The clitorides voting is open until the end of April. Vote for your favourites [ X Dismiss ]
Home « Forum « Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

DiD universe

Remus2
Updated:

I'm curious. Compound bows could be used by the rules.

If the limbs of a crossbow are sufficient (they have been used in the stories), why not a pulley system compound? The limiting factor would seem to be the requirement for wire, but that doesn't really do it either.

http://matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=e64cab6521164854bcbee58f96f47784

Nickel silver wire (copper, nickel, zinc) alloy would work and be within the rules stated as well as the stated resources available.
https://storiesonline.net/s/76905/damsels-in-distress-rules
I assumed all the crossbows are of the recurve variety, but the limbs could be made of spring steel as well which would get us into compound crossbows as well.

To the authors and readers of this universe, am I missing something here?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  red61544
hiltonls16

Given the general level of technology on Chaos (solid not spoked wheels until one of the heroes introduces them), I'd think longbows are single staves, not laminated, and crossbows similar unless horn and leather for the limbs.

One story, I think Squaring the odds by cmsix, has the hero taking non-metal compound bow cams. From these he made moulds for metal cams to be made.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@hiltonls16

Didn't catch that in the story, but will read it again now. Thanks for the heads up.

Ernest Bywater

While cmsix has played fast and loose with the rules in a few places the use of plastic or wood moulds to create metal equivalents on Chaos is allowed except where the item is clearly a weapon in it's own regards. Thus the use of cams is possible, and cmsix did do that in one of his stories. Where a complex compound bow with cams would have a major issue to be made on Chaos is the quality of the wire due to the low quality of the metal available and the low tech ways used for wire making on the planet, and the quality of any metal parts being used in it. Most compound bows are made out of metals or other materials which just aren't available on Chaos. let alone the issues you'd have get the counter balances right, then the user would have to worry about damage while being carried around without any decent protective case.

I'm sure one could be made out of wood or bone with locally made cams and low quality wire, but I doubt it would give you any real performance advantage over regular recurve bow or longbow while it would be significantly heavier due to not being able to use the lightweight materials we use today.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

I'm sure one could be made out of wood or bone with locally made cams and low quality wire, but I doubt it would give you any real performance advantage over regular recurve bow or longbow while it would be significantly heavier due to not being able to use the lightweight materials we use today.


You are actually missing the real advantage of a compound bow, either a normal bow or or crossbow.

Raw power isn't the advantage. Medieval English longbows has draw wights of up to 100 pounds.

Medieval crossbows had draw weights up to 200 pounds. Which is why there are many medieval crosbows that had hand cranked winches built in that were needed to draw them.

The problem is that with a regular bow, the stave, the string and the archer have to hold that 100 pounds of tension from the time the archer starts to draw the bow to the time that the archer releases/fires the bow.

The real advantage compound bow is that the cams allow the mechanical tension in the system to drop off at full draw, this allows any given archer to handle a heavier bow than they might otherwise be able to handle and to hold the bow at full draw longer without as much fatigue.

Remus2

@Dominions Son

The real advantage compound bow is that the cams allow the mechanical tension in the system to drop off at full draw, this allows any given archer to handle a heavier bow than they might otherwise be able to handle and to hold the bow at full draw longer without as much fatigue.


Agreed.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

The real advantage compound bow is that the cams allow the mechanical tension in the system to drop off at full draw, this allows any given archer to handle a heavier bow than they might otherwise be able to handle and to hold the bow at full draw longer without as much fatigue.


Not having used a compound bow I don't know how true that is or isn't. However, that is not what I was addressing. I was addressing the ability to construct one out of the materials available on Chaos and how useful it would be in the daily life and combat situations on Chaos.

The only time I saw two archers demonstrate the use of a longbow and compound bow in a combat situation the longbow archer was able to get more shots away with accuracy than the compound bow archer was.

However, I suspect the telling point is where the wikipedia article on compound bows talks about the higher-technology construction. Most compound bows are made from aluminum or magnesium alloys or carbon fiber or fiberglass - none of which are available on Chaos. Neither are polyethylene strings.

The only metals clearly stated as being available on Chaos are copper, bog iron, gold, silver, lead, and nickel which severely limits the types of metalic things you can make. How that affects the quality of the metal strings you'd have available is another issue.

Replies:   Remus2
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

You are actually missing the real advantage of a compound bow, either a normal bow or or crossbow.


The main advantage of a normal bow over a crossbow is the speed of use. While crossbows gave higher power and were easier to use with less training they were slower to load and more cumbersome to carry and use.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

Given the required cold working of the alloy in question, it would be readily workable in the environment of DiD. If any steel at all is made, then any alloy of it would be viable.
Scaleless blue steel would be exceedingly difficult in that environment, but standard blue steel would be just as, if not easier than a sword grade steel (blue steel as in spring steel).

The technical aspect I can justify easily, steel or wire. I've made both with tech no more advanced than 1825.

That said, is it your opinion that it defeats the spirit of intent?
If it's an intent, I'll leave it alone. Just want to be clear before I jump off into writing one of these.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

The only metals clearly stated as being available on Chaos are copper, bog iron, gold, silver, lead, and nickel which severely limits the types of metalic things you can make. How that affects the quality of the metal strings you'd have available is another issue.

I could do it within those limitations, but again, see my question regarding the spirit of it.

Ernest Bywater

@Remus2

I'm curious. Compound bows could be used by the rules.


Going back to this basic question: Yes, you could use one if you could make it.

You could take plastic, bone, or wood cams through the portal and then make make cast iron cams on Chaos, but not machined cams.

You could make low tensile pulled wire but not high tensile wire as your string or use silk or cotton or animal gut as a string.

You would have to make the bow out of either wood, bone, or iron but not high tensile spring steel because you can't make high tensile steel.

Within those limitations, how good a compound bow could you make? Also, would it be any better than a longbow or a recurve bow or a composite bow in it's field performance.

Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

The main advantage of a normal bow over a crossbow is the speed of use.

To my mind, that is secondary. Still valid, but secondary.
There are hand cranked/lever crossbows that with practice, can come very close to the fire rate of a standard bow. The crank does not require the use of the stirrup to draw it

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Remus2

If any steel at all is made,


And that is the main failure point right there. Bog iron is available in low quantities. However, in Shiloh some iron ore is made available. In some of my stories I do have the Hero introducing the use of high carbon sand to to improve the carbon content of the iron used to make swords.

I'm not sure of how far apart they are, but the high carbon steel you need is a long way from the bog iron that's available. - commonly goethite (FeO(OH)) - - not many carbon atoms in that lot.

Until the Nickel is found and identified in Shiloh it's not recognized or used, so only the few trained at Shiloh would use it to improve the iron to make some steel.

Also no furnaces of any sort while some Heroes are introducing hotter kilns and the like, I don't see quality steel being available, and it it was it would be worth a huge fortune to make it or something from it.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ernest Bywater

@Remus2

There are hand cranked/lever crossbows that with practice, can come very close to the fire rate of a standard bow. The crank does not require the use of the stirrup to draw it


True, but you need to keep in mind the economy of Chaos and the availability of the materials as well. A car made out of solid titanium would be better than the current steel cars, but would it be worth the cost to make it?

Crossbows use some metal components, but the ones on Chaos are often hardwood where we would use metal or cast iron simply because there is no readily available steel as a general rule. Some Heroes are introducing ways to make small quantities of low quality steel that's better than the iron they have, but the tech just is not there.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

not many carbon atoms in that lot.


Ordinary forging with a coal forge will turn any iron into at least low-grade steel. The forging process itself will add some carbon to the iron.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

I almost forgot, on Chaos there are no milling machines, thus there's only two ways to make metalic objects:

1. cast them in a mold, or

2. pound the metal into the shape you want.

You need to think how this will affect whatever it is you want to make out of the metal, once you do manage to get it to a high enough carbon content to qualify as steel as against plain iron.

In the story cmsix wrote I believe he was planning to use the cams as molds to cast the cams - if I remember right. Will cats metal be good enough for what you want for the other parts you want to make out of metal?

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Ordinary forging with a coal forge will turn any iron into at least low-grade steel.


Where are you going to find the coal in the first place?

