Origin of Harada - discussion

[DJSpecter]

Now I admit, I have not read every post in these here 19 pages. I also have yet to pick up a copy of the new story. But...

1) Harada was exhibiting his powers from near infancy even in the VH1 Origin of Harada story. On the other hand Pete only started showing his powers as a teenager, the same time most Harbingers start to feel different. Thus it is possible that Rowena matured as a Harbinger and exhibited the phenomena as a teenager, as did Pete. Harada, on the other hand, was popped early.

2) Fortune telling was never a clear ability in Valiant (cf. Shadowman 21,22; Solar 11 (or was it EW1?)). The real question is if she could tell the future why would she start a 900 years war that the side she started would be on the losing end of?

3) Magnus could be explained to have been pre-popped as an infant by Pete.

4) I have no REAL issue with a Valiant Ultimate (reinventing the characters). But I think it would be a wondrous thing if the future stories (and I assume there will be) would try to give validity to the original stories. I guess we'll see what happens.

5) Regarding the characteristic of a Harbinger, Gilad and Aram are not, in my view, Harbingers. Freaks, yes, Harbingers, no. Finely tuned genetic splicing seems likely.

6) I think it would be a misconception to claim that Solar made the universe, I think that it seems more likely and possible that Solar introduced himself and Erica into a world. I disagree with what Geoff said to Erica in Unity, it makes much more sense that both worlds were parallel dimensions, and Solar created a black/wormhole that bridged the two.

[ManofTheAtom]

Going back to the reactor discussion for a moment.

Can we agree that were it NOT for characters like Solar, Pete, Aric, Magnus, and ALL the other VALIANT heroes that the VALIANT Universe might as well BE our world? That it might be closer to being comics akin to something more mundane like Strangers in Paradise than being about superheroes?

Say we agreed on that. In short, that means that what separates our world from the VALIANT Universe is the existance of the fictional characters that inhabit it.

Phi Seleski (NOT Solar. I'm talking about Phil Seleski, scientist) would be such a made believe character, right?

My point here would be this,

If Phil Seleski, scientist, didn't exist, then the science (whatever that may be) that went into building the reactor may have never been discovered.

For instance,

Say that Newton hadn't been born... would the law of gravity still had been written?

Gravity would be there to be discovered (even named..), but could anyone OTHER than Newton be the one that did it?

Had Gailleo NOT been born, would someone else been brave enough to challenge the notion that sun revolved around the Earth?

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of it, the Sun would have still not revolved around the Earth.

The point is this.

Just like even if Newton didn't discover gravity and Gallileo didn't say that the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth they would have still been there, the science that created Solar MAY exist (not saying that it does exist, just saying that it MAY exist. I'm offering an improbable possibility). In the VU it was the fictional character called Phil Seleski that discovered it.

IF that science were to exist (which is improbable), it may never be discovered because such a person doesn't exist in the real world.

[DJSpecter]

Interesting discussion right there. There are two theories of History in this regard. One theory claims, as you suggest, had Ivar killed Einstein the atom-bomb would be science fiction. (cf. Sliders)
The other theory claims that the world is ready for certain things to happen at a certain time. Had Ivar killed Hitler, there would have been someone else to take his place. The outcome might not have been identical, but it would have been similar enough. This theory draws examples from instances in the scientific world where two schools with no knowledge of the other, with their own research will make the same groundbreaking discovery weeks apart (and there are at least a handful of known examples).

Something to ponder.

[ManofTheAtom]

Interesting discussion right there. There are two theories of History in this regard. One theory claims, as you suggest, had Ivar killed Einstein the atom-bomb would be science fiction. (cf. Sliders)
The other theory claims that the world is ready for certain things to happen at a certain time. Had Ivar killed Hitler, there would have been someone else to take his place. The outcome might not have been identical, but it would have been similar enough. This theory draws examples from instances in the scientific world where two schools with no knowledge of the other, with their own research will make the same groundbreaking discovery weeks apart (and there are at least a handful of known examples).

