMP is instantaneous. Star travel still takes Traveller time
frames (well, actually faster, but not by an order of magnitude). No
fast trips from jump-in to jump-out points. Inhabitable worlds are
only about 10% of the total, so world to world will likely be 2-3
jumps on average.

Post by Ben Finney
Is that an effect you want? I'd find it to be much less interesting, I
think.

Of, yes, pretty much everything is "this is the end I want, what
caused it?'

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
So, hurrah!  The stars are open!  Mankind builds a handful of
extremely expensive starhips and starts exploring and colonizing.

How frequent is travel between the colonies? Is communication limited by
light speed and jump distance? How many people visit colonies,
travelling back and forth rather than living there?

Reasonably common, say monthly visits. Communication is couurier
only, no FTL radio. 'Visiting' colonies would be akin to 'visiting' a
16th century colony in the New World. Possible, but impractical and
expensive.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
Starships are massively expensive and nothing can be done that way.

If their massive expense dictates that they can't be used to save
humanity from the imminent devastation of Earth, why didn't the same
massive expense prevent them from being used for colonisation?

These colonies only involve transporting a few tens of thousands of
people, total. Earth has a population 100,000x as large.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
Thousands of ships left earth in those 70 years, no one knows how
many.

I don't understand what the previous paragraph quoted above is saying,
then.

Two DIFFERENT sets of colonies- the initial, which were later
destroyed by the energy burst, and the later that went out blind. The
blind jumps are NOT limited by range, but you can't choose your
destination at all. An infinite, frictionless pool table, you take
your shot and the ball keeps moving until it meets the criteria for re-
eenter our universe. The gear the lets you aim for THAT star/pocket
with a reasonable chance of hitting it is very expensive. Just making
a wormhole is easy. If you miss you just keep going until you hit
another star and exit. Space is big, stars are small.

Actually, the second wave colony ships weren't entirely blind, which
is why out of the entire universe most ended up in this relatively
small area. But Earth is lost, no one knows where it is. There are
myths and theories, the singlemost popular of which (but still only a
minority) is that Earth is a specific unremarkable planet near the
center of human space, which is actually true.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
1000 years later and human starships are once again built and empires
built in the stars, conflicting, trading, or cooperating with other
expanding colonies.  Empires rose.  Empires fell.  New empires rose
from the ashes.

The instantaneous travel time means this just doesn't work for me. Why
are the cultures so different if any state or trader can arrive in a
large starship at any other state instantanenously?

Not any other- safe jump range is limited ala Traveller. Just no time
in hyperspace. That time is now taken in normal space transiting from
the jump-in limit (about 10AU) to the jump out limit (about 0.5AU).
BTW, jump fuel use is small, not large as in Traveller. The big fuel
user is the reaction drive.

Staships will all have three drive systems-

The jump drive.

A reaction drive, since you keep your initial vector as modified by
the jump and will need to match with your destination. Most will only
do about 1G. More isn't very useful.

And the standard maneuver drive, which allows constant velocity travel
through space at typically about 5% of C, though it accelerates,
decelerates and maneuvers slowly. I don't want Newtonian battles,
they're a pain. This is inertialess and reactionless.

[Tim Little]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity manipulation.
This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in the 22nd century
leads to a jump drive. This differs from the Traveller usial in that
jumping out requires a high tidal force so it must be done close to a
star and gas giants won't do. Arrival will be about 10AU out.

What's your motivation for these differences from Traveller? They're
intriguing, but would change the game in ways I haven't considered.

Post by Shawn Wilson
The jump itself is instantaneous.

That one I find unhelpful. If the jumps are instantaneous, there will be
no feel of distance between the stars; each one is essentially
next-door.

Getting in from 10 AU to a habitable planet, or to close enough to the
star to initiate the next jump won't be instantaneous. It would take
at least 4 days with Traveller-like 2-6 gee thrusters. That's pretty
similar to Traveller jump times.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
Starships are massively expensive and nothing can be done that way.

If their massive expense dictates that they can't be used to save
humanity from the imminent devastation of Earth, why didn't the same
massive expense prevent them from being used for colonisation?

Lack of the very expensive ability to aim for particular stars. The
drive was only very expensive, the ability to aim for particular stars
was the mind-bogglingly expensive part.

The colonists fled blindly to unknown corners of the universe until
finding a habitable system. The setting is based on the descendants
of one that succeeded out of the thousands who attempted it. How many
others also succeeded is not known nor relevant. There are likely no
others in their observable universe.

Post by Ben Finney
The instantaneous travel time means this just doesn't work for
me. Why are the cultures so different if any state or trader can
arrive in a large starship at any other state instantanenously?

There is a maximum range for which any given starship can expect to
arrive safely at the desired star. Presumbly the polities are large
enough that it requires multiple jumps to traverse them.

E.g. suppose that the closest approach distance to the target star is
normally distributed with standard deviation linear in distance. A
given ship might have a standard deviation of 2 AU for a 2 parsec
jump. So it misses the desired star (i.e. > 10 AU) only about 1 time
in a million. That's perfectly acceptable for routine travel.

It could jump 3 parsecs with risk 0.087%. That might be about the "do
not exceed" jump rating for the ship. Such a jump once per fortnight
would lead to a mean time before loss of about 45 years per ship.
Very high by current standards, but compares well with the risk of
disasters in the age of sail.

If it tries to jump 4 parsecs, the risk rises to 1.24%, which is 14
times greater and getting quite unacceptable except in pretty serious
emergencies. By 6 parsecs it is about 10%, which is a pretty huge
risk of being lost forever in space and everyone dying just to be able
to make 1 jump instead of 2.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Tim Little

Post by Ben Finney
That one I find unhelpful. If the jumps are instantaneous, there will be
no feel of distance between the stars; each one is essentially
next-door.

Getting in from 10 AU to a habitable planet, or to close enough to the
star to initiate the next jump won't be instantaneous.  It would take
at least 4 days with Traveller-like 2-6 gee thrusters.  That's pretty
similar to Traveller jump times.

No magic thrusters. Reaction drives with their fuel requirements.
Major travel is by Bergenholm (yes, there are Smithian nouns all over
this, which I haven't gotten into). The absolute fastest B's hit
maybe 10% C. Typical for a Core world warship would be 2% C, 3% for
fast couriers. 10% would be for a space fighter, (yes space
fighters, because I CAN).

So 3-4 days per jump for advanced ships in a hurry. Longer for less
advanced ones.

Post by Tim Little

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
Starships are massively expensive and nothing can be done that way.

If their massive expense dictates that they can't be used to save
humanity from the imminent devastation of Earth, why didn't the same
massive expense prevent them from being used for colonisation?

Lack of the very expensive ability to aim for particular stars.  The
drive was only very expensive, the ability to aim for particular stars
was the mind-bogglingly expensive part.

Yes, exactly. Except that they had some low cost stering solution,
just not something a sane person would use. Say 1 in 100 misjump at
best, with normal ships being more like 1 in 10,000. They didn't
actually jump blind, that is later mythology.

