Is it scientifically possible to prove something is impossible?

[Endy0816]

I was thinking you could apply this to cosmic expansion. You could prove it is impossible to traverse between two points, with the distance increasing faster than you can travel. Naturally your assumptions would need to remain valid, which is probably the biggest stumbling block here.

[Dekan]

No, proving something impossible is never possible. Impossible will only mean you have lack of resources or knowledge. In early times it was impossible to imagine space-time as curved, but later on with upgradation in knowledge it's possible.. Nothing is impossible

I like your "can-do" spirit! This is what we need more of nowadays. As iNow points out in #25, some things may be mathematically impossible, like a rational number for square-root 2. But who knows... if we used different maths... after all, didn't we manage to get a handle on the square-root of -1 simply by calling it "i" . Then using it in practical calculations.

 

In the practical field of applied Science and Technology, nothing that violates the basic laws of Physics (as currently understood!), should be regarded as impossible. Anything can be accomplished, - if we have the resources and knowledge (as you say) to do it. And above all - the will. For example, the USA could easily have a manned Moon-Station, if the will was was there to go out and build it. The money isn't really a problem (the US has spent billions on the absurd F-35) There's a negative, defeatist frame of mind, that seems to have infected modern thinking about Scientific progress,. This might be due to Green influence.

[swansont]

There's a negative, defeatist frame of mind, that seems to have infected modern thinking about Scientific progress,. This might be due to Green influence.

 

Yeah, if there is one thing that we can be sure of, it's science, and especially the alternative energy crowd, doesn't innovate any more. [/sarcasm]

 

(The irony would be complete if there had been a "posted from my iPhone" tag on your post)

[Dekan]

The alternative energy crowd only seem to be interested in retrogressing - like getting power from wind.

 

Perhaps they want us to go back to sailing-ships - the wind is free, and quiet engineless hulls wouldn't thrash the ocean with noisy propellers, so the whales and dolphins would enjoy acoustic peace.

 

Of course, ocean voyages would take longer, ships might get becalmed for days by lack of wind, world-trade would be disrupted, economies might suffer, people might run out of food, but while going hungry, they'd be consoled by listening to recordings of whale-songs.

[swansont]

The alternative energy crowd only seem to be interested in retrogressing - like getting power from wind.

 

 

Wind is cheaper than coal. Modern wind is high-tech — you might notice that wind turbines have changed compared to windmills from the past. How is this retrogressing?

[Acme]

The alternative energy crowd only seem to be interested in retrogressing - like getting power from wind.

 

Perhaps they want us to go back to sailing-ships - the wind is free, and quiet engineless hulls wouldn't thrash the ocean with noisy propellers, so the whales and dolphins would enjoy acoustic peace.

 

Of course, ocean voyages would take longer, ships might get becalmed for days by lack of wind, world-trade would be disrupted, economies might suffer, people might run out of food, but while going hungry, they'd be consoled by listening to recordings of whale-songs.

Stupid people saving money and the environment at the same time!!

 

source: http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1

[Dekan]

Nice one! But that teeny parachute thingy can't add much to the ship's speed. Better if it had 5 times the diameter. But then what happens when the wind drops, the chute falls in the sea, and the cursing crew have to winch the great wet thing back on board, without ripping it to bits on the ship's sides. Why not mount a mast and sail amidships. That'd be easier to handle, if anyone was serious about it, but I don't think they are - it's pure swivel-eyed Greeny stuff (no offence - I know the intentions are good, probably)

[Acme]

Nice one! But that teeny parachute thingy can't add much to the ship's speed. Better if it had 5 times the diameter. But then what happens when the wind drops, the chute falls in the sea, and the cursing crew have to winch the great wet thing back on board, without ripping it to bits on the ship's sides. Why not mount a mast and sail amidships. That'd be easier to handle, if anyone was serious about it, but I don't think they are - it's pure swivel-eyed Greeny stuff (no offence - I know the intentions are good, probably)

The fact is it is proven technology in production and use. You would know that if you had visited the link and/or done any further research into the matter. Is that an impossible scenario? You doing some reading that is. I'm just asking to give some semblance of relation to the OP.

 

The kite is supplemental to the engines and not intended to add speed but rather reduce fuel use and costs.

[swansont]

Nice one! But that teeny parachute thingy can't add much to the ship's speed. Better if it had 5 times the diameter. But then what happens when the wind drops, the chute falls in the sea, and the cursing crew have to winch the great wet thing back on board, without ripping it to bits on the ship's sides. Why not mount a mast and sail amidships. That'd be easier to handle, if anyone was serious about it, but I don't think they are - it's pure swivel-eyed Greeny stuff (no offence - I know the intentions are good, probably)

 

Of course. Businesses who adopt anything green are stupid and prone to waste money because they can't tell if something is cost-effective. Such a convincing argument.

[Dekan]

 

Wind is cheaper than coal. Modern wind is high-tech — you might notice that wind turbines have changed compared to windmills from the past. How is this retrogressing?