I'd have to check to be sure, but I'm pretty sure coal is not a naturally occurring material on Chaos. That's why everyone has wood fires.

Replies:   Remus2
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Some Heroes are introducing ways to make small quantities of low quality steel that's better than the iron they have, but the tech just is not there.


If they are at a Medieval Europe level of tech, it ought to be there.

Steel is much older than many people know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Ancient_steel

The earliest known production of steel is seen in pieces of ironware excavated from an archaeological site in Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehöyük) and are nearly 4,000 years old, dating from 1800 BC.[19][20] Horace identifies steel weapons such as the falcata in the Iberian Peninsula, while Noric steel was used by the Roman military.[21]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_steel

Buchwald[5]:118 identifies a sword of c. 300 BC found in Krenovica, Moravia as an early example of Noric steel due to a chemical composition consistent with Erzberg ore. A more recent sword, dating to c. 100 BC and found in Zemplin, eastern Slovakia, is of extraordinary length for the period (95 cm, 37 in) and carries a stamped Latin inscription (?V?TILICI?O), identified as a "fine sword of Noric steel" by Buchwald.[5]:120 A center of manufacture was at Magdalensberg.[5]:124

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
red61544

@Remus2

When I was a kid (way back in the first half of a different century) Popular Mechanics had an article about making a crossbow out of an automobile's spring. They had complete instructions and boasted that it could put a steel quarrel through a two-by-four. Well, my dad had to try it. We went to a salvage yard to get the spring and a month or so later, he was ready to try his new toy. My brother and I had to stay in the house in case anything unforeseen happened. We were peeking through an upstairs window and watched as he destroyed about fifteen rather expensive quarrels trying to get the damned thing to work. Reading his lips as best we could, my brother and I learned several new words which later we were punished for repeating. The crossbow disappeared and we never saw it again. Coincidentally, dad let his subscription to Popular Mechanics expire when it was time to renew.

Replies:   Remus2
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son


If they are at a Medieval Europe level of tech, it ought to be there.


Just not possible if you do not have the proper source materials to do it with. What was available on Earth is not what was available on Chaos.

Bog iron is very different to iron ore in its properties and what you can do with it. Also, there is no coal on Chaos and there is no iron ore until after Kyle makes the deal to have some placed there by Mac to replace the Stishovite quartz being removed. Chaos is not a normal planet, but was created by a bunch of meteor smacking together.

edit to add: What was done on Earth from iron ore is not what can be done from bog iron.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Also, there is no coal


Is there wood? Charcoal would work.

Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

They burn wood there or they wouldn't be making fires. They made steel swords, so something had to get it above its transformation temp. The wood could be turned to charcoal via pyrolysis. Per pound, charcoal can approach the lower end of coal in BTU.

At the end of it, if steel can be made, so can the materials I've mentioned.

Remus2

@red61544

Quarrels have to match the strength of the crossbow. If a standard wood quarrel or on of equal strength is used, it will get shredded.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

What was done on Earth from iron ore is not what can be done from bog iron.


Again, you are wrong.

Steel is as old as 1800 BC, but smelting iron from hard rock ores wasn't possible until the middle ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron

Iron smelting from bog iron was invented during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, and most Viking era iron was smelted from bog iron.


Here's instructions for making a steel knife from bog iron using lime and charcoal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/2mpi73/turning_bog_iron_into_a_knife/

Nothing in that which couldn't have been done in the days of the Roman Empire.

Remus2

The universe appeals to me as I've been in country where everything went tits up overnight. I swore never again would I be caught in such a situation where I had no weapons, and/or the knowledge to make them.

I know I'm on solid technical ground in this regards as I've actually done the things I'm describing. The literary ground I'm not so sure of. In fantasy, any arbitrary rule can be applied to make the storyline fit. That is apparently the case. I'll just avoid the conflict and go about it elsewhere.

Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

Chaos is not a normal planet, but was created by a bunch of meteor smacking together.


https://geology.com/meteorites/meteorite-types-and-classification.shtml

Although there are a large number of sub classes, meteorites are divided into three main groups: irons, stones and stony-irons. Almost all meteorites contain extraterrestrial nickel and iron, and those that contain no iron at all are so rare that when we are asked for help and advice on identifying possible space rocks, we usually discount anything that does not contain significant amounts of metal. Much of meteorite classification is based, in fact, on how much iron a specimen does contain.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

I get it, don't want to allow it. However, don't sell it as normal. Every planet started as dust etc floating around a star. I guess another arbitrary rule of it was the aliens were selectivity impacting only rocky meteors. Otherwise it would have a similar composition to earth.

I leave it at arbitrary rules for artistic purposes even though it defies what I know of metallurgy and planet formation.

BlacKnight

I know a guy who makes Damascus steel blades and jewelry using Viking Age techniques. He bootstrapped his way up through all the necessary process to get there, starting from dirt and trees, including making all of the tools to make the tools to make the tools..., collecting bog iron, and burning the charcoal.

Forging decent-quality steel weapons and armor is totally doable with Chaos-level materials and technology. This is proven by the fact that we actually did it on Earth in the actual Iron Age. None of the necessary stuff is unavailable on Chaos, though some of it is harder to come by than on Earth, and a lot of it is made much easier by someone who already knows what they're doing bringing the technique in. And very few people actually know that much of the technique these days. Even most of the blacksmiths I know start their work with modern steels.

Compound bows have significant advantages over longbows. The basic longbow suffers from geometry problems... when it's shot, the limbs straighten, and as they do, the angle between limb and string decreases, and so the arc motion of the tips of the limbs translates to less linear speed of the string. This means that it's doing little to nothing to accelerate the arrow near the end of the string's travel - most of its work is done at the beginning of the shot.

The curl on the tips of recurve limbs is intended to counteract this effect, and keeps the string velocity higher longer, so for the same draw weight of bow, a recurve will have a higher arrow velocity than a longbow, and so better range and accuracy.

A compound bow takes that one step further. The cams and pulley setup are designed to actually reverse that string velocity drop-off, so the bow's pull is low at the beginning of the shot, and high at the end. That means that the arrow velocities are even higher, and it's easier to keep it drawn - which means you can practically use a heavier draw, which again improves arrow velocity. Higher arrow velocity and less fatigue both mean better accuracy.

That said, there's plenty of stuff that goes into a modern compound bow that's a long way away from Chaos's current tech level. Drawing wire is technically possible with medieval technology; drawing sufficient lengths of consistently high-tensile-strength steel wire (because it snapping under load is Bad) is, at the very least, an enormous pain in the ass, and it's very much questionable whether it's even worth it.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@BlacKnight

That said, there's plenty of stuff that goes into a modern compound bow that's a long way away from Chaos's current tech level. Drawing wire is technically possible with medieval technology; drawing sufficient lengths of consistently high-tensile-strength steel wire (because it snapping under load is Bad) is, at the very least, an enormous pain in the ass, and it's very much questionable whether it's even worth it.


The alloy I spoke of is ideal for this in regards to low tech manufacture. However, the bow would necessarily be weaker in performance as compared to North American top end bows. That said, it still performs in excess of a English longbow for a low to medium quality compound bow.

Draw Length and Weight:

English longbow; 30 inches, 150 pounds

Medium compound bow; 25-30″, 50-70 pounds

At those specs, the compound bow will still outreach the longbow by 100 yards.

Max range:

Longbow; 350-400 yards

Compound; 500 yards

A top end compound bow will be another story. Barry Groves used a top end compound bow to make a 900 plus yard shot. Longer flight distances have been made since, but he was the first.

The bottom line is, high end compound bows with ultra high end materials would be unobtainable, but lower end versions with lower strength materials would still put to shame even the highest quality bow of medieval era origins.

Ernest Bywater

First of all, I'm not the boss as regards to the Chaos canon, but I am the guy that ended up putting it all together in one spot from what was said in Lazlo's stories plus those he's approved of in other stories.

When Mike started writing Shiloh he was doing so with a lot of collaboration with Lazlo as to what could and couldn't be done on Chaos. Everything up to just after the scene with the aliens was done at that time so it was all cleared with Lazlo back in 2005 to 2007. The method of creation, the existence of stishovite and taenite / nickel were all part of that process and approval. When I took over and wrote the rest of the story the few extras I through in about changes to the universe were all approved of by Lazlo.