Post by Tim Little
The colonists fled blindly to unknown corners of the universe until
finding a habitable system.  The setting is based on the descendants
of one that succeeded out of the thousands who attempted it.  How many
others also succeeded is not known nor relevant.  There are likely no
others in their observable universe.

Not one locally, thousands, with now 100,000 known inhabted worlds due
to secondary (and tertiary, and...) colonization. Unknown world's are
anyone's guess. People didn't stop leaving human space for a better
life 6000 years ago.

Post by Tim Little

Post by Ben Finney
The instantaneous travel time means this just doesn't work for
me. Why are the cultures so different if any state or trader can
arrive in a large starship at any other state instantanenously?

There is a maximum range for which any given starship can expect to
arrive safely at the desired star.  Presumbly the polities are large
enough that it requires multiple jumps to traverse them.

Yes. At one inhabitable planet every 20 stars, and 100,000 inhabited
world, that's 2 million stars. The Core words all together are only
5000, divided among a dozen polities.

Post by Tim Little
E.g. suppose that the closest approach distance to the target star is
normally distributed with standard deviation linear in distance.  A
given ship might have a standard deviation of 2 AU for a 2 parsec
jump.  So it misses the desired star (i.e. > 10 AU) only about 1 time
in a million.  That's perfectly acceptable for routine travel.

Not linear in distance though, non-linear in a VERY bad way. Standard
for Core starships is 1 in 1 billion misjump. Try to extend that 50%
and its 50-50. I don't want a reasonable risk-reward relationship to
significant 'overclocking'.

Post by Tim Little
It could jump 3 parsecs with risk 0.087%.  That might be about the "do
not exceed" jump rating for the ship.  Such a jump once per fortnight
would lead to a mean time before loss of about 45 years per ship.
Very high by current standards, but compares well with the risk of
disasters in the age of sail.

Not, while aspects are similar, this is NOT the age of sail. These
are advanced, old cultures (the Core) and their ships are expected to
serve for centuries. The first days would have been that risky
though.

Post by Tim Little
If it tries to jump 4 parsecs, the risk rises to 1.24%, which is 14
times greater and getting quite unacceptable except in pretty serious
emergencies.  By 6 parsecs it is about 10%, which is a pretty huge
risk of being lost forever in space and everyone dying just to be able
to make 1 jump instead of 2.

Yes. Units are, I think, 2 LY, rather than a parsec, to slow things
down some. Or rather start at say 5LY and increase 1-2 per step
after.

[Tim Little]

Post by Shawn Wilson
in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity
manipulation. This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in
the 22nd century leads to a jump drive. This differs from the
Traveller usial in that jumping out requires a high tidal force so
it must be done close to a star and gas giants won't do.

Tidal forces vary with M/r^3. Tidal forces near Earth's surface are
about 4 times greater than near the surface of the Sun, for example.
For spherically symmetric bodies they are proportional to density.

Of course, there could also be other conditions that rule out planets
apart from just tidal forces.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Arrival will be about 10AU out. The jump itself is instantaneous.
'Aiming' is very difficult. Jumpijng to empty space is flatly
impossible, its like a pool shot on an infinitely large frictionless
3d pool table where time does not exist. You travel through the
hyper universe until you meet the conditions to re-enter ours, and
then you do and time exists again. The physics guarantee you will
arrive in the vicinity of a star, with bad luck that star could be 5
billion light years away.

Hmm. I suppose if you had suitable instruments and time, and were in
the parts of the universe visible from Earth, you could determine
where you are via the large-scale supergalactic structure.

You might even be able to get back. If you aim for the dense center
of galaxies there should be a very good chance of hitting *some* star,
and hopping from galaxy to galaxy this way.

Of course if the universe is gravitationally flat or open, then it may
also be infinite. You might end up hugely outside the observable
universe without having even the slightest hope of ever knowing where
you are. In such a universe, the average density of stars and the
need for the line to pass within about 10 AU of one makes this likely
in almost every direction if you miss where you are aiming. Random
lines ending at a star would have an average length of about 10^16 ly
(based on about 10^23 stars in about 10^32 ly^3 of observable
universe).


It looks like this fits your scenario well: of the thousands of ships
that left Earth and found new habitable worlds, none could possibly
know how to get back to Earth, probably not just billions but unknown
quadrillions of light years away in a direction only knowable in the
vaguest of senses.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Shawn Wilson
in trhe 21st century humanity invents a form of gravity
manipulation.  This opens up a field of scientific inquiry that in
the 22nd century leads to a jump drive.  This differs from the
Traveller usial in that jumping out requires a high tidal force so
it must be done close to a star and gas giants won't do.

Tidal forces vary with M/r^3.  Tidal forces near Earth's surface are
about 4 times greater than near the surface of the Sun, for example.
For spherically symmetric bodies they are proportional to density.
Of course, there could also be other conditions that rule out planets
apart from just tidal forces.

Well, it's SOMETHING.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Arrival will be about 10AU out.  The jump itself is instantaneous.
'Aiming' is very difficult.  Jumpijng to empty space is flatly
impossible, its like a pool shot on an infinitely large frictionless
3d pool table where time does not exist.  You travel through the
hyper universe until you meet the conditions to re-enter ours, and
then you do and time exists again.  The physics guarantee you will
arrive in the vicinity of a star, with bad luck that star could be 5
billion light years away.

Hmm.  I suppose if you had suitable instruments and time, and were in
the parts of the universe visible from Earth, you could determine
where you are via the large-scale supergalactic structure.

Yes.

You might even be able to get back.  If you aim for the dense center
of galaxies there should be a very good chance of hitting *some* star,
and hopping from galaxy to galaxy this way.

Yeah... wishful thinking. Note, the gravitational effects of passin
near a star in hyperspace will bend the ship's path.

It looks like this fits your scenario well: of the thousands of ships
that left Earth and found new habitable worlds, none could possibly
know how to get back to Earth, probably not just billions but unknown
quadrillions of light years away in a direction only knowable in the
vaguest of senses.

Actually, the ships could steer, just not as well as a sane person
would accept. Normally misjump would be about 1 in 10,000 (with a
service life of 1300 jumps (every two weeks for 50 years) that is a 1
in 8 chance of being lost in space forever). These ships were on the
order of 1 in 10 to 1 in 100. Most (but not all) ended up relatively
close to earth, but still sufficiently far. With the distance and
loss of technology Earth got 'lost', but it is NOT on the other side
of the universe (for most colony ships anyway...). In fact people are
pretty sure (via large galactc structures, as you said) that they are
'nearby', within a few thousand light years anyway.

The planet in question is exactly where you would expect it to be- in
the middle of human occupied space. Working back from the known
properties and locations of remaining colony ships (ancient and
preserved relics now) this planet is the most probable to be the
'real' earth.