Something to ponder.

I know exactly which episode of Sliders you're talking about, heh, and I understand the second theory.

Basically it could be summed up to say that history finds a way to correct itself, right? (at least the part that speaks about someone else replacing Hitler... I'm sure I've seen stories about that in Twilight Zone-style TV shows.)

[Chiclo]

Interesting discussion right there. There are two theories of History in this regard. One theory claims, as you suggest, had Ivar killed Einstein the atom-bomb would be science fiction. (cf. Sliders)
The other theory claims that the world is ready for certain things to happen at a certain time. Had Ivar killed Hitler, there would have been someone else to take his place. The outcome might not have been identical, but it would have been similar enough. This theory draws examples from instances in the scientific world where two schools with no knowledge of the other, with their own research will make the same groundbreaking discovery weeks apart (and there are at least a handful of known examples).

Something to ponder.

I know exactly which episode of Sliders you're talking about, heh, and I understand the second theory.

Basically it could be summed up to say that history finds a way to correct itself, right? (at least the part that speaks about someone else replacing Hitler... I'm sure I've seen stories about that in Twilight Zone-style TV shows.)

Beryllium lens!

[ManofTheAtom]

Interesting discussion right there. There are two theories of History in this regard. One theory claims, as you suggest, had Ivar killed Einstein the atom-bomb would be science fiction. (cf. Sliders)
The other theory claims that the world is ready for certain things to happen at a certain time. Had Ivar killed Hitler, there would have been someone else to take his place. The outcome might not have been identical, but it would have been similar enough. This theory draws examples from instances in the scientific world where two schools with no knowledge of the other, with their own research will make the same groundbreaking discovery weeks apart (and there are at least a handful of known examples).

Something to ponder.

I know exactly which episode of Sliders you're talking about, heh, and I understand the second theory.

Basically it could be summed up to say that history finds a way to correct itself, right? (at least the part that speaks about someone else replacing Hitler... I'm sure I've seen stories about that in Twilight Zone-style TV shows.)

Beryllium lens!

heh

[cjv]

My point here would be this,

If Phil Seleski, scientist, didn't exist, then the science (whatever that may be) that went into building the reactor may have never been discovered.

For instance,

Say that Newton hadn't been born... would the law of gravity still had been written?

Gravity would be there to be discovered (even named..), but could anyone OTHER than Newton be the one that did it?

Had Gailleo NOT been born, would someone else been brave enough to challenge the notion that sun revolved around the Earth?

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of it, the Sun would have still not revolved around the Earth.

The point is this.

Just like even if Newton didn't discover gravity and Gallileo didn't say that the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth they would have still been there, the science that created Solar MAY exist (not saying that it does exist, just saying that it MAY exist. I'm offering an improbable possibility). In the VU it was the fictional character called Phil Seleski that discovered it.

IF that science were to exist (which is improbable), it may never be discovered because such a person doesn't exist in the real world.

So your contention is that if the discoverer of a specific scientific theory did not exist, than that theory would not have been discovered?

It's possible, but unlikely IMO.

You only have to look at the number of times that independant researchers have both "discovered" the same universal law or fact (with the first one to publish or report the results usually as the one who gets the credit).

The idea is that if a law or fact is "out there" and exists, then someone will find it. It may take a little longer, or be described a little differently, but it will still be "found". Someone would have quantified the laws of gravity even if Newton didn't exist. Someone would have figured out planetary movement if Galilleo did not.

Those people happened to be the first ones - doesn't mean they were somehow the ONLY ones who could have discovered it. That's like saying that if Columbus didn't exist, then North America would never have been discovered.

And given that we still have no real idea what science Phil was working on, what his theories were, what it was based on, it is impossible to say at all whether it "could" exist or not. We have speculated that it is some kind of anti matter reactor, a fusion reactor, all sorts of stuff - but ultimately we have no idea and are just guessing. We can't say at all what may or may not exist in real life if we don't even know what he was DOING in the comic book! Just because someone is drawn with a lab coat in a comic book doesn't mean that the "science" they are working on could exist in real life.