Part of what I inherited was chapter 5 where Kyle and KK are talking about tech transfers and Kyle says:

...At this point no one's found a significant source of iron ore, coal, or sulfur."

Then he follows that up with:

"They do have what's called bog iron, which are small nodules of a low-grade iron produced by a certain bacteria in the peat bogs. These bacteria leach iron oxide from the water in the bog, and clump it together. It's a long and slow process, but they can eventually make a decent sized piece of iron. The smelter at Shiloh produces the best iron on the planet, but it makes less than two hundred pounds of usable iron a year. Also, without coal it's hard to make decent steel."

Later in the story I introduced the planned and approved find of taenite which none of the local recognize as a usable metal.

....................

What is important to note from what's approved, and what Lazlo had previously said, all forms of iron are rare and expensive which is why so many thing we would make of iron are made from hardwood, like locks.

That being the case they aren't going to be using much metal in anything where it isn't absolutely essential and they aren't going to be playing around with it a lot.

..................

Having said that Lazlo assumes everyone is going to be using some metal tools and items simply because you can't make them out of anything else. That's why he has a lot of copper items in daily use and pewter items are also in daily use.

As I said before, the issue will be what you make the bow components out of and the tech limitations in making them. From what I've seen of compound bows they have fancy cams that are machined from high quality steel. As long as you can go along with the metal parts being made from low quality metals via either a cast mold process or pounding it into shape process and not with any drilling process you can probably make one, but it would be damned expensive to make, so your character will need a fortune and have the skills to do it or know enough to teach someone how to do it.

.................

As to the points about power and distance, most combats on Chaos are at close range between individuals or small groups. Also, the Hero can't initiate the fight, thus the longer range isn't going to be of much help except in the rare army versus army conflicts against the slaver forces.

..................

Considering the tech limits on the construction I'm not sure how good a compound bow you'd get or if it would justify the time and local costs involved, but you could make something of a compound bow design using wood, bone, and iron - just not the lightweight fancy materials we use today.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

The original creator has the right to make the rules of the road for the creation. I don't agree with them as they are, therefore I've canned what I was working on.

I'm more than proficient with metals of many different alloys in the real world. I fully understand what bog iron is btw.

For the record, the thousands of armed troops in the wars that were killed; leaves unsaid just how those troops were armed if iron is that rare.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Remus2

For the record, the thousands of armed troops in the wars that were killed; leaves unsaid just how those troops were armed if iron is that rare.


In the stories Lazlo wrote he mentions the wide spread use of wood and boiled leather for armor, and the widespread use of spears, bows and arrows with only the richer officers having swords, also many people had swords made from hardwood or used clubs. While their equivalent of the middle class had metal table knives many of the poorer people used knives made from hardwood. Bone knives are also common. Most household items made out of metal were made from copper or pewter, so I'd guess some of the knives may have been pewter as well.

NB: I don't think Lazlo went into too much detail as to what was and what wasn't made of iron or steel or their quality beyond stating bog iron was the only iron around and the steel was low rare and low quality due to the lack of suitable ways of making steel.

I did open the gates a bit for more advancements when I got Lazlo to agree to allow Kyle to do the deal with Mac in Shiloh where they took away the stishovite and gave him iron ore and other ores in it's place. Add in Kyle and Al teaching a few people how to make steel by increasing the carbon content with high carbon sands and the like as well as the forge welding techniques, the improvement of steel is now happening on Chaos. Thus, if you set your story a few years after Shiloh you should have access to some limited quantities of better quality steel at Shiloh and the places where Al has been at work. However, you'll still be limited to cast or hammered metal construction.

You could always do a time travel story and have someone go back to the middle ages where they either have a compound bow or make one.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

I don't think Lazlo went into too much detail as to what was and what wasn't made of iron or steel or their quality beyond stating bog iron was the only iron around and the steel was low rare and low quality due to the lack of suitable ways of making steel.


If they have the ability to make any useful iron tools from the bog iron, it makes no sense that they would not be able to make steel from it.

While that bog iron steel would be low quality compared to modern steel, it would still be vastly superior for weapons and tools than wood, bone, stone, copper or bronze.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Dominions Son

it makes no sense that they would not be able to make steel from it.


It makes sense. Per canon, the blacksmiths and metal workers do not know how to improve the quality of the bog iron.

Just because the people of Earth knew how to do something during our Middle Ages, doesn't mean the knowledge is available on Chaos.

Wheezer
Updated:

@REP


Just because the people of Earth knew how to do something during our Middle Ages, doesn't mean the knowledge is available on Chaos.


It has been mentioned in the stories that Chaos got a large part of its population from Medieval Europe. Present day Chaosians may have lost the knowledge of how to make steel, but some of the original inhabitants most certainly would have known.

Replies:   REP
Ernest Bywater

@REP


Just because the people of Earth knew how to do something during our Middle Ages, doesn't mean the knowledge is available on Chaos.


Part of some of the more recent stories is for a few of the Heroes to introduce ways of improving steel etc. to various places on Chaos on their visits. However, iron and metal products are very expensive and anything made from an improved steel would be very expensive. The costs would be akin to people wanting to buy titanium products today instead of plain steel variants.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son
Updated:

@REP


Per canon, the blacksmiths and metal workers do not know how to improve the quality of the bog iron.


Sorry, but without the kinds of improvements needed to turn the bog iron into primitive steel it would be, like high purity gold, useless for anything except jewelry.

Bog iron would include significant occlusions of non-metallic materials. To use it for even the simplest/weakest tools, it would have to be either smelted, or mechanically reduced to very small pieces to separate the non-metallic bits then forged welded back together.

Ether smelting or forge welding would require heating the bog iron with either coal or charcoal.

Either way, the result technically qualifies as steel.

Replies:   REP
Remus2
Updated:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

Any argument that iron cannot become steel under primitive methods, displays a total lack of understanding for the history of steel. Steel has been around, in one form or another, for at least four millennia.

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on any argument that it can't be made under the stated conditions. I've done it, hundreds of thousands of others have as well over four thousand years of history.

Let's cease with the BS argument that it can't shall we?

Instead, let's call it what it is. Creative/Historical license at best. If I write a universe where only a pink Snuffleupagus wearing purple tutus can be fletchers, then I've taken license to ignore reality and facts.

Facts are irrelevant in light of that, but stop with the attempts of rewriting actual history and science please.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP

@Wheezer

got a large part of its population from Medieval Europe


Yes the Powers that Be made Chaos and transferred entire villages to Chaos. I vaguely recall that they also modified the inhabitants' memories' to eliminate certain knowledge about technology and suppress inventiveness.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

Yes I have been reading those stories. The Heroes' are gradually improving technology and educating the Chaosians.

REP

@Dominions Son

That sounds very much like the descriptions of Chaos to me.

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@Remus2


Facts are irrelevant in light of that, but stop with the attempts of rewriting actual history and science please.


Except one minor detail - you know how to do something, presuming you have the materials to do so. If those materials DO NOT EXIST where you are, then all your knowledge is worth ... nothing. Not unless you can come up with an acceptable substitute. And that may not be possible.

Last time I looked, the Chaos novels all happen to contain one pretty important tag. Science Fiction. Not fantasy, which you would see in a magic-using universe, just as a point of reference. And that means that since Chaos is NOT Terra, was NOT formed the way Terra was formed, is NOT kept that way by an advanced civilization, then just because you can rub two sticks together on Terra and create a multi-folded steel sword HERE does NOT mean that you can do the same thing THERE.

I have no doubt that you are quite capable of surviving on Terra should the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillating device. Many of us who have gone through appropriate service branch survival training, and who also happen to be handy with primitive tools, are as well. You're not that one of a kind bird that the only way to catch is unique up on him. (Yeah, that's my pun of the day.)