Problem is, things got lost, garbled and misinterpreted over time.
There are basic data about this planet that are 'wrong'. The day is
slightly off. (standard time measures got slightly 'adjusted' from
the original, just as the inch was not always exactly 2.54
centimeters) The year is 'wrong'. The archaic 360 degrees in a
circle is simply overwhelming evidence that Earth had a 360 day year,
after all. This planet is 5 days too long and primitives in awe of
the gods obviously do not merely 'round off'. Certain monuments and
geographical features are missing (destroyed, changed) or unmentioned
(it's 6000 years later, some things have changed). Others are made of
materials known not to exist at the time (destroyed and replaced in
the interim). Other planets mimic Earth just as closely.

There are also clear records of the arrival of colony ships (yes, but
the planet already had people...) and no long term history
9civilization was *destroyed* in the 1000 year nightmare following the
burst, including not only natural disaster, but wars by desperate
survivors for dwindling resources with leftover arsenals from better
times.

[tussock]

Jumpijng to empty space is flatly impossible, its like a pool shot on
an infinitely large frictionless 3d pool table where time does not
exist.

Time and space are the same thing; when you travel quickly across space
you also travel quickly across time. So jump all you like, 1000 light years
away is fine, it's just no matter how instantly you cross it there'll be
2000 years gone by before you can get back.

People should totally use that in their sci-fi. The request for help
from Alpha Centauri is four years old, and they won't get any response for
another four. Certainly encourage good planning skills.

[Shawn Wilson]

    Time and space are the same thing; when you travel quickly across space
you also travel quickly across time. So jump all you like, 1000 light years
away is fine, it's just no matter how instantly you cross it there'll be
2000 years gone by before you can get back.
    People should totally use that in their sci-fi. The request for help
from Alpha Centauri is four years old, and they won't get any response for
another four. Certainly encourage good planning skills.

No. Information lags, sure, multi year lags for the next system? No
way. This is not a science textbook. Besides we already know
Einstein was wrong (Pioneer Anomaly, etc).

[tussock]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
Time and space are the same thing; when you travel quickly across space
you also travel quickly across time. So jump all you like, 1000 light
years away is fine, it's just no matter how instantly you cross it
there'll be 2000 years gone by before you can get back.
People should totally use that in their sci-fi. The request for help
from Alpha Centauri is four years old, and they won't get any response
for another four. Certainly encourage good planning skills.

No. Information lags, sure, multi year lags for the next system? No
way. This is not a science textbook. Besides we already know
Einstein was wrong (Pioneer Anomaly, etc).

General Relativity is not a theory of everything, but it is /right/.
Hell, Newton's right that you can accelerate infinitely and approach
infinite kinetic energy thereby, it just turns out that infinite velocity
*is* the speed of light in a vacuum. Satellites work, eh.

It's not an abstract thing, there really is one second across every 3
hundred million meters distance, and 1x10^8 seconds (3.26 years) across each
parsec. We all use that fact on a daily basis, with satellites.


Anyhoo, why not 4 years rather than 2 weeks? If you run a medieval game
it can take years to explore beyond your own empire. Age of Sail explorers
spent years seeing the world, mutinous crews disappeared for good. Classic
star trek was a 5-year voyage, and Voyager was lost for 70 years. You can
totally tell stories like that, especially as your 8-year exploration trip
only takes a week for the PCs.

But no, everyone wants a story about driving across the state line. 8[

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Shawn Wilson
Besides we already know
Einstein was wrong (Pioneer Anomaly, etc).

    General Relativity is not a theory of everything, but it is /right/.

No, it is WRONG. Exactly how it is wrong is up for speculation, and
it may merely not include some effects, but the theory as a whole is
as wrong as Newton.

Hell, Newton's right that you can accelerate infinitely and approach
infinite kinetic energy thereby, it just turns out that infinite velocity
*is* the speed of light in a vacuum. Satellites work, eh.

But they DON'T work as Einstein predicted. Sure the difference is
microscopic, but the difference between Einstein and Newton is
microscopic.

    Anyhoo, why not 4 years rather than 2 weeks?

Because it's too long.

[tussock]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock

Besides we already know Einstein was wrong (Pioneer Anomaly, etc).

General Relativity is not a theory of everything, but it is /right/.

No, it is WRONG. Exactly how it is wrong is up for speculation, and
it may merely not include some effects, but the theory as a whole is
as wrong as Newton.

Neither Newton's laws, nor general relativity are wrong. It's just that
simple. GR is not a theory of everything, it only states how Newton's and
Maxwell's laws can both be true at the same time in all reference frames,
and the math of that was used to predict extremely strange things that
turned out to be true.

Think about it. GR has predicted all sorts of crazy shit that have
always been there when we went looking for it. None of its predictions have
ever been falsified, even when it had to predict *new* crazy stuff like Dark
Matter and Dark Energy to explain problems that *weren't known when it was
written*.
Seriously. That's *amazing*. That also makes GR *right*. Deeply counter-
intuitive, yes. /Seriously/ challenging math, yes. Not wrong though.


'S like, biological evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, but it's
still /right/, being predictive of solutions to endless problems in biology
and geology alike, including problems not yet known when the theory was
postulated (like how to minimise anti-biotic resistance in bacteria).
Shit, evolution predicted the earth had to be billions of years old
before anyone could understand how that might be possible, how the sun could
burn that long or the earth's core could still be warm. That's right,
evolution _predicted_ incredibly powerful and long-lasting energy sources
for the earth's core and the sun that turned out to be nuclear fission and
fusion respectively. That's *amazing*.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by tussock
General Relativity is not a theory of everything, but it is /right/.

No, it is WRONG.  Exactly how it is wrong is up for speculation, and
it may merely not include some effects, but the theory as a whole is
as wrong as Newton.

    Neither Newton's laws, nor general relativity are wrong.

They are both models of how the world supposedly works, and the world
doesn't work that way. That is the definiton of wrong. They may be
(and indeed are) very useful approximations, but they aren't
'right'.

A theory isn't 'right' just because you like it and can't figure out
whay reality is 'off'.

It's just that
simple. GR is not a theory of everything, it only states how Newton's and
Maxwell's laws can both be true at the same time in all reference frames,
and the math of that was used to predict extremely strange things that
turned out to be true.

And other predictions turned out to be false.

    Think about it. GR has predicted all sorts of crazy shit that have
always been there when we went looking for it.

So what?

None of its predictions have
ever been falsified,

Pioneer anomaly, flyby anomaly, galactic rotation anomaly...



even when it had to predict *new* crazy stuff like Dark

Matter and Dark Energy to explain problems that *weren't known when it was
written*.

Dark matter isn't known NOW. It is an ad hocery to 'save' GR. Let it
go.

    Seriously. That's *amazing*. That also makes GR *right*. Deeply counter-
intuitive, yes. /Seriously/ challenging math, yes. Not wrong though.

Reality makes it WRONG.

    'S like, biological evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, but it's
still /right/, being predictive of solutions to endless problems in biology
and geology alike, including problems not yet known when the theory was
postulated (like how to minimise anti-biotic resistance in bacteria).

It is a nice theory consistent with the evidence we have but not
actuallly testable by human beings. It is not revealed TRUTH.