I take your point about modern wind-turbines being better designed than the old Don Quixote-style windmills. I suppose my views are just an emotional reaction against the whole idea of going back to wind as an energy-source for the 21st century. By now I thought we'd have nuclear-fusion power. And Moon-stations. It's all a bit disappointing.

The fact is it is proven technology in production and use. You would know that if you had visited the link and/or done any further research into the matter. Is that an impossible scenario? You doing some reading that is. I'm just asking to give some semblance of relation to the OP.

 

The kite is supplemental to the engines and not intended to add speed but rather reduce fuel use and costs.

Acme, I did look at the link, but when it shows ships flying kites in the 21st century, I'm sorry but I don't like the idea.

We can do better than that surely. Our ships ought to be nuclear-powered. That would be possible, except for a lack of will.

Apologies if my posts have somewhat derailed the thread.

[Alan McDougall]

Scientifically is cold a reality? Cold after all is just the absence of heat, to a being on a planet with an average temperature of minus -200 degrees Celsius, it would be like a furnace to them at of minus -90 degrees Celsius, a temperature, at which we earthlings would quickly freeze to death, from lack of heat, not from cold to be accurate.

 

Could we then really prove the existence of cold?, (as long as there is vibration within an object it contains only heat?)

 

On the Celsius scale, absolute zero corresponds to a temperature of -273º Celsius.

[Acme]

...

Acme, I did look at the link, but when it shows ships flying kites in the 21st century, I'm sorry but I don't like the idea.

We can do better than that surely. Our ships ought to be nuclear-powered. That would be possible, except for a lack of will.

Apologies if my posts have somewhat derailed the thread.

Whether or not you like the idea is immaterial. By your reasoning -and I use the term loosely- we should have something better than a spoon to eat soup with.

 

As to the thread, its proposition is so poorly constructed that it guarantees railing if not derailment.

Scientifically is cold a reality? Cold after all is just the absence of heat, to a being on a planet with an average temperature of minus -200 degrees Celsius, it would be like a furnace to them at of minus -90 degrees Celsius, a temperature, at which we earthlings would quickly freeze to death, from lack of heat, not from cold to be accurate.

 

Could we then really prove the existence of cold?, (as long as there is vibration within an object it contains only heat?)

 

On the Celsius scale, absolute zero corresponds to a temperature of -273º Celsius.

Your speculations (arguments?) are just so much word-salad. What are we supposed to learn from them? What advancement or insight do you expect to generate?

[Endy0816]

We are not going back, we are moving forwards.

 

Energy from living trees, bacteria, wind, geothermal, tides, your own body, etc. Fusion :shrug: They are making progress, but we have plenty of new technologies to keep us busy until then.

 

Green and Free Market thinking join in a happy marriage on the subject of waste reduction. What is green can be lucrative and what is profitable can be environmentally friendly.

 

As for the Moon, a small sized base maybe. Any larger and you encounter a lot of practical issues and said issues get expensive fast. I'm thinking tourism as being more likely otherwise be a serious government boondoggle. Not that said boondoggles can't produce good results eventually but I'd expect it to be awhile before returns are seen.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Endy0816

[Alan McDougall]

It is strange that the sun only comes out in the daytime, instead of the night, when it is really needed!

[Greg H.]

It is strange that the sun only comes out in the daytime, instead of the night, when it is really needed!

The sun is always out. You're just not in the optimal solar area all the time. So really, it's your fault.

[Lizzie L]

If "scientifically" means "empirically" the answer is probably no. But I can't prove that.

[Alan McDougall]

The sun is always out. You're just not in the optimal solar area all the time. So really, it's your fault.

 

I hope you knew it was a little joke that originated from a story that Terry Pratchett wrote "Mort" who became an apprentice to the Grim Reaper namely "Death"

[K Sky]

I like your question. It reminds me of the cocksure statement, nothing is impossible. Every time those words have bounced through my ear canals I think of two things. That might be true, but what about the relevance of now, within the current state of science and discovery. That thought then brings the next, which involves me pushing she/he off the Empire State Building expressing the sentiment, walk away unscathed anything is possible. I am pretty sure we could postulate that throwing bunnies off the Empire State Building all day will result in injured bunnies. Possibly, some future premise could thwart this idea. Now though, without actually doing the experiment, tossing bunnies off the Empire State Building without all of them receiving injury seems impossible. If that rings uncertain, how about we shoot a forty five caliber pistol discharged at point blank range at a bunny's head? Is survival possible? Is it possible that the bunny could deflect that shot and hop away unscathed? Lots and Lots of ideas currently remain impossible. Oh, sorry about the sadistic hypothetical experiments. Maybe I should have employed Giraffes. If we throw Giraffes off the Empire State Building all day...

Edited March 18, 2014 by Kevin D.

[Radical Edward]

yep. The antiknot springs to mind. It is impossible to tie an antiknot.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Radical Edward