You're making multiple flawed arguments without realizing the fatal flaw in them. You presume that those medieval Europeans that were first stuck on Chaos actually were smart enough to know how to do what you propose. Think about this - you're planning on grabbing a bunch of people. Do you get the big town, where if everyone goes missing, there's bound to be an investigation, even if it turns up nothing? Or do you grab the small, isolated place - maybe a family here, a family there, at best a collection of huts with some half-trained blacksmith who knows how to make a horseshoe, but has no further metal working skill than that, because he never HAD to learn it. Did you ever bother to consider, in all your posts and arguments, that perhaps the reason the natives had never done what you say they HAD to do is that no one that was transplanted actually knew HOW to do it?

Replies:   Wheezer
Remus2
Updated:

Except one minor detail - you know how to do something, presuming you have the materials to do so. If those materials DO NOT EXIST where you are, then all your knowledge is worth ... nothing. Not unless you can come up with an acceptable substitute. And that may not be possible.


Everything I've described fits within the stated materials available. Further, after several thousand weapons captured, there would be more than enough available even if only scrap was available.

You must have blown right by this statement;

Instead, let's call it what it is. Creative/Historical license at best.


I don't know why you wanted to split a hair between fiction and fantasy, but that statement still stands. Call it fantasy, call it science fiction, or call xyz fiction, the bottom line is arguing it's not physically possible in reality with the stated available materials is BS. Fiction is fiction i.e. not based in reality. Many of the counter arguments were conflating real and fictional world's.

In fiction, every physical law can, be broken or cast aside. Artistic/Historical license. I've no problem with that. It's his fictional universe and he can make it what he damn well pleases. It does not work in reality though, and never will as stated.

Wheezer

@StarFleet Carl

Last time I looked, the Chaos novels all happen to contain one pretty important tag. Science Fiction.


One tenant of good 'Science Fiction' is that it follows the laws of physics while perhaps using imaginative or creative (impossible by our current level of tech) technology to circumvent those laws. It does not ignore those laws. Light speed limit? No problem! Star Gates, warp drives, hyperspace - whatever floats the author's boat, but the author must realize that one cannot simply use a straight Newtonian drive to accelerate past light speed. Same for Inertia. It exists. Deal with it. Inertia dampers or whatever.

On Chaos so many scientific facts are ignored as if they do not exist that the DiD universe should be considered pure Fantasy. For a planet to be low in iron because it was created by asteroids crashing together is silly, (How do you think the earth was created? "Carl, put your hand down.") unless the Super-Aliens hand-crafted Chaos with carefully selected stony asteroids - and I do not recall that. I've not read anything that suggests Chaos is a giant planet, which it would need to be to have gravity similar to earth with it's lower overall mass (stone vs. iron). Chaos' sun is earthlike, so it will send out a constant stream of deadly solar radiation. If Chaos lacks iron, there is nothing there to generate and maintain Van-Allen belts, which would make Chaos unable to support life - except perhaps for some radiation-hardened microbes. For Chaos to be somewhat Earth-sized and habitable with normal gravity while still lacking iron, then it has to be completely hand-crafted by super powerful aliens. Those aliens would have needed to provide Chaos with an artificial Van-Allen shield to protect its life from solar radiation and an artificial gravity generator at it's core to boost gravity to acceptable Earthlike levels. That vapor cloud will be stripped away by the solar wind unless it is artificially maintained & renewed - and I think it is a stretch to assume a vapor cloud will be enough to protect from solar radiation.

Considering that at least a couple of DiD stories refer to Chaos indigenous life (even non-human intelligence), I cannot reconcile that with a completely artificial world. If Evolution of life occurred on Chaos, then I have to assume the rest of the planet also evolved naturally. This conflicts with the DiD Canon stating that Chaos was terraformed. It does not state that Chaos was artificially created from scratch. This leads me to conclude that Chaos must have a liquid iron core & active plate tectonics. We have an example of a planet without a molten core right next door - Mars. It lacks a radiation belt and is dead for all practical purposes. So, either Chaos exists as described in Canon in a universe ruled by physics with much more alien tech on the planet than is stated in the Canon, or it is magic. Thus my argument that the Science Fiction label is incorrect.

One more small point, if the aliens can create something that specifically suppresses gunpowder without interfering with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics everywhere else on Chaos, then they are Gods & not aliens and it is magic - not science.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Wheezer

I freely admit I came to the DiD universe late, and by then the majority of the Universe rules etc were established. Since then I did get permission to fiddle with the edges a little and I did gather all of the rules together to make it easier to understand them.

Here's how the situation with Chaos as a planet :

1. Some aliens found a planet sized object that was a collection of a bunch of meteorites or asteroids or whatever circling a sun.

2. The aliens transformed it to be like a normal planet.

3. They placed an energy field around the new planet to keep most harmful radiation out (not fully defined) and to inhibit certain types of chemical reactions (which is why gunpowder doesn't explode). This field keeps the planetary surface temperature fairly stable despite there being no molten core to it.

4. The aliens gathered a bunch of humans from Earth, played with their minds a little, and placed them on the planet. They also placed some endangered Earth species on the planet. They may have even obtain specimens on fauna from an earlier period to place on the new planet. (Want a few Cornish Pixies anyone?)

5. Some other aliens have crash landed on the planet at times as well (see Dragon Dilemma).

6. For some unknown reason there is no natural iron ore (although some unnatural iron ore is now available - happened in Shiloh with permission of Lazlo), and the most common metal is copper. Pewter is also available, so that suggest some lead and tin is around in reasonable quantities. Large quantities of taenite (a nickel and iron compound) are on the planet but only recently identified as a usable metal (see Shiloh). There is gold and silver as well.

7. There is no moon, but there are tides - damned if I know why, but they were put there by Lazlo before my time.

8. Transport to and from the planet is mostly via teleportation devices.

9. There is some sort of time warping effect in place which I don't understand at all, beyond the effect it is stated to have.

If anyone needs answers beyond this and what's in the Book of Rules (which is more focused on the people side of things), then they need to get themselves to Crossroads and ask the AIs or the aliens there.

Replies:   madnige  Wheezer  BlacKnight
madnige
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


There is no moon, but there are tides


Even on Earth, we would have tides if the moon were not there. The Sun accounts for about a third of the tidal range, the difference between spring and neap tides.

ETA: I agree that DiD has to be considered fantasy rather than SF, as opposed to McCaffery's Pern books or Cherryh's Morgaine saga, both of which appear as fantasy to begin with but get a valid SF basis later.

Wheezer
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest, your summary of the Canon actually makes my point. What's my point? DiD is Fantasy. Too many points in the Canon contradict known physics, and it is stated that Earth, Cassandra, Crossroads & Chaos are all in the same universe. The laws of space & time are consistent everywhere in the universe. If Lazlo had simply stated or implied that they were in parallel universes or dimensions then all problems could be resolved with the statement that each had different laws of physics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, planetary formation (a planet sized pile of asteroid rubble IS a planet. Gravity will pull all the pieces into a spherical shape. Subsequent bombardment will heat & melt everything together. Gravity will pull the heavier elements to the core. etc. etc.) A protostar lacking iron in its planetary accretion disk becomes possible. and the unexplainable issues with time flow are resolved - not ignored. The current Canon for DiD contains too many "we don't know how or why" elements to be SciFi in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy most DiD stories. I just have issues with some of the more blatant problems with the Canon. DiD DOES NOT take place in an Einsteinian/Hawkings Universe.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
BlacKnight

@Ernest Bywater

6. For some unknown reason there is no natural iron ore (although some unnatural iron ore is now available - happened in Shiloh with permission of Lazlo), and the most common metal is copper. Pewter is also available, so that suggest some lead and tin is around in reasonable quantities. Large quantities of taenite (a nickel and iron compound) are on the planet but only recently identified as a usable metal (see Shiloh). There is gold and silver as well.

This, with the idea that they don't understand how to refine bog iron into usable carbon steel, is not consistent with the equipage we actually see in the stories. Iron weapons and armor are shit, and weapons made out of unrefined bog iron are going to be completely unusable.

They have copper and tin; they can make bronze, which outperforms unrefined iron. But yet we see people equipped not with bronze weapons and armor, but with ferrous ones, with some lip service about how rare it is.