     Shit, evolution predicted the earth had to be billions of years old
before anyone could understand how that might be possible, how the sun could
burn that long or the earth's core could still be warm. That's right,
evolution _predicted_ incredibly powerful and long-lasting energy sources
for the earth's core and the sun that turned out to be nuclear fission and
fusion respectively. That's *amazing*.

There are infinitely many different theories. Only ONE is actually
how the universe works. SOME are close to it, and will make similar
predictions, but they aren't it. Don't mistake coolness for revealed
truth.

[tussock]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
General Relativity is not a theory of everything, but it is /right/.

No, it is WRONG. Exactly how it is wrong is up for speculation, and
it may merely not include some effects, but the theory as a whole is
as wrong as Newton.

Neither Newton's laws, nor general relativity are wrong.

They are both models of how the world supposedly works, and the world
doesn't work that way.

Bullshit, Wilson. Newton's laws *are* the solution for GR in a co-moving
reference frame.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
It's just that simple. GR is not a theory of everything, it only states
how Newton's and Maxwell's laws can both be true at the same time in all
reference frames, and the math of that was used to predict extremely
strange things that turned out to be true.

And other predictions turned out to be false.

No they didn't. There's some anomolies that are constantly being solved
by looking harder at what the theory suggests.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
Think about it. GR has predicted all sorts of crazy shit that have
always been there when we went looking for it.

So what?

So ... I don't get your complaint. Predicting strange things without
direct evidence and having them turn out to be true all the time: that's
because your basic theory was right.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
None of its predictions have ever been falsified,

Pioneer anomaly, flyby anomaly, galactic rotation anomaly...

Solved, solved, solved. Differential cooling (modeling /that/ is
computationally difficult), special relativity overlooked (SR and GR are
really complicated, even for experts), dark matter (A big WTF?!? idea that
just happens to be true, again).

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
even when it had to predict *new* crazy stuff like Dark Matter and Dark
Energy to explain problems that *weren't known when it was written*.

Dark matter isn't known NOW. It is an ad hocery to 'save' GR. Let it
go.

It's what GR /predicted/ to solve the galactic rotation problem, widely
distributed mass that isn't electromagnetically active, and they found dark
matter exactly as predicted with the bullet cluster (in a way that was /not/
what competing theories predicted). Look it up.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
'S like, biological evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, but it's
still /right/, being predictive of solutions to endless problems in
biology and geology alike, including problems not yet known when the
theory was postulated (like how to minimise anti-biotic resistance in
bacteria).

It is a nice theory consistent with the evidence we have but not
actuallly testable by human beings. It is not revealed TRUTH.

<Sigh>, and off you go into nutbag religious territory again.
Inheritance of selectable traits via genetics and meta-genetics has been
tested and proved true. We actively manipulate such selectable traits to do
things like fight HIV infection, control weed crops and insect pests,
minimise anti-biotic resistance.
Shit, we produce random mutations in useful crops with radiation and
interesting chemicals and select for breeding whichever ones turn out to be
more useful as a result. *Every single one of those* is a successful test
for evolutionary change.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by tussock
Shit, evolution predicted the earth had to be billions of years old
before anyone could understand how that might be possible, how the sun
could burn that long or the earth's core could still be warm. That's
right, evolution _predicted_ incredibly powerful and long-lasting energy
sources for the earth's core and the sun that turned out to be nuclear
fission and fusion respectively. That's *amazing*.

There are infinitely many different theories.

No there aren't, you buffoon.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Only ONE is actually how the universe works.

Not true at all. A great many theories are statistical in nature over
uncountable minor events, or simplifications of difficult math for common
situations (where the difficult math is also a statistical measure).

Post by Shawn Wilson
SOME are close to it, and will make similar predictions, but they aren't
it. Don't mistake coolness for revealed truth.

What revealed truth? You know what "revealed" means? Let's see it. You
can't possibly be saying the bible is an explanation of the universe, can
you? Seriously?

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Aug 28, 4:15 am, tussock <***@clear.net.nz> wrote:
|
|>     Time and space are the same thing; when you travel quickly across space
|> you also travel quickly across time. So jump all you like, 1000 light years
|> away is fine, it's just no matter how instantly you cross it there'll be
|> 2000 years gone by before you can get back.
|>
|>     People should totally use that in their sci-fi. The request for help
|> from Alpha Centauri is four years old, and they won't get any response for
|> another four. Certainly encourage good planning skills.
|
|
| No. Information lags, sure, multi year lags for the next system? No
| way. This is not a science textbook. Besides we already know
| Einstein was wrong (Pioneer Anomaly, etc).


Sorry, but the "Pioneer Anomaly" is asymmetric radiation of heat from
the probe body. The original calculations of the heat radiation didn't
properly account for the refections off the back of the main radio
transmitter dish.

This was publicised earlier this year.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Paul Colquhoun
Sorry, but the "Pioneer Anomaly" is asymmetric radiation of heat from
the probe body. The original calculations of the heat radiation didn't
properly account for the refections off the back of the main radio
transmitter dish.
This was publicised earlier this year.

Also satellite problem, and the galaxy orbit problem. And uneven
radiation only affests SOME of the acceleration, not all.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Aug 29, 1:36 am, Paul Colquhoun <***@andor.dropbear.id.au>
| wrote:
|
|> Sorry, but the "Pioneer Anomaly" is asymmetric radiation of heat from
|> the probe body. The original calculations of the heat radiation didn't
|> properly account for the refections off the back of the main radio
|> transmitter dish.
|>
|> This was publicised earlier this year.
|
|
| Also satellite problem, and the galaxy orbit problem. And uneven
| radiation only affests SOME of the acceleration, not all.


a) What in particular do you mean by "satellite problem"?

b) I assume you don't like the current Dark Matter explanation for the
galactic rotation anomalies.

c) The most recent Pioneer uneven radiation calculations *do* account
for all the measured acceleration.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028073.700-mundane-explanation-for-bizarre-pioneer-anomaly.html
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v65/i8/e082004

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Paul Colquhoun
|> Sorry, but the "Pioneer Anomaly" is asymmetric radiation of heat from
|> the probe body. The original calculations of the heat radiation didn't
|> properly account for the refections off the back of the main radio
|> transmitter dish.
|>
|> This was publicised earlier this year.
|
|
| Also satellite problem, and the galaxy orbit problem.  And uneven
| radiation only affests SOME of the acceleration, not all.
a) What in particular do you mean by "satellite problem"?

What I mean based on my menory that precise measurements of satellite
orbits didn'y give the values predicted under GR. I may have
misremembered something else, called the 'Flyby anomaly', which refers
to space probes. More acceleration unexplained by GR. Very small, of
course.

Post by Paul Colquhoun
b) I assume you don't like the current Dark Matter explanation for the
galactic rotation anomalies.

Not even a little bit. It is pure ad hoc. Ass-ume the theory is
correct, and invent an adjustment with and only with the exact
properties that makes observations 'fit'. Bullshit. That's the very
DEFINITION of ad hoc. Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process. Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

Post by Paul Colquhoun
c) The most recent Pioneer uneven radiation calculations *do* account
for all the measured acceleration.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028073.700-mundane-explanatio...http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v65/i8/e082004

No, they don't. That is mere speculation that it *might*.

