Leaderboard

If there are sci-fi buffs here, any interest in starting a dedicated thread for the genre?

So they can’t be phenomena? And we shouldn’t let go of the idea that they are entities? Can you please give a consistent position?

Thread seems to draw from the long debate between scientific realism and anti-realism (going back to Carnap and the logical empiricists and then onto other antirealist views, Feyerabend et al). The common form being instrumentalism (SUAC). (Clip from SEP, with my boldings) In the historical development of realism, arguably the most important strains of antirealism have been varieties of empiricism which, given their emphasis on experience as a source and subject matter of knowledge, are naturally set against the idea of knowledge of unobservables. It is possible to be an empiricist more broadly speaking in a way that is consistent with realism—for example, one might endorse the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and contend that on this basis, one can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables. In the first half of the twentieth century, however, empiricism came predominantly in the form of varieties of “instrumentalism”: the view that theories are merely instruments for predicting observable phenomena or systematizing observation reports. (End clip) Some empiricists of the more antirealist persuasion would insist that the word "particle" can only mean, say, "white streak in a cloud chamber" and have no ontological force as to whether particle-like interactions actually involve discrete particulate entities. LIke @Lorentz Jr I am leery of reifying interactions as The particle paradigm is so powerful because of its utility, and because it is so hard to visualize anything else, like say field perturbations or knots of field strength or wave packets or what have you. It's also worth asking: can we speak of a truly "elementary" entity as having properties within itself? The macro scale concept of an object is one that implies a thing that could be split, subdivided, crushed, etc. a concept which has no validity in the realm of elementary particles. At that level, we seem to be in a realm where things only take on meaning interacting with something else - in the macro scale, this would be like a table that is only a table when you set a fruit bowl, or lunch, on its upper surface. Elementary particles are bundles of interactive properties - but no substance. They are particles in a specific and peculiar way that bears little relation to the word's usual usage where we speak of "particles of..."

The naked eye can see the traces left by particles with high kinetic energy, that is, one particle collides with the medium (nuclei + electrons), losing its kinetic energy and accelerating the medium particles, ionizing them, electrons and sometimes nuclei are repelled. Paraphrasing you: Is there any evidence for anything independent of their interactions?

But can be detected. Quanta that are consistent with observation. Is there any evidence other than all the evidence? How else are you going to detect something other than some interaction?

There are fibers that don’t. polarization entanglement has been demonstrated over 96 km of fiber https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818752116

I’m not sure why it needs to be so contrived. You can redirect photons with an optical fiber, or mirrors/beamsplitters. Photons can pass through each other quite easily. I don’t see why entanglement would necessarily be affected

The Thirteenth Floor is a special favourite - as noted by TheVat it was based on a German TV series called World on A Wire. If you enjoy VR based SciFi theme films, then you might also enjoy Avalon (2001) which is Japanese/Polish collaboration directed by Marmoru Oshii - who is probably better known for his original animated version of Ghost in The Shell (1995). Avalon was made on location in Poland with a Polish speaking cast and crew. A stand alone sequel called Asssault Girls set in the same world was released in 2009

Flesh Gordon (1974)

You mean like "Scrotal Recall" ? Yes, let's hope he doesn't mention that.

I'm afraid INow might suggest some sci-fi porn ...

Every object is subject to its own inertia, both linear and rotational. If you jump across to the other side of the space station without changing your rotational motion (assuming there's room to do that), you'll land on your face, because your rotation will only be enough for the angle the station turns through over the duration of the jump, not the longer angle between your starting point and your landing point. So getting up might tend to make you dizzy. If the station is small enough, the up-and-down motion of jogging might subject you to a noticeable rotational force every time one of your feet lands on the floor. I guess it's a question of whether that would feel unpleasant, or whether you can land and then push off on each foot without too much of a rotational jolt. It might not be so bad, but that's a question of physiology. A rotating space station is like a merry-go-round. I think Gian has a point, although he may have exaggerated it.

Centrifugal force is a fictituous force made apparent by motion in a rotating frame of reference. If you have no access to the external stationary frame, or the motion is slow enough that it is hard to detect, there will be nomotion sickness. IIOW, if you cannot see outside the rotating tube providing artificial gravity, or the stars are far enough away that motion is hardly noticeable, there is no problem.