If iron is rare, and they don't know how to refine it into steel, the result is not steel swords being rare. It's steel swords being nonexistent, and people using weapons of bronze, copper, wood, stone, and bone instead.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@BlacKnight

BK, I wasn't trying to say they didn't have any steel, just that what little steel they have is low quality due to being low in carbon. That's why it's so expensive, as there's so little and it takes ages to get enough to make enough of anything with it. That's why some of the Heroes are now in the process of introducing ways to improves the carbon content and the upgrade the quality of the steel while evening out the carbon through the metal via hammering and folding plus forge welding.

REP
Updated:

Lazlo had an idea for a series of stories. His stories and the stories written by other authors became the current DID Universe. Lazlo created 3 fictional locations for his stories: Chaos, Cassandra, and Crossroads. I doubt he was trying to create locations that satisfied the laws that govern our Universe. He needed a setting in which Earth Heroes could rescue Damsels. So he defined Chaos and he described a medieval-like environment similar to what was in existence during Earth's Middle Ages.

In this thread, many posters want to say:

1. Earth has certain amounts of various metals, therefore Chaos MUST have the same types and amounts of these metals.

Canon says the metals available on Earth aren't available on Chaos.

2. Certain knowledge of how to work metal was and is known here on Earth and therefore the people of Chaos MUST have the same knowledge.

Canon says the blacksmiths and metal workers of Chaos don't know as much about working metal as was known on Earth.

3. Things can't be true of Chaos because these things do not conform to the Laws that govern our Universe.

A fictional world exists in the mind of the author, who isn't trying to define a world that conforms to the Laws governing our Universe. Canon says that is the way things are on Chaos.

4. The stories are incorrectly categorized as Science Fiction.

OH! By which definition? Go out on the Web and you will find that there are many different definitions of "Science Fiction". I like the following definition (and take note of actual or imagined science):

fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

When DID Universe authors selected a genre for their stories, "Fiction" and "Science Fiction" were the two most common selections. Each of the authors made their choice based on their definition of what "Fiction" and "Science Fiction" mean.

The way I see it is, we can read and just enjoy the stories Lazlo, and others, posted without picking out what we perceive as inconsistencies, scientific errors, logical improbabilities, etc.

Replies:   Wheezer
Wheezer
Updated:

@REP


OH! By which definition? Go out on the Web and you will find that there are many different definitions of "Science Fiction". I like the following definition (and take note of actual or imagined science):


Imagined science is the basis of science fiction, not imagined physics. Imagined physics (magic) is the basis of Fantasy. Too much bad science, or inconsistent science in a story can get in the way of the storytelling if the reader has at least a high school education in the sciences.

A particularly egregious actual example (to me) is of a particular author who equipped his interstellar spacecraft with a hyperdrive for travelling above light speed and a 'normal space' below light speed drive for travel in close to planets. He had the hyperdrive fail between star systems & was forced to make a four light year journey to the next nearest inhabited star using the sub-light engines - a journey of a few months!

Replies:   AmigaClone
AmigaClone

@Wheezer


A particularly egregious actual example (to me) is of a particular author who equipped his interstellar spacecraft with a hyperdrive for travelling above light speed and a 'normal space' below light speed drive for travel in close to planets. He had the hyperdrive fail between star systems & was forced to make a four light year journey to the next nearest inhabited star using the sub-light engines - a journey of a few months!


Personally I have found that type of thing a lot - "sub light" engines that allow a spacecraft to still go faster than light.

I consider the term sub-light engine in those cases to refer to a method of faster than light travel that is slower than their main method of going FTL and for that reason it's normally used by that society for short trips (less than a light-year).

Replies:   Wheezer
Darian Wolfe

I enjoy the back and forth of is DID Sci-Fi or Fantasy. Can this be done or that? What I really enjoy is taking some time and visiting Chaos as a Hero goes on a mission and seeing the friends he makes. The various bitches he rescues are really neither here nor there as most have almost no character development. They are just a variation of an old high school theme Find her, feel her, Fuck her, and Forget her. Is she blond this time or brunette? Does it really matter? No. He cares about his Caretaker and companion. His comrades and friends. The opportunity to make something of himself even if no one in his everyday life ever knows about it. It's meant to be read and enjoyed so that's what I do.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Wheezer

@AmigaClone

I consider the term sub-light engine in those cases to refer to a method of faster than light travel that is slower than their main method of going FTL and for that reason it's normally used by that society for short trips (less than a light-year).


That's fine, if it works for you, except that the prefix sub means below. If an author chooses to redefine the English language, then it needs to be noted.

Replies:   AmigaClone
AmigaClone

@Wheezer

That's fine, if it works for you, except that the prefix sub means below. If an author chooses to redefine the English language, then it needs to be noted.


Part of my mental exercise is for the term "sub-light" to be a shortened form of "sub-light-year".

Ernest Bywater

@Darian Wolfe

Can this be done or that? What I really enjoy is taking some time and visiting Chaos as a Hero goes on a mission and seeing the friends he makes.


As a result of the discussions in this thread I'm revising the information in the Rule Book.

If you've read my DiD stories you'll notice I focus on the people and the society, as that's what I find interesting in it. Crazy as it seems, I'm writing no sex stories in a universe purpose built for a lot of sex action.

Replies:   Darian Wolfe
StarFleet Carl

@Wheezer

The laws of space & time are consistent everywhere in the universe.


Really?

Have we been everywhere in the universe to know that this is true, or is this purely supposition based upon the limited observations we have of the universe?

Our solar system is basically a pimple on the ass of the whole universe. How many black holes have we sent actual probes into, to measure what happens at the event horizon? Oh, wait - I know the answer to that. ZERO.

We have a lot of theories, and we sort of HOPE the laws of space and time are consistent, but we really don't know.

Replies:   Wheezer
Darian Wolfe

@Ernest Bywater

I believe I have read yours. I'm not running down a good sex scene in the right context but it's the context that's intriguing.

Wheezer

@StarFleet Carl

based upon the limited observations we have of the universe?

Well, actually, we have a shitload of observations from the very beginnings of astronomy reaching out hundreds of millions of light years. It all seems to work the same way. Physicists discover new things every year, and some of those are yet to be fully understood. The Grand Unified Theory is still out of reach, but nothing suggests that Einstein, Hawking & even Newton were dead wrong. In the details, maybe, but the general Theories stand up to observation everywhere we look - and modern telescopes can look a damn long way into space. To claim, as you suggest, that observational scientific data is meaningless is irrelevant and a bit ludicrous. It sounds like something a right-wing anti-science bible thumper would spew.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Wheezer

Despite the amount of observational data gathered, we have probably seen less than 5% of what there is to observe. Stating what we believe to be true as true everywhere in the universe is a leap of faith based on assumption.

Wheezer
Updated:

@REP


Despite the amount of observational data gathered, we have probably seen less than 5% of what there is to observe. Stating what we believe to be true as true everywhere in the universe is a leap of faith based on assumption.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/10/are-the-laws-of-physics-really-universal/

I've felt water coming out of my kitchen tap. It's wet. I've also felt the water in the Atlantic, Pacific & Indian oceans. It was wet too. So was all the water I've felt coming out of my taps & showers in Europe, Canada & Mexico and every other place I've ever lived or visited. I suppose there could be some water somewhere on Earth that is not wet. I know I've only observed a small percent of all the Earth's water. How silly of me to assume it's all wet. It would be presumptuous of me to assume the water on Europa is wet. That's a whole different world. (moon, actually.) The point is that we may not have observed every little corner of the Universe, but we haven't confined our observations to the hall closet, so to speak. In every direction we look and as far as we can look (currently about 11 billion light years, which is also 11 billion years into the past, the four fundamental forces of physics behave the same. Dark Energy & Dark Matter, while invisible & undetectable, is still observable by it's effect on ordinary matter. In other words, we do not have to see it to know it is there. We do not have to lay our hands on every drop of water on Earth to know it is wet, and we do not have to observe every inch of the Universe to know that the laws are constant. There is not some galaxy somewhere that does not obey the same gravitational constant than ours does, or where electromagnetism behaves fundamentally different.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2000/11/01/on-earth-as-in-the-heavens

Replies:   REP
robberhands

This whole discussion is the reason I'll never write Science Fiction. I don't want to be bothered by all the Hobby-Einsteins complaining about the totally wrong science in my story.