[Bent C Dalager]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Paul Colquhoun
b) I assume you don't like the current Dark Matter explanation for the
galactic rotation anomalies.

Not even a little bit. It is pure ad hoc. Ass-ume the theory is
correct, and invent an adjustment with and only with the exact
properties that makes observations 'fit'. Bullshit. That's the very
DEFINITION of ad hoc.

If so then all science is ad hoc: scientific theories are built to
explain observations that have been made. A theory built for some
other purpose than to explain observed phenomena, is not a scientific
theory.

In the above case, the theory with its adjustment will stand until
someone can falsify the adjustment. That is science.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process. Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

Cheers,
Bent D.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Bent C Dalager

Post by Paul Colquhoun
b) I assume you don't like the current Dark Matter explanation for the
galactic rotation anomalies.

Not even a little bit.  It is pure ad hoc.  Ass-ume the theory is
correct, and invent an adjustment with and only with the exact
properties that makes observations 'fit'.  Bullshit.  That's the very
DEFINITION of ad hoc.

If so then all science is ad hoc: scientific theories are built to
explain observations that have been made. A theory built for some
other purpose than to explain observed phenomena, is not a scientific
theory.

Dark matter isn't a theory. ('what if magic unicorns magically fix
everythign isn't theory', it isn't even supposition) And ad hocery
isn't theory either. When observed realtity differs from your theory,
that means your theory is wrong. It doesn't mean the invisible pink
unicorns you invent to 'fix things' really exist.

Post by Bent C Dalager
In the above case, the theory with its adjustment will stand until
someone can falsify the adjustment. That is science.

Right until proven wrong? Bullshit. That is NOT science.

Post by Bent C Dalager

 Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process.  Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

Show me the reason.

[Bent C Dalager]

Post by Shawn Wilson
Right until proven wrong? Bullshit. That is NOT science.

I think you will find that the very foundation of modern science is in
the construction of falsifiable theories that stand only so long as
they are not falsified.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Bent C Dalager

 Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process.  Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

Show me the reason.

I do not claim that there is no reason; nor do I claim that there is
one. The claim is yours and so the burden of providing evidence is
yours also.

Furthermore, if science were to be built on the premise that all
underlying reasons must be known before we may begin to build our
theories, we can start discussing whether or not we'd have invented
the reciprocating steam engine by now.

Cheers,
Bent D

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Bent C Dalager

Right until proven wrong?  Bullshit.  That is NOT science.

I think you will find that the very foundation of modern science is in
the construction of falsifiable theories that stand only so long as
they are not falsified.

Well, my invisible magic unicorn theory of the universe has never been
falsified, so by your argument it stands...

You want me to show you an invisible magic unicorn before you believe
in them? Sorry, they're invisible...

Now, show me dark matter...

Post by Bent C Dalager

Post by Bent C Dalager

 Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process.  Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

Show me the reason.

I do not claim that there is no reason; nor do I claim that there is
one. The claim is yours and so the burden of providing evidence is
yours also.

*I* don't claim the existence of dark matter.

[Bent C Dalager]

Post by Shawn Wilson
Well, my invisible magic unicorn theory of the universe has never been
falsified, so by your argument it stands...
You want me to show you an invisible magic unicorn before you believe
in them? Sorry, they're invisible...

You will need to establish how your theory is falsifiable before
anyone will even so much as look at it.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Bent C Dalager

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Bent C Dalager

 Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most
of the universe, but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity
of Earth and it isn't created by any physical process.  Not only that,
but it has to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

Show me the reason.

I do not claim that there is no reason; nor do I claim that there is
one. The claim is yours and so the burden of providing evidence is
yours also.

*I* don't claim the existence of dark matter.

You make claims about its distribution that would be interesting if
you could provide some evidence for those claims.

Cheers,
Bent D

[David Lamb]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Bent C Dalager
In the above case, the theory with its adjustment will stand until
someone can falsify the adjustment. That is science.

Right until proven wrong? Bullshit. That is NOT science.

Uh, Shawn, have you ever studied Philosophy of Science? Popper's
"Falsifiability" characterization of scientific theories is pretty
widely accepted as a reasonable first approximation to what science is
all about.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Bent C Dalager
In the above case, the theory with its adjustment will stand until
someone can falsify the adjustment. That is science.

Right until proven wrong?  Bullshit.  That is NOT science.

Uh, Shawn, have you ever studied Philosophy of Science?  Popper's
"Falsifiability" characterization of scientific theories is pretty
widely accepted as a reasonable first approximation to what science is
all about.

I AM a scientist by training. Theories are *NOT*EVER* ass-umed right
until proven wrong. They either describe reality or they don't. You
want to use the problems with GR to start looking for dark matter?
Fine. That GR is wrong is not evidence that dark matter exists.

Is there ANY evidence for dark matter beyong GR being wrong? No.
What does a reasonable man conclude from this? GR is wrong.

[David Lamb]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by David Lamb

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Bent C Dalager
In the above case, the theory with its adjustment will stand until
someone can falsify the adjustment. That is science.

Right until proven wrong? Bullshit. That is NOT science.

Uh, Shawn, have you ever studied Philosophy of Science? Popper's
"Falsifiability" characterization of scientific theories is pretty
widely accepted as a reasonable first approximation to what science is
all about.

I AM a scientist by training.

So am I.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Theories are *NOT*EVER* ass-umed right
until proven wrong.

So far, so good.

Post by Shawn Wilson
They either describe reality or they don't.

Not quite. They explain what we've currently observed, or they don't. A
small number of "outlier" observations don't invalidate a theory until
repeated attempts to replicate them succeed and repeated attempts to
explain them (including as possible observational errors) fail.

When enough "anomalies" accumulate to convince people they're not just
observational errors, people look for modifications of the old theories.
In the very early stages of adapting to newly-accepted observations,
there are often a bunch of conflicting modifications, some of which look
"far out" to some scientists and "plausible" to others. Once upon a time
people didn't think "electrons" were real.

The longer a theory has proved useful (in several ways, including making
predictions of new things), the more confident scientists feel about its
reliability.

Regarding dark matter specifically, I know too little to make a
convincing argument. Maintaining GR while postulating Dark Matter seems
to me one plausible way to proceed; looking for some modification of GR
that rejects Dark Matter also seems plausible. Outright rejecting all of
GR doesn't make sense when it has been successful; it might someday
prove to be an approximation that worked well for a lot of early
observations and needed revision when more was observed. Newton's laws
are "wrong" but good enough for some purposes.

None of this has much to do with science fiction, where a small number
of deviations from "generally accepted science" are common, or even
expected. I don't have any serious objection to your rejecting GR in
your campaign world -- FTL travel does, too.

[Tim Little]

Post by David Lamb
None of this has much to do with science fiction, where a small number
of deviations from "generally accepted science" are common, or even
expected. I don't have any serious objection to your rejecting GR in
your campaign world -- FTL travel does, too.