Yeah, I would like to see documented evidence of this. Seasickness and airsickness are caused by repeated back-and-forth accelerations, linear and/or rotational, which are in turn caused by interactions with the surrounding water or air. But that wouldn't be an issue on a smoothly rotating space station. Maybe if someone starts jogging around the station, but even then, the person will already be rotating along with the station, and that's a constant of the motion. So, to paraphrase what exchemist said, I think it would only happen if the tube is "tall" enough (radially) for the person to jump "up" (inward, toward the center of the wheel), because then the person would be at an angle when they land on the outer "floor" of the wheel again. EDIT: There is a force from jogging or otherwise moving around the wheel (2m omega v'), but it would just make the person feel heavier. Dizziness would have to come from the up-and-down motion of jogging, sitting down and standing up, etc., or the acceleration (partially rotational) of speeding up and slowing down.

I'm not sure the Coriolis effect would have that dramatic an impact. In most uses of rotation to produce artificial gravity that I have read about, the spacecraft would take the form of a tubular wheel. According to my understanding , the Coriolis effect would chiefly affect objects moving radially, rather than circumferentially. Or am I missing something?

Debbie does Dallas Rumple Foreskin Penelopes Phallus Palace Hard Folks, Clean Strokes The Flintstones

An idiosyncratic list from a film buff - films that provoke thought and explore the human condition via sci-fi tropes... Looper. Source Code. Primer. 12 Monkeys. Ex Machina. 2001. Blade Runner. Arrival. Moon. The Martian. Total Recall. (Some hokey science, but still...) The Abyss. (Love you, Mary E. Mastrantonio!) Children of Men. District 9. (from the director of Chappie, IIRC) Silent Running. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Minority Report. Gattaca. eXistenz. (have to get one David Cronenberg flick in here) Star Trek II (because why kind of cockamamie list leaves out the wrath of Khan??) Solaris (the original Russian one) and last but not least, World on a Wire (Fassbinder, and definitely not everyone's taste...it also inspired The Thirteenth Floor, another good simulated world movie that's not The Matrix but every bit as good...)(am currently watching a German miniseries that also is influenced by Fassbinders WoaW, called 1899, which I can already say I like better than The Matrix, not least for its gritty and haunting sets and clever use of a period drama framing...)

The Ipcress File and Get Carter.

Westworld (with the exception of season 4), The Mandalorian, Game of Thrones (obviously), Rome (series), Alien(s) (all of them, except Prometheus; 2nd is the best one - see 1st and 2nd one-by-one), The Thing (with Kurt Russell version), Good, bad and ugly (with Clint Eastwood) (and his other westerns)

"batteries not included" is a good film as is "Spaced Invaders"

Hunt for the Wilderpeople A witty examination of us and our world today, also Perfume, although the book goes into much more detail, which explains it much better...

Hello. - 11 Harrowhouse - Run a crooked mile ( if you can find them )

I do get the picture. 1) If there is a significant onshore wind, it is already humid and will cause rain inland. There is no problem to address. 2) You cannot significantly increase the humidity of this wind without increasing its temperature. 3) The evaporation of brine requires even more heat input. 4) I've not even mentioned the astronomical pumping costs. This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib gives an idea of the practical realities you are trying to reverse: ie The 'significant onshore wind' and 'rising thermals' simply don't happen. If they did, it wouldn't be a desert.

What your proposal seeks to do is increase the contact area between brine and the lower couple of hundred feet of the atmosphere in order for it to approach equilibrium at 100% RH more rapidly. My point is that nature already does this quite effectively. The missing step is getting heat into the system. This is required to both increase the water holding capacity of the airstream and reduce its density sufficiently to allow it to rise. The amount of heat the sun is putting into the ocean to try and do this is measured in Terawatts. And in the cases we have mentioned that isn't enough to overcome the local conditions which are dominated by cold ocean currents. How many TW do you propose adding to this equation? Have you ever heard the phrase 'latent heat of vapourisation'? Have you any idea what it means?