Dominions Son

@REP

Stating what we believe to be true as true everywhere in the universe is a leap of faith based on assumption.


Technically true, but that assumption is a foundational requirement of science. If the assumption is false, that invalidates all of science.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

Stating what we believe to be true as true everywhere in the universe is a leap of faith based on assumption.


On a personal level I've no problem with that basic premise. However, if you study the history of science you'll soon see it has far more cases where the scientists have said, "Based on what we've observed this is the situation," then a few years later they come back to says, "What we said before is wrong, this is now our understanding of the situation." It's very rare for the first statement to stay unchanged over time.

This is all understandable, but it does leave me not willing to accept blanket statements about what is what in the universe when they acknowledge they only no such a very small amount of it. At this point in time, and I expect this to be true for a long time after I pass on as well, no real scientist can say with a 100% surety that something they currently believe to be the case is always that case for the entire universe. The closest they can get to that is to agree liquid water feels wet.

Much of what we accept as daily facts of modern day scientific life were spoken of as magic and fantasy only a few generations ago. Go back a few hundred years and see how they react if you 'flick a bic.'

Replies:   Keet  awnlee jawking  REP
Keet

@Ernest Bywater

The closest they can get to that is to agree liquid water feels wet.

Well... here on Earth it does. Who knows what it feels like somewhere else in the universe ;)

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

The closest they can get to that is to agree liquid water feels wet.


Does it still feel wet if you can walk on it? Any Christians care to pray to their supreme triumvirate for the answer? ;)

AJ

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Does it still feel wet if you can walk on it? Any Christians care to pray to their supreme triumvirate for the answer? ;)


According to the Bible Jesus was wearing sandles when he walked on the water, so he wouldn't have felt it, anyway.

BTW: If you're a Christian who follows the teachings of the Bible there is no triumviate, but that's something the Papists teach that's not in the Bible. There's a lot the Papists teach that's not in the Bible, but it all goes back to what they did to help get more people into the church and under their control. - - if you want to say anything further on this it should be a totally different thread of its own.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
REP

@Wheezer

As I said - What we know is true is true until we encounter something new that proves what we know is not true everywhere.

Your entire post regarding water is wet proves that what we know is true, is true; at least until we encounter a situation where water is not wet. Highly unlikely in that specific case.

But we weren't talking about water. What was being addressed is the laws of the universe. There are many locations in our universe that are not known to us and in some of those places, the laws of the universe as we know them may not be true.

Is there a place in our universe where the law of gravity does not apply as we know it. I doubt it, but I can't prove that there is no such place. So until we know that what we believe is true is true throughout the universe, we need to keep an open mind.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Wheezer
REP

@Ernest Bywater

glad you agree with me.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@REP


As I said - What we know is true is true until we encounter something new that proves what we know is not true everywhere.


No, that is not the way it works.

The assumption you have been referring to is formally known as the law of mediocrity. That law states that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.

If the law of mediocrity is false, then the entirety of science as we understand it is false.

The reality is that if we encounter something new that invalidates something we thought we knew before, the reality is that what we thought we knew before was never true anywhere and what we know now was always true everywhere.

This bears repeating. The entirety of science is founded on the law of mediocrity.

If we discover something that invalidates the law of mediocrity, it also invalidates the entirety of modern scientific knowledge, because without the law of mediocrity, science can not exist.

ETA: I'll give an example.

Everything we think we know about the ancient history of the Earth drawn from the geologic and fossil records is predicated in the assumption that geological and biological processes have always worked the way we observe them working today.

If that assumption is false, then that falsifies every conclusion we have drawn from the geological and fossil records.

Even worse, since we can't go back in time to observe / test how those processes worked in the distant past, we can't draw any new conclusions.

Replies:   Wheezer  REP
Wheezer

@REP

But we weren't talking about water. What was being addressed is the laws of the universe. There are many locations in our universe that are not known to us and in some of those places, the laws of the universe as we know them may not be true.


I think you & I have very different ideas about what the laws of Physics are. They aren't really laws, but are the four fundamental forces that govern how everything in the universe works. Scientists argue about the details of how and why those four forces work, and they are constantly discovering new details about those forces. No scientist argues that those forces do not exist, and no scientist anywhere argues that there is a corner of the universe where they do not work or work differently. That's not to say there are not some crackpot woo-woo ideas floating around out there, but they are nothing more than that. I'm not going to try to discuss that. I am not the dumbfuck whisperer. I cannot prove that gods, unicorns and fairies do not exist either. It's not my job to prove they do not. That claim rests on the shoulders of those making the claim. Let's see some evidence - specifically a paper or papers by respected scientists that have been published in a scientific peer reviewed journal that proposes and provides observations that the fundamental forces of nature are not constant in the universe. I'm sensing a very strong anti-science sentiment from some people in this thread.

Replies:   Remus2  REP
Wheezer

@Dominions Son

Even worse, since we can't go back in time to observe / test how those processes worked in the distant past, we can't draw any new conclusions.


Actually, astronomers do it every day. When we observe a galaxy billions of light years distant, we are also looking billions of years into the past because the light we see today left that galaxy billions of years ago. You should read the articles I linked in my earlier post.

Replies:   Dominions Son
awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

if you want to say anything further on this it should be a totally different thread of its own.


Just trying to inject some light-heartedness.

Personally I don't have any strong opinions about the injection of steel into the DiD universe. Switch Blayde can do it any time he wants by making his Lincoln Steele a Hero ;)

My vote would be for the stories to be classed as Fantasy rather than Science Fiction. And considering the misogynistic premise, it's surprising the quality of authors and stories it's managed to attract.

I'm very interested in the discussion on the assumptions and laws of science and their immutability. I have a dog in this fight in real life.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

I'm very interested in the discussion on the assumptions and laws of science and their immutability.


I've no issue with that. My comment you quoted was a note to start a new thread if anyone wanted to continue with the religious aspect raised in the post I replied to, that's all.

Remus2

@Wheezer

Let's see some evidence - specifically a paper or papers by respected scientists that have been published in a scientific peer reviewed journal that proposes and provides observations that the fundamental forces of nature are not constant in the universe. I'm sensing a very strong anti-science sentiment from some people in this thread.


I'm not arguing your primary point, but I would argue 'consensus science' is not science at all. I'd further argue the review process is severely corrupted.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Remus2

I'd further argue the review process is severely corrupted.


I was once part of a working party trying to address this very issue. There was no agreement - some members didn't even accept that the peer review process was broken - and nothing was accomplished :(

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Remus2
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

peer review process


is a system where by the majority can proclaim they're right, even when they're wrong.

Science and medicine is littered with incidents where all of the experts were sure something was a certain way and decried anyone who said otherwise, until their noses got firmly shoved into the reality of them being wrong.

Replies:   Wheezer  Remus2
Wheezer

@Ernest Bywater

Science and medicine is littered with incidents where all of the experts were sure something was a certain way and decried anyone who said otherwise, until their noses got firmly shoved into the reality of them being wrong.


Yes, and occasionally there is a discovery that revolutionizes humanity's view of the universe. Galileo. Einstein. Hawkings. The revelation that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and many had feathers. There are plenty more. The thing is, once the evidence was presented & it was proven to be real, the scientific community accepted it and moved forward. The idea that the four forces of nature apply everywhere equally is not just some unfounded idea from the past like the earth being the center of the universe. Newton was right, as far as he went, but his theories did not explain everything that scientists observed. Einstein's work goes on to explain much more, but it does not invalidate Newton. It builds on it. Same for Hawkings work. Modern Cosmology is based on over 100 years of observations and measurements. New ideas are slow to get accepted, but that is a good thing. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Of course, there are those for whom no amount of evidence or proof is good enough if the conclusion contradicts their personal world view. There's a con-man in Arkansas named Ken Ham getting rich pandering to people with that world view. A scientific theory is not a wild-assed guess.

REP

@Dominions Son

No, that is not the way it works.


To use your concept, the law of mediocrity is always true, until we encounter something that invalidates it.

All I am saying is there may be something in the universe that invalidates the law of mediocrity.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Wheezer

Actually, astronomers do it every day.


1. I was explicitly talking about terrestrial geological and biological processes. Even if we could find and identify a geologically active rocky planet around another star, we couldn't observe the requisite processes at interstellar distance that would give us look far enough into the past.

2. If you've thrown out the law of mediocrity, observations way out there in space, can't be applied to the distant past here on earth, as the law of mediocrity applies to both space and time, which are interconnected.

Dominions Son

@REP

All I am saying is there may be something in the universe that invalidates the law of mediocrity.


And I am saying that if you invalidate the law of mediocrity, you have invalidated all science along with it.

If you eliminate the law of mediocrity, science is not possible.

Replies:   Dominions Son  REP
REP

@Wheezer

I am not what one could call anti-science. What I have a problem with is people who close their minds to the point that they say something like "that" can never happen.

Dominions Son

@Dominions Son

The law of mediocrity is not a product of science. It is part of a framework of philosophy and metaphysics which predates the concept of science and forms the foundation on which science was built.

REP

@Wheezer

The thing is, once the evidence was presented & it was proven to be real, the scientific community accepted it and moved forward.


That is actually not true in many cases. Since you mentioned dinosaurs having feathers:

Nowadays, some scientists believe that all dinosaurs came from a single feathered ancestor and that every species had feathers, or at least tiny proto-feathers.

Other scientists want to see a lot more evidence before jumping to this conclusion, and believe that scales were the norm, with feathers in just a few groups.

https://owlcation.com/stem/dinosaurs-with-feathers-or-scales

The scientific community is split between those who are ready to accept a new idea with a reasonable amount of proof and those who will never accept the idea regardless of how much proof is presented.

The decision for the scientific community to move forward is based on the distribution of its members between these 2 basic position. Those who never believe will always resist.

REP

@Dominions Son

The assumption you have been referring to is formally known as the law of mediocrity. That law states that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.


In an earlier post, you stated the above. I accepted what you said rather than research what the law of mediocrity meant. What I have been able to find does not support your statement that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere and every when or your claim that the existence of science depends on the law of mediocrity remaining true.

If you are discussing something other than what I found, you will have to provide a link. What I found is:

The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Remus2

@awnlee jawking

I was once part of a working party trying to address this very issue. There was no agreement - some members didn't even accept that the peer review process was broken - and nothing was accomplished :(


I've had my own dealings with it. What you describe rings true.

Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

...is a system where by the majority can proclaim they're right, even when they're wrong.

That's called consensus science.

Ernest Bywater

@Wheezer

Modern Cosmology is based on over 100 years of observations and measurements.

And they're still finding new things, so to say anything is not possible based on current observations is wrong. Tomorrow, next week, or next century they may find something to say different. No one knows what new discovery is out there. The top scientists often say something can not be so, and provide the mathematics etc. to prove they're right, and then get slapped in the face by a new discovery.

StarFleet Carl

@awnlee jawking

Does it still feel wet if you can walk on it?


Well, I can say that solid water tends to feel hard and cold when you walk on it.

StarFleet Carl

@Wheezer

Modern Cosmology is based on over 100 years of observations and measurements.


Last time I checked, the universe is either (a) 6,000ish years old, if you're a creationist or (b) about 13.8 BILLION years old, and either way, the approximate size of the universe is 91 BILLION light years in diameter. We've sent men 240,000 miles from the planet, with our furthest space probe about 11.7 billion miles - 11.7 x 10 to the 9th miles. (I'm not sure how to express scientific notation in text with superscript.)

Anyway, the universe is 5.5 x 10 to the 23rd miles - or more than 47 trillion times the space we've actually physically explored. That's pretty much why I don't consider what someone says is a 'universal constant' when measured on this insignificant (except to us) small blue dot to be established fact.

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Last time I checked, the universe is either (a) 6,000ish years old, if you're a creationist


One of these days I get interested enough to research which idiotic fool calculated that BS figure, because it's not supported by any of the Bible scriptures. The Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth in seven days, yet neither existed when God started, thus a day as accounted for by a single rotation of Earth can't be part of it since God was working for days before that happened the first time. This it's possible a single Day for God can be what we call 2 billion years of our time, or any other figure God wanted. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, they just use different values for the duration of a day.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Remus2
Updated:

Cosmology is effectively in its infancy. A strong example of that is the gravitational wave detection efforts LIGO etc.(Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory). That btw, got a Nobel science award.

It was 2015 when the first confirmed gravitational wave was confirmed. There has been a total of six confirmed waves to date. There are other efforts underway to further that study. So if gravity has a waveform, it has a frequency, etc. Does it then follow that wave mechanics apply? Constructive - Destructive interference, standing waves, etc? Haven't found any 'recognized' person willing to state one way or another.

IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) was another mission with unexpected results. Prior to the mission, every 'recognized' model available postulated there would be a bowshock. Actual observation found no empirical evidence of the sort. Therefore, what was 'self-evident', wasn't true.

The list of questions and anomalies is a very long one.

What exactly makes a scientist? There has been numerous discoveries made by people without a PhD. It's a bit shortsighted and arrogant to assume only a 'degreed' person is capable of advancing and understanding any given venue of science.

Replies:   Wheezer
Wheezer
Updated:

All I've taken from the counterarguments is that:

.Science is bad & usually wrong...

.Scientists lie to protect each other.

.Scientists can't agree on anything. (even though that contradicts the previous sentence)

."Maybe" & "could be," has equal weight and validity to all those thousands of scientific observations and measurements which say it ain't so. (see above comments about lying & dishonest scientists.

After all, 97% of the world's climatologists are in a conspiracy about global warming.

Replies:   Remus2
Wheezer
Updated:

@Remus2


What exactly makes a scientist? There has been numerous discoveries made by people without a PhD. It's a bit shortsighted and arrogant to assume only a 'degreed' person is capable of advancing and understanding any given venue of science.


Who the fuck suggested that? The Scientific Method does not give a rat's ass about who makes an initial discovery or observation, or who proposes a new Hypothesis. It's all bullshit until that first person's claim is verified by others. Remember Cold Fusion?

Here's the scientific method:

Steps of the Scientific Method

•Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

•Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...

•Form a Hypothesis. ...

•Conduct an Experiment. ...

•Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

After all that, if the last two steps confirm the first three, then the one who started the process will publish their findings & research. Then others will read the paper & try to repeat everything. Either they will get the same results, or they will not. If not, they start looking for why their results are different from the original. It can take a while before everyone agrees whether or not a new idea or observation is valid. And remember that these are humans with human egos. If some researcher has championed a particular position for years, then evidence comes along that differs, they will disagree & argue - even in the face of strong evidence. Sometimes they never give up their personal position. They eventually become minority voices in their field.

Amateur astronomers make discoveries all the time with their backyard telescopes. Most new comets are found by amateurs.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Wheezer

Who the fuck suggested that?


I've heard that many times on various campuses, projects, and among many who claim to be scientists. Every time the requirement for degreed scientist to 'peer review' is stated, it's saying that.
It's a very common attitude.

I've personally run into it. Because my background is dual engineering degrees that didn't go past a master's level, I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about. That btw is very close to a direct quote.

I'm not the first, tenth, or even the one millionth to deal with that either. It's the prevailing attitude.

The truly sad part is the degree to which scientific advancement has been stifled by that attitude.

Then we get to the people who are 'recognized' as scientist by the paper they hold. I've personally met several whom I have absolutely no explanation as to how they got that paper. A box of pet rocks have more going for them mentally.

Then there is the politicization of it by governmental, academic, and corporate entities. All use the publish or die rule to control the output, or produce or die in the corporate world. That leads/lead to dictating the results, then catering a study to support those results. The poor bastards doing the work don't get funded if they don't toe the line. Without published works, they get no funding, thus no job/food/place to live.

That my friend is the harsh reality. Dead are the days of science not beholden to task masters.

Replies:   John Demille
Remus2
Updated:

@Wheezer

Here's a project for you. Research what a climatologist is and how long they've been around. Further, follow up with the money trail. Who is paying for what, and who controls it.

Climate change, global warming, etc predictions have been revised more times that a newborn diapers have been changed in the first year. I have no idea how old you are, but I distinctively recall much the same chicken little predictions from the late 60s into the early 70s, except in that case, it was all about the coming freeze. Funny how the supposedly authoritative sources swore by that then, but nothing but crickets now.

I also distinctively recall the predictions of Florida being underwater by now from the late 90s. While wikipedia and many other Web based sources are routinely edited, they can't edit hard copy from the relevant time frame.

The mere fact that the claim of 97% exist, tells me there is some bullshit in the mix. Load up a room with 100 PhDs claiming scientist status, show them all a picture of a blue sky with a few wispy clouds. Now we ask how many of them see a blue sky. Out of them, at least ten or more will argue it's not actually a blue sky. You'll have better luck organizing a herd of cats coherently across a few hundred miles of open range.

StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

This it's possible a single Day for God can be what we call 2 billion years of our time, or any other figure God wanted. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, they just use different values for the duration of a day.


I actually have heard what you suggest before, and I personally agree with it. I may be incorrect in this, but it's my understanding this figure effectively comes from the Jewish calendar. I would also suspect that most of this comes from attempting to explain something to people who simply had no way of understanding or grasping it.

John Demille
Updated:

@Remus2


That my friend is the harsh reality. Dead are the days of science not beholden to task masters.


You are absolutely correct. These days only the science that is politically correct can see the light of day.

Just think what kind of resistance and social circle backlash a scientist will face if they go against the '97%' of scientists who support the global warming thing. I say global warming because the phrase 'climate change' is purposely vague. The climate changes all the time.

Read this fairly long article about how 'scientists/mathematicians' went about a controversial new paper:

https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

And then try to tell me that all scientists are about the scientific method.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Remus2
awnlee_jawking

@StarFleet Carl

(b) about 13.8 BILLION years old, and either way, the approximate size of the universe is 91 BILLION light years in diameter.


That means the outer reaches of the universe have travelled 45 billion light years in 13.8 years, or more than 3 light years per year. Was that using sub-light engines? ;)

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
awnlee jawking

@John Demille

There have been many more instances where politically-incorrect research has been suppressed by vested interests or zealots. I can think of a couple of studies showing that Glyphosate increases the risk of cancer, but Monsanto mobilised the tanks and got the studies wrongly 'discredited'. And there was a Canadian study correlating autism risk with injections. Again that one was discredited, despite there being nothing untoward about the study's methodology.

AJ

Wheezer

We are fucking doomed...

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@John Demille

And then try to tell me that all scientists are about the scientific method.


I wished I could say such events are rare, unfortunately they are all too common in my experience. The only thing uncommon about your link is that it exist at all. Most times the PC war wagons practice a scorched earth policy. I will be very surprised if that link is still live in a few months, especially after specific persons and organizations were named.

Remus2

@Wheezer

We are fucking doomed...

Probably so.

One thing I'm certain of, we as a planet cannot sustain the course we are on. However, it will require the unbiased output of our most intelligent to avoid doom. We as humans will die by our own hand if we stay the course.
That output will never happen as long as PC and greed rule the day. So yes, we are most likely doomed.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Dominions Son

@awnlee_jawking

That means the outer reaches of the universe have travelled 45 billion light years in 13.8 years, or more than 3 light years per year. Was that using sub-light engines? ;)


One theory I've seen for the expansion of the universe is that it's not just the stars/galaxies moving, space/time itself is expanding like a balloon being filled with air.

The supposed evidence for this is that no matter what direction into space, objects further away are moving away from us faster than objects that are closer to us.

The proponents of the space expansion theory say that this observation doesn't fit with a bunch of objects moving out from a central point in a static and infinite void.

Remus2
Updated:

Spacetime, universe edge, big bang, all suggest a void of nothing. What filled the area that comprises the known universe prior to its expansion? What is beyond the leading edge of that expansion? How did that expansion exceed the speed of light in the first few seconds after the big bang?

Many a cosmologist knickers were twisted, and much frothing of mouths occur when you ask those questions.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Remus2

How did that expansion exceed the speed of light in the first few seconds after the big bang?


That's the beauty of the theory that space/time is expanding in an elastic fashion. The distance between here and there is getting bigger without anything actually moving. So no, under this theory, nothing has to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Dominions Son

Might want to look up that hypothesis beginning.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Remus2


Might want to look up that hypothesis beginning.


https://newatlas.com/now-physics-time/45559/

http://estfound.org/

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Dominions Son

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[20] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[21][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.


In the first few seconds, the expansion had to be faster than light for the 'big bang' to work. The 'theory' throws out general relativity and the standard model of particle physics in order for it to work. The concept of the singularity defies both as well.

So at one point we have a different set of rules than now, or do we?
Bottom line is, for it to work, FTL had to happen.

That still doesn't explain what the universe expanded into. Where the singularity came from, what fills the expansion, nor what is beyond the edge of the expansion.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Remus2

In the first few seconds, the expansion had to be faster than light


If it's space/time expanding rather than matter moving out into preexisting space/time, you can't measure the rate of expansion in term of units of distance/units of time, because it's the units of distance and time that are doing the expanding.

Replies:   Remus2
StarFleet Carl

@Remus2

we as a planet cannot sustain the course we are on.


"The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in it." - Robert Heinlein

REP
Updated:

I know this is off topic but it is too hilarious not to share.

http://stuppid.com/arrested-selling-golden-tickets-heaven/

Remus2
Updated:

@Dominions Son


If it's space/time expanding rather than matter moving out into preexisting space/time, you can't measure the rate of expansion in term of units of distance/units of time, because it's the units of distance and time that are doing the expanding


So you're stating that spacetime pre-existed to the big bang. Which is stating that not all energy/matter etc was tied up in the singularity. I'd really love to read the supporting evidence of that one. Such evidence would kill the big bang and expansion universe ideas in one shot.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Remus2

So you're stating that spacetime pre-existed to the big bang.


Um, no, I'm not saying that, I'm just describing the impact of a particular theory.

Which is stating that not all energy/matter etc was tied up in the singularity.


1. As I understand it, space/time itself is neither matter nor energy. So no, space/time pre-exising the big bang requires neither matter nor energy outside of the singularity itself.

2. If you accept the theory that what is expanding is space/time itself, prior to the big bang, space/time was likely part of and/or no bigger than the singularity itself.

3. The speed (as we understand it) of light (or anything else) is something that can only exist inside of space time. Therefore even if the speed of light is an absolute limit on speed of movement inside space/time, assuming space/time is elastic and capable of expanding the speed of light would not be a limit on the rate of expansion of space/time. This is true for the simple reason that speed (distance/time) can not be used to measure the expansion of space/time itself.

Remus2
Updated:

No one knows what 'spacetime' truely is. Space cannot be measured without time.

Humans can rarely grasp, if ever, something that exist without time.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, but one scientist are loathe to give. Not just them either.

1. As I understand it, space/time itself is neither matter nor energy. So no, space/time pre-exising the big bang requires neither matter nor energy outside of the singularity itself.


You nor I 'know' what spacetime is or isn't. As such, definitive answers such as your second sentence are at best a hypothesis, a wild ass guess at worse. We don't know what the singularity was comprised of, nor if it ever existed.

According to what you stated there, nothing existed. A null value. Yet the universe supposedly expanded into that null area. It's the chicken an egg argument. For there to be anywhere for the universe to expand into, something most likely had to be there as you cannot have an empty null space like that according to what current science tells us.


2. If you accept the theory that what is expanding is space/time itself, prior to the big bang, space/time was likely part of and/or no bigger than the singularity itself.


That's a circular argument that leads back to my answer for #1.


3. The speed (as we understand it) of light (or anything else) is something that can only exist inside of space time. Therefore even if the speed of light is an absolute limit on speed of movement inside space/time, assuming space/time is elastic and capable of expanding the speed of light would not be a limit on the rate of expansion of space/time. This is true for the simple reason that speed (distance/time) can not be used to measure the expansion of space/time itself.


Yet the speed of light figures heavily into many cosmological measurements. Especially that of sizing and dating the universe.

If it cannot be used as you say, then every estimate for age and distances within the universe is wrong. Another chicken and egg argument.

My preference is to say I don't know. I prefer to avoid 'assumptions' as that's the best angle from which to learn imo.

Back to Top