You know, I was surprised when I saw the first couple of Shawn posts
in this thread. Unlike pretty much everything else I've ever seen him
post, it was an interesting topic and his post was fairly well
reasoned, with only a few mistakes that were forgivable in the context
of a fictional game setting. I'm not at all surprised that he has
gone back to ranting about his misunderstandings of the real world.
That's the familiar Shawn Wilson.

So yes, let's discuss the fiction some more and not let the off-topic
argument drown it out.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Tim Little
So yes, let's discuss the fiction some more and not let the off-topic
argument drown it out.

Ok, more about the setting. technologically, as I said, it resembles
Traveller, except where different (as, indeed, does The Smurfs...).
There is only one kind of space weapon- it fires bolts of some sort of
energy. Gun mounts are turrets, and the loading process resembles any
WWII naval movie you care to name. I imagne canister of hydrogen is
inserted into the firing chamber, which is then fused by gravitational
implosion and the energy released directed into a bolt of energy.
Specifically I think it is converted into very high velocity quantum
black holes. The armor of the defending ship is infused with
microscopic gravity induced that pick up and amplify the gravity of
the passing hole, causin them to curve and expend most of their energy
harmlessly as gravity waves.

These are called, I think Meson Guns (they are named for their
inventor, a certain Robert 'Bob' Meson) and planets are defended with
deep underground batteries.

Other energy weapons are not used except by those too primitive to
make Meson Guns.

There are no force fields, but the action of the Bergenholm (as I
mentioned, many Smithian nouns) makes kinetic energy weapons utterly
useless- inertialess. Missiles ala Weber are just ineffective and a
waste of resources as weapons, even with radiant energy warheads.
They can be shot down at too great a range.

Space warfar includes gunboats (ala PT boats) and fighters, but is
dominated by battleships. Small craft can't carry weapons effective
enough to do more than harrass capital ships. Think the '30s, not the
'40s.

Technology in the Core is fully developed. It has not changed
significantly in 1000 years. They aren't stagnant, they have just
reached their (current) full potential. This is because I don't want
R&D or new and shiny to be a relevant factor for them. Think Star
Wars.

The Core polities all have different political systems, but have some
traits strongly in common.

Notably these are- their government are Libertarian and their
governemnt officials are all extremely highly trained and educated for
their jobs, PhD level in policy analysis and/or public administration
*universally*. Clerks are clerks and like clerks everywhere, but
policy makers are all experts at their jobs.

I haven't fully worked out the names the powers will take, so I wll
call them by what they are here-

The Big Three powes are

UK- a *genuine* monarchy, currently ruled by King Arthur LXXXII
Pendragon (yes, all of their kings are named Arthur no, none of their
queens have ever been named Guenever). The first Arthur took a name
from mythology when he created the empire and is personally modeled on
Conan vis a vis Aquilonia. No one claims the Empire's Arthurs have
anything to do with Camelot beyond sharing a name. They did make an
Excalibur for the royal regalia though. While the first king was
modeled on Conan, it will be a running gag that everyone thinks the
later ones remind them of their pharmacist. Don't look like kings
anyway. The current king is modeled as a mix of President Bush
(elder) (appearance, demeanor) and Lord Vetinari (everything else). I
haven't decided on the current queen, except that she is alive and
well.

He has four children- Margaret, who has declined to be the heir and
CERTAINLY did not use vile language in telling them what they could do
with their jewelled birdcage. Princesses don't even know that sort of
language. She is consequently regarded as the smartest of the four.
The Heir and the Spare (sons) coming along nicely and notable for
being unmemorable (no one ever calls them anything but the Heir and
Spare). (note- NOT modeled on William and Harry, who I think are
twits). And Stephanie, who is VERY good at being a princess and
strongly implied to be a vacuous airhead. Actually she is as smart as
her siblings, she just applies it to being good at her job of being a
princess (think public relations).

The Empire was orignially 4 kingdoms- First to Fourth (England, Wales,
Scotland, Ireland), with two added later- Fifth (Canada) and Sixth
(Australia). The latter two are not that far from the first four, not
like Canada and Australia, but there is a moderate geographical
boundary that seperated them. The Sixth Kingdom once had a small
comfortable prison colony for political prisoners of high rank.
People make more of this now than it ever was in history. Talk of
being descended from a prisoner has an entirely different maning than
in modern Australia. Members of the 3rd and 4th kingdoms talk of
rebellion with about the same depth and sincerity as the guy flying
the confederate flags really has. That is, it IS just talk and
'national pride'.

Inhabited planets and surrounding uninhabited areas are ruled by
Dukes, under them Counts, at the bottom are the Barons. A baron will
rule a region of about 250,000 people (and large cities will be
'ruled' by multiple barons') It is a Count's jobs (in part) to adjust
baronial boundaries to match population shifts, with the limit that
all baronies must be contiguous (and reasonably compact) and not one
inch can ever be taken away from a living Baron. An heir would not
necessarily inherit the same boundaries as his predecessor and a large
barony might be split on the death of the old. The Dukes do this for
the Counts.

Being a baron is a good job, but not a great one. Think mayor of a
small city for life.

The King is advised (note, not 'advised', the king has the final and
only word) by the House of Commons (democratically elected) and the
House of Lords, who are elevated citizens of great ability and
acomplishment chosen by the King (or his predecessor) who serve for
life (not passed on by inheritance). The King does not require their
permision to do ANYTHING, nor is he bound in the slightest by anything
they say or do. They exist solely as a means whereby he might do a
better job of ruling. There is also the unofficial conclave of Dukes,
which has no official existence, but the Dukes are powerful.

There is no Constitution (beyond "the King's word is the law and the
whole of the law") but there are precedents and traditions and
imperial edicts on certain things, so the kings power is limited
STRONGLY by what people would accept, which does not extend to tyranny
under any conditions. Kings have been killed before. So have Dukes
(and counts, and barons...). Civil Rights, as such, are 'guaranteed'
by being imperial edicts of very long standing and Tradition.

There is also an unlimited gaggle of other titles that don't really
mean anything- The Marquis of Whatsit and such, given as recognition
for whatever. Most formal recognition of accomplishment is granted by
knighthoods, of which there are a myriad of different orders and
grades and levels for accomplishment in different fields (science,
arts, humanities, charity, public works... everything). This includes
Charity, so if you want to be an imperial Earl you can do so by merely
giving his majesty's official imperial charity a load of money. Many
grades of knighthood include either cash rewards or even pensions.

The public is mostly considered the peasantry (not in a negative way),
mostly as a step between Serfs- people under official punishment of
whatever level, from community service picking up trash, to mass
murders thrown in a hole forever and Squires- ordinary people more
important to the community. These are not quite official, as being
made Squire is mostly receiving a fancy letter from the baron
congratulating Squire SoandSo for his contribution to the community
for running a sandwhich ship for five years, or even just for living
to old age. The bar isn't high. Pretending to be a Squire when you
really haven't been recognized is considered pathetic, not a criminal
matter.