BTW, when you say "the science that created Solar" you mean whatever turned him from a physical being to an energy one - right? Not the whole retaining his consciousness and/or being able to control and manipulate energy. Correct?

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

So your contention is that if the discoverer of a specific scientific theory did not exist, than that theory would not have been discovered?

It's possible, but unlikely IMO.

More like it's possible (it doesn't have to be likely, just possible) that a science or an invention may not be discovered or invented.

For example, had Edison not been born, it's possible that the lightbulb would have never been invented, or if the Wright Brothers decided to stick with their bikes the airplane may not have been created.

You only have to look at the number of times that independant researchers have both "discovered" the same universal law or fact (with the first one to publish or report the results usually as the one who gets the credit).

The idea is that if a law or fact is "out there" and exists, then someone will find it. It may take a little longer, or be described a little differently, but it will still be "found". Someone would have quantified the laws of gravity even if Newton didn't exist. Someone would have figured out planetary movement if Galilleo did not.

Those people happened to be the first ones - doesn't mean they were somehow the ONLY ones who could have discovered it. That's like saying that if Columbus didn't exist, then North America would never have been discovered.

No argument there, but even if a science is discovered it doesn't mean that everyone will apply it the same way, agreed?

And given that we still have no real idea what science Phil was working on, what his theories were, what it was based on, it is impossible to say at all whether it "could" exist or not. We have speculated that it is some kind of anti matter reactor, a fusion reactor, all sorts of stuff - but ultimately we have no idea and are just guessing. We can't say at all what may or may not exist in real life if we don't even know what he was DOING in the comic book! Just because someone is drawn with a lab coat in a comic book doesn't mean that the "science" they are working on could exist in real life.

Well, the point here would be that science is there to be discovered, be it gravity by Newton or tachyons by Sommerfeld. Whatever science went into creating Solar may still yet to be discovered (if it exists at all, not saying it does), but it may never be since Phil doesn't exist in the real world.

BTW, when you say "the science that created Solar" you mean whatever turned him from a physical being to an energy one - right? Not the whole retaining his consciousness and/or being able to control and manipulate energy. Correct?

Sure

[cjv]

So your contention is that if the discoverer of a specific scientific theory did not exist, than that theory would not have been discovered?

It's possible, but unlikely IMO.

More like it's possible (it doesn't have to be likely, just possible) that a science or an invention may not be discovered or invented.

Is it possible that someone may not discover it around the same time that the "real" discover would have? Sure, I guess so. I mean, so people may make leaps in logic or reasoning that seem unfounded to others, that others wouldn't have thought to make.

But the more I think about it, the less I think that it is possible it would never be discovered. Maybe 100 years later, but never?

For example, had Edison not been born, it's possible that the lightbulb would have never been invented, or if the Wright Brothers decided to stick with their bikes the airplane may not have been created.

Except that both of those, people had been working on similar ideas for long times. The idea of heavier than air flight is something that people were exploring with great vigor. And the idea of a "lightbulb" was actually around since 1802. A patent was granted in 1841 for an incandescent light bulb.

So my point is that being the person to invent or discover something does require hard work, intelligence, but a fair amount of luck is involved as well. It isn't limited to being "the one special person in the universe" to do something.

You only have to look at the number of times that independant researchers have both "discovered" the same universal law or fact (with the first one to publish or report the results usually as the one who gets the credit).

The idea is that if a law or fact is "out there" and exists, then someone will find it. It may take a little longer, or be described a little differently, but it will still be "found". Someone would have quantified the laws of gravity even if Newton didn't exist. Someone would have figured out planetary movement if Galilleo did not.

Those people happened to be the first ones - doesn't mean they were somehow the ONLY ones who could have discovered it. That's like saying that if Columbus didn't exist, then North America would never have been discovered.

No argument there, but even if a science is discovered it doesn't mean that everyone will apply it the same way, agreed?

Perhaps not initially, but as more and more people study it, I would think most of the applications would be tested and examined.

Well, the point here would be that science is there to be discovered, be it gravity by Newton or tachyons by Sommerfeld. Whatever science went into creating Solar may still yet to be discovered (if it exists at all, not saying it does), but it may never be since Phil doesn't exist in the real world.

But we have no idea what the science was.

Can adamantium be discovered? No, because it is fake, not real. Marvel comics gives us enough information about the element "adamantium" to know that it isn't real.

We don't know if the science Phil used was completely fake or not. Valiant did not give us enough information to speculate that it might be "real" science. As such, to say it might be possible, or it might be discovered, is a stretch because we don't even know what it is to be discovered.

It is like saying the science of tetrifinology could be discovered. What is it? It is a word I made up, but I will say it is based on fusion and antimatter. But using your logic, it might be real, it might be discovered at some point.

That's all we really know about Phil's "science" - it may be based on fusion and antimatter. Beyond that, we know nothing, so it is impossible to speculate how "real" it may or may not be.

**SPECULATION AHEAD**

Now (keeping in mind I am not a physicist) I have been thinking about it, I am leaning towards the idea that in theory, converting matter to energy is possible. I mean, when something burns, we are converting PART of the matter into energy - releasing the energy stored in the chemical bonds. We see and feel that energy as heat. But in Phi's experiment, there are a few differences - he is converted into energy without a massive RELEASE of that energy (explosion). Also, the conversion process was 100% efficient - there didn't seem to be any left over matter or leakage of energy.

These are, AFAIK, departures from what we "know" now. A 100% efficient process and no release of energy following the process. Somehow the conversion process is control and doesn't release the energy instantaneously. In fact, the release is controlled precisely BECAUSE Phil retained his consciousness and individuality. Presumably if he didn't, it would have been a huge explosion.

I am not sure if theory states that it is possible to have a 100% efficiency conversion process either.

So Phil's "science" may simply be a controlled conversion of matter efficiently into energy. A reactor that harnesses the energy released during the process. We have no idea how it works, what methods it employs. Truthfully, I am not sure if physics predicts that such a 100% efficient controlled conversion is possible.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

Is it possible that someone may not discover it around the same time that the "real" discover would have? Sure, I guess so. I mean, so people may make leaps in logic or reasoning that seem unfounded to others, that others wouldn't have thought to make.

But the more I think about it, the less I think that it is possible it would never be discovered. Maybe 100 years later, but never?

Sure. Not never, it may eventually be discovered but by then the world would be very different from what it is now.

Except that both of those, people had been working on similar ideas for long times. The idea of heavier than air flight is something that people were exploring with great vigor. And the idea of a "lightbulb" was actually around since 1802. A patent was granted in 1841 for an incandescent light bulb.

So my point is that being the person to invent or discover something does require hard work, intelligence, but a fair amount of luck is involved as well. It isn't limited to being "the one special person in the universe" to do something.

I'm sure there's certain people who do fall within the "one special person in the universe" who discovered SOMETHING, even if we went as far back as the wheel.

Perhaps not initially, but as more and more people study it, I would think most of the applications would be tested and examined.

Sure... and different people might give the same science different applications, maybe even applications that haven't been discovered.

For the sake of argument let's say that science is a constant and that the only things that change are our understanding of that science and its application.

50 years ago Scientist A applied a certain science one way.

50 years from now, Scientist B may apply the same science in a different way.

Look at nuclear science. It can be destructive (i.e. atom bomb) or a source of energy (i.e. nuclear power plants).

But we have no idea what the science was.

Can adamantium be discovered? No, because it is fake, not real. Marvel comics gives us enough information about the element "adamantium" to know that it isn't real.

We don't know if the science Phil used was completely fake or not. Valiant did not give us enough information to speculate that it might be "real" science. As such, to say it might be possible, or it might be discovered, is a stretch because we don't even know what it is to be discovered.

It is like saying the science of tetrifinology could be discovered. What is it? It is a word I made up, but I will say it is based on fusion and antimatter. But using your logic, it might be real, it might be discovered at some point.

That's all we really know about Phil's "science" - it may be based on fusion and antimatter. Beyond that, we know nothing, so it is impossible to speculate how "real" it may or may not be.

We were given enough clues that even Chiclo admitted that it was possible that the reactor was an anti-matter reactor.

**SPECULATION AHEAD**

Now (keeping in mind I am not a physicist) I have been thinking about it, I am leaning towards the idea that in theory, converting matter to energy is possible. I mean, when something burns, we are converting PART of the matter into energy - releasing the energy stored in the chemical bonds. We see and feel that energy as heat. But in Phi's experiment, there are a few differences - he is converted into energy without a massive RELEASE of that energy (explosion). Also, the conversion process was 100% efficient - there didn't seem to be any left over matter or leakage of energy.

These are, AFAIK, departures from what we "know" now. A 100% efficient process and no release of energy following the process. Somehow the conversion process is control and doesn't release the energy instantaneously. In fact, the release is controlled precisely BECAUSE Phil retained his consciousness and individuality. Presumably if he didn't, it would have been a huge explosion.

I am not sure if theory states that it is possible to have a 100% efficiency conversion process either.

So Phil's "science" may simply be a controlled conversion of matter efficiently into energy. A reactor that harnesses the energy released during the process. We have no idea how it works, what methods it employs. Truthfully, I am not sure if physics predicts that such a 100% efficient controlled conversion is possible.

But as they learn more about the science, it may one day be possible to understand it better and apply it in that way.

[cjv]

Is it possible that someone may not discover it around the same time that the "real" discover would have? Sure, I guess so. I mean, so people may make leaps in logic or reasoning that seem unfounded to others, that others wouldn't have thought to make.

But the more I think about it, the less I think that it is possible it would never be discovered. Maybe 100 years later, but never?

Sure. Not never, it may eventually be discovered but by then the world would be very different from what it is now.

But usually if something is discovered, it is due to a large number of events which are happening at the same time - events that influence other people as well. So even if person A doesn't discover a fact, other people may. Seldom is there such a COMPLETE leap in logic that it completely takes everyone by surprise and comes completely out of left field.

I'm sure there's certain people who do fall within the "one special person in the universe" who discovered SOMETHING, even if we went as far back as the wheel.

I have to solidly disagree. There may be people who are there are the right time and place to figure out that 1+1 = 2, but that doesn't mean if they don't, no one else can.

Can you give me a real world example of someone you think was the "one special person in the universe" who discovered something that no one else would have? Obviously it is complete speculation since we DO know of it now, but I am curious as to who you think might fit the bill.

IMO, to fit that profile, the person would have to
a) have discovered/invented something that was completely unheard of and revolutionary - not just a new way of things, but a complete departure from EVERYTHING that was understood at the time.
b) the only person involved in the research/invention process. No collaboration, no partnerships, no external assistance.
c) something that isn't easilly tested/measured/compared/analyzed. If it is easy, then it would be easy for someone else to do it.

Maybe a couple of other criteria, but those are the only ones that I can think of right now.

Galileo might have fit since his hypothesis was so revolutionary, but even it was based on Copernicus. In fact, theories of heliocentric planetary movement date back to the ancient Greeks.

Maybe Einstein? But I don't know enough about the history and origin of the theory of relativity to know if other scientists were researching similar questions at the same time.

My point is that usually scientific breakthroughs are a result of other research and inventions that are going on during the same time period. Person A has a new scientific theory, and this gets person B to think about something in a different way. Or something new is invented, and this gets person B to look at something in a different way.

Perhaps not initially, but as more and more people study it, I would think most of the applications would be tested and examined.

For the sake of argument let's say that science is a constant and that the only things that change are our understanding of that science and its application.

50 years ago Scientist A applied a certain science one way.

50 years from now, Scientist B may apply the same science in a different way.

No problem with that. But to speculate about how scientist B may apply the same science differently (presumably based on new theories or technologies that don't exist now) is entirely a matter of speculation. We can't really assume anything - because if we didn't we might as well be trying to apply the same knowledge as scientist B is right now.

We were given enough clues that even Chiclo admitted that it was possible that the reactor was an anti-matter reactor.

We are speculating it might have been an anti-matter fusion reactor or something...but we aren't told how it worked, what it did, or anything like that. And maybe I am wrong, but I recall there were even problems with the speculation of it being anti-matter, right?

If Phil had referred to his reactor as a "dark matter reactor" or a "photo reactor" or a "quark reactor" or anything like this - we would still be having the same discussion. All of those might sounds vaguely scientifically possible, but we have no solid basis to say the might or might not be real.

The fact is that
a) Valiant tried to be as "real world science" as possible
b) Valiant made an effort to make Phil's research sound realistic
c) Valiant made up the science/theories behind Phil's research (I say made up because it doesn't exist in the world today)

But as they learn more about the science, it may one day be possible to understand it better and apply it in that way.

Sure, it may be possible...but it may not. Correcnt me if I am wrong, but you seem to be working under the complete assumption that not only is it possible, but it is real science. It may be based on real science in the same way that when I talk about the Deep Thought computer in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, I am basing it on real computers (ie, referring to "inputting data, photon pumps, computers, reactors, etc). But that's doesn't mean it can or will happen. We don't know that, and making the assumption that it can or will happen is a stretch.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

But usually if something is discovered, it is due to a large number of events which are happening at the same time - events that influence other people as well. So even if person A doesn't discover a fact, other people may. Seldom is there such a COMPLETE leap in logic that it completely takes everyone by surprise and comes completely out of left field.

Darwin and evolution come to mind. That topic is still debated today, and no matter what kind of discoveries science makes religion adapts itself to them.

I have to solidly disagree. There may be people who are there are the right time and place to figure out that 1+1 = 2, but that doesn't mean if they don't, no one else can.

Can you give me a real world example of someone you think was the "one special person in the universe" who discovered something that no one else would have? Obviously it is complete speculation since we DO know of it now, but I am curious as to who you think might fit the bill.

IMO, to fit that profile, the person would have to
a) have discovered/invented something that was completely unheard of and revolutionary - not just a new way of things, but a complete departure from EVERYTHING that was understood at the time.
b) the only person involved in the research/invention process. No collaboration, no partnerships, no external assistance.
c) something that isn't easilly tested/measured/compared/analyzed. If it is easy, then it would be easy for someone else to do it.

Maybe a couple of other criteria, but those are the only ones that I can think of right now.

Not at this time, I don't have the time to do the proper research as I'm inmersed in a couple of projects that requiere my full attention.

Galileo might have fit since his hypothesis was so revolutionary, but even it was based on Copernicus. In fact, theories of heliocentric planetary movement date back to the ancient Greeks.

Maybe Einstein? But I don't know enough about the history and origin of the theory of relativity to know if other scientists were researching similar questions at the same time.

My point is that usually scientific breakthroughs are a result of other research and inventions that are going on during the same time period. Person A has a new scientific theory, and this gets person B to think about something in a different way. Or something new is invented, and this gets person B to look at something in a different way.

Sure, but the world has existed for so long that there must be at least ONE person for whom that doesn't apply.

No problem with that. But to speculate about how scientist B may apply the same science differently (presumably based on new theories or technologies that don't exist now) is entirely a matter of speculation. We can't really assume anything - because if we didn't we might as well be trying to apply the same knowledge as scientist B is right now.

The point here is that Phil may have very well been applying a constant science in a way that scientist won't be doing for another 50 or even 104 years.

We are speculating it might have been an anti-matter fusion reactor or something...but we aren't told how it worked, what it did, or anything like that. And maybe I am wrong, but I recall there were even problems with the speculation of it