Yes, barons are expected to be intimately familiar with everything
going on in their barony. At the scene of a terrible accident, the
tired looking guy in the worn suit talking to the police and generally
supervising is the baron. He would regularly meet with schoolchildren
and you could probably get in to see him without an appointment. He
has a nice office (used for storage when not need for official
functions) and fancy regalia for official functions (now hung up under
dust covers). His working office is cluttered and worn, and the suit
he's actually wearing wrinkled.

Note, there is no death penalty, though His Majesty does employ
soldiers and assassins. Policemen don't generally carry weapons,
beyond a billyclub, unless circumstances call for it.


'Germany' is basically identical to the modern US. Term lengths are
doubled though (8 for President, 4 for Congress, etc). It has only
two interesting properties- the debates in their Congress are the Mung
Poetry of boring (really, really worldclass, chew your arm off dull).
Assignment to transcribe or even read them are the nuclear option of
punitive measures among anyone who might do so (intelligence agencies,
diplomats, etc) and considered crueller than a death sentence. And
the two ruling parties (Liberals and Conservatives) are absolutely
indistinguishable from each other in positions or arguements to the
point outsiders claim party affiliation is determined by coin flip.


France has a parliamentary system of unusual /vibrancy/ and consider
anyone who has the same party affilition at dinner he had at breakfast
to be hopelessly senile. Three Frenchmen, five political parties, you
know the joke.


Note Bene- remember, all the people in the French and German systems
are PhD level in their field. They are ALL smart and capable and
knowledgable. The French may be theatrical, but they aren't stupid or
self destructive. All will do what is best for their polity as they
see it, and won't support corruption or personal gain.

Yes, worthwhile politicians... this IS science fiction...

The other 9 or so entities of the Core have their own political
systems, the 'moral' being quality people matter more than the
system.

[Luke Campbell]

Is there ANY evidence for dark matter beyong GR being wrong?  No.

Yes, actually. There's the bullet cluster and high precision maps of
the cosmic microwave background. Plus, GR indicates dark matter in
several independent, consistent ways (such as via gravitational
lensing).

Luke

[Shawn Wilson]

Is there ANY evidence for dark matter beyong GR being wrong?  No.

Yes, actually.  There's the bullet cluster and high precision maps of
the cosmic microwave background.  Plus, GR indicates dark matter in
several independent, consistent ways (such as via gravitational
lensing).

Or, in the real world, not.

[Luke Campbell]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Is there ANY evidence for dark matter beyong GR being wrong?  No.

Yes, actually.  There's the bullet cluster and high precision maps of
the cosmic microwave background.  Plus, GR indicates dark matter in
several independent, consistent ways (such as via gravitational
lensing).

Or, in the real world, not.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The bullet cluster is an
actual, real world astronomical object discovered in a real world
observation. COBE and WMAP were real world studies of the cosmic
microwave background. Evidence for dark matter from galactic rotation
curves and gravitational lensing are from real world observations.
And the agreement of simulations of the evolution of the distribution
of matter in the universe using cold dark matter models with
observations of the distributions of galaxies comes from studies that
happened in the real world.

Luke

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Luke Campbell

Post by Shawn Wilson

Yes, actually.  There's the bullet cluster and high precision maps of
the cosmic microwave background.  Plus, GR indicates dark matter in
several independent, consistent ways (such as via gravitational
lensing).

Or, in the real world, not.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The bullet cluster is an
actual, real world astronomical object discovered in a real world
observation.

Yes, dark matter is not. None of the things you mention are evidence
of the existence of dark matter. They are, at best, things that could
be explained by dark matter, maybe. Here is anothyer thing that could
explain the deviation from GR- GR is simply wrong.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Luke Campbell
I am not sure what you are saying here. The bullet cluster is an
actual, real world astronomical object discovered in a real world
observation.

Yes, dark matter is not.

Is not what? Are you asserting that it does not have some property? Or
are you asserting thta you know it does not exist? Either way, how do
you know?

Post by Shawn Wilson
None of the things you mention are evidence of the existence of dark
matter. They are, at best, things that could be explained by dark
matter, maybe.

What, to your mind, is the difference between “evidence of the existence
of dark matter” versus “observations that can be explained by the
existence of dark matter”, where “dark matter” means exactly the same
theoretical phenomenon in both?

Post by Shawn Wilson
Here is anothyer thing that could explain the deviation from GR- GR is
simply wrong.

“GR is wrong” is not an explanation of anything. What are you asserting
is the more accurate explanation for the real-world observations?

[David Lamb]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson
None of the things you mention are evidence of the existence of dark
matter. They are, at best, things that could be explained by dark
matter, maybe.

What, to your mind, is the difference between “evidence of the existence
of dark matter” versus “observations that can be explained by the
existence of dark matter”, where “dark matter” means exactly the same
theoretical phenomenon in both?

Yeah, that was going to be my question, too. Shawn, I really would like
to know what subtle distinction you might be trying to make between
"evidence of the existence of X" and "observations that can be explained
by the existence of X". Maybe pick some other X, like electrons?

[Shawn Wilson]

Yeah, that was going to be my question, too.  Shawn, I really would like
to know what subtle distinction you might be trying to make between
"evidence of the existence of X" and "observations that can be explained
by the existence of X".  Maybe pick some other X, like electrons?

Show me some dark matter. It supposedly makes up 75% of the mass of
the universe. There should be three Earths full on Earth.

No?

Show me the process that supposedly creates it?

None?

Do you see the problem?

Differentiate it from my invisible magic unicorns.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Yeah, that was going to be my question, too.  Shawn, I really would
like to know what subtle distinction you might be trying to make
between "evidence of the existence of X" and "observations that can
be explained by the existence of X".  Maybe pick some other X, like
electrons?

Show me some dark matter. It supposedly makes up 75% of the mass of
the universe. There should be three Earths full on Earth.

You're attacking a straw man. It's no more sensible than saying that,
since scientists say the Earth's surface is over 70% water, there should
be a lake in your living room.

If you're intending to mock the theory, at least understand what the
theory actually claims.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Do you see the problem?

I don't see you answering the question posed: What is the distinction
you're trying to draw between “evidence for the existence of X” versus
“observations that can be explained by the existence of X”?

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Ben Finney

Show me some dark matter.  It supposedly makes up 75% of the mass of
the universe.  There should be three Earths full on Earth.

You're attacking a straw man. It's no more sensible than saying that,
since scientists say the Earth's surface is over 70% water, there should
be a lake in your living room.

There is indeed water everywhere. It even falls from the sky.
Something claiemd to be ubiquitous actally IS ubiquitous.

Post by Ben Finney
If you're intending to mock the theory, at least understand what the
theory actually claims.

Do you see the problem?

I don't see you answering the question posed: What is the distinction
you're trying to draw between “evidence for the existence of X” versus
“observations that can be explained by the existence of X”?

Invisible magic unicorns explain everything.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Ben Finney
I don't see you answering the question posed: What is the distinction
you're trying to draw between “evidence for the existence of X” versus
“observations that can be explained by the existence of X”?

Invisible magic unicorns explain everything.

Okay. I'll have to take that as your acknowledgement you don't have any
useful response. Thanks.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Ben Finney
I don't see you answering the question posed: What is the distinction
you're trying to draw between “evidence for the existence of X” versus
“observations that can be explained by the existence of X”?

Invisible magic unicorns explain everything.

Okay. I'll have to take that as your acknowledgement you don't have any
useful response. Thanks.

I'm still waiting for you to show me some dark matter. It's
supposedly 75% of the universe after all. Once you do that you can
explain why it would be distributed specifically in a ring around
galaxies, rather than being distributed the way all other matter is.

I do not have to prove dark matter doesn't exist. Those who claim its
existence have to prove their side. I am perfectly justified in my
skepticism.

Note, mere speculation is not evidence. I am an actual scientist and
I know the difference.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:33:30 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Sep 3, 3:21 pm, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au>
| wrote:
|> Shawn Wilson <***@gmail.com> writes:
|> > On Sep 3, 2:13 pm, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au>
|> > wrote:
|>
|> > > I don't see you answering the question posed: What is the distinction
|> > > you're trying to draw between “evidence for the existence of X” versus
|> > > “observations that can be explained by the existence of X”?
|>
|> > Invisible magic unicorns explain everything.
|>
|> Okay. I'll have to take that as your acknowledgement you don't have any
|> useful response. Thanks.
|
|
| I'm still waiting for you to show me some dark matter. It's
| supposedly 75% of the universe after all. Once you do that you can
| explain why it would be distributed specifically in a ring around
| galaxies, rather than being distributed the way all other matter is.
|
| I do not have to prove dark matter doesn't exist. Those who claim its
| existence have to prove their side. I am perfectly justified in my
| skepticism.
|
| Note, mere speculation is not evidence. I am an actual scientist and
| I know the difference.


I thought you claimed to be an economist? What's your main area of
research?

[Shawn Wilson]

| Note, mere speculation is not evidence.  I am an actual scientist and
| I know the difference.
I thought you claimed to be an economist?  What's your main area of
research?

Economics...

[Tim Little]

Once you do that you can explain why it would be distributed
specifically in a ring around galaxies,

No theory predicts dark matter to be distributed in a "ring around
galaxies". It is predicted to be distributed relatively uniformly,
rather than concentrated like the visible matter into a highly
nonuniform disk full of arms, clumps, and billions of pointlike
concentrations we call stars.

rather than being distributed the way all other matter is.

The other matter interacts electromagnetically. That means that it is
subject to magnetic fields, ionisation, photon scattering, molecular
and atomic collisions, and other forces that cause much of it to clump
into stars. If dark matter exists, then it will not be subject to
these forces and should be expected to be much more uniformly
distributed for given gravitational potential.

I do not have to prove dark matter doesn't exist. Those who claim its
existence have to prove their side. I am perfectly justified in my
skepticism.

Skepticism is only justified before the point where you become
wilfully ignorant. You've already demonstrated that you have no idea
on the state of either of theory or observation in this field (not
even up to the level of a simple Wikipedia summary), and obviously
refuse to look.

On top of that, you make outlandish demands for "evidence" that even a
high school student would recognise as irrelevant.

So no, you're not in the slightest justified. You've evidently passed
way beyond healthy skepticism into deliberately ignoring a great deal
of rather convincing evidence from many independent sources, and
apparently happy to broadcast your intent to remain that way.

I am an actual scientist and I know the difference.

You haven't shown any evidence at all of being a scientist.
Observation of your posts indicates that you don't know the theory,
you don't know the observations, and you don't even know the
scientific method. You're about as far from being an astrophysicist
as Paris Hilton is from being a neurosurgeon - with the exception that
she might be able to learn some medicine, but you show no sign of
being capable of advancing your understanding of any scientific field.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Shawn Wilson
I'm still waiting for you to show me some dark matter.

I never claimed that I could. Feel free to wait; I'm not likely to show
you anything of the kind.

In fact, I'm waiting too – not to be “shown” dark matter, since anything
which can be shown to me is not dark matter.

Rather, I'm waiting for the people who spend significant resources on
the search. I'm waiting for them to show empirical observations that are
best explained by the existence of dark matter.

I'm (more recently) waiting for you to distinguish between “observations
that are best explained by X” versus “evidence for X”, since you speak
as though there is some difference. What is the difference, to you?

Post by Shawn Wilson
It's supposedly 75% of the universe after all. Once you do that you
can explain why it would be distributed specifically in a ring around
galaxies, rather than being distributed the way all other matter is.

That's still a straw man you're attacking; I know of no dark matter
theory postulated by any cosmologist that would have the properties you
describe. Who supposes what you're saying there?

Post by Shawn Wilson
I do not have to prove dark matter doesn't exist. Those who claim its
existence have to prove their side. I am perfectly justified in my
skepticism.

Skepticism requires that you actively seek the evidence, and suspend
judgement until you've done so.

It demands that *you* look up the current state of evidence and theory.
If you dismiss the theory before understanding it, or before doing your
own research on the publicly-available evidence, then you're not a
skeptic; you're a denier.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Note, mere speculation is not evidence.

Likewise, passing judgement on explanations and evidence, without doing
your duty of researching the currently-available public body of
explanations and evidence, is not skepticism.

[Tim Little]

Post by Bent C Dalager
If so then all science is ad hoc: scientific theories are built to
explain observations that have been made. A theory built for some
other purpose than to explain observed phenomena, is not a scientific
theory.

Quite correct. It's nice when the theory has very few extraneous
parameters, but that's just a bonus. So long as the theory fits
existing evidence, and makes some falsifiable predictions, it's a
scientific theory.

Post by Bent C Dalager

Magic dark matter that supposedly composes most of the universe,
but there isn't an iota of it on or in the vicinity of Earth and it
isn't created by any physical process. Not only that, but it has
to be distributed in a special way, and there is no reason
WHATSOEVER for it to be so distributed.

How do you know this?

He doesn't, because it's not true. All the dark matter models that
are being seriously considered have underlying processes by which the
matter is created, and falsifiable predictions for the distribution
based on those processes.

Essentially all of them predict that there is dark matter in the
vicinity of Earth. Just that there isn't much of it, because space is
bigger than Shawn can imagine and less than a microgram per cubic
kilometre would suffice to outmass the stars. If it only interacted
gravitationally with our type of matter, we'd be completely unable to
detect it locally.

Nonetheless, there are experiments attempting to detect certain
suspected types of dark matter locally, which may interact via the
weak nuclear force.

We already know that there exist particles that do not interact
electromagnetically nor via the strong force - neutrinos - and we
already know that those do account for at least some of the dark
matter because we can detect them locally (with great difficulty). We
just do not know how much mass they account for, or exactly how they
would have participated in formation of observed galactic structures.

It is suspected from particle physics theories that other types of
stable massive particles may exist that also do not interact strongly
or electromagnetically, and there are good theoretical reasons to
suspect that (if they exist) they have masses at least a hundred times
that of protons and neutrons.

[Tetsubo]

This setting idea got me thinking. I have posted a YouTube video idea
today on the topic of a medium hard SF setting with no FTL but it does
have psionics.

RPG Pondering: Of Photon Drives and the Psionic League

Just thought I would join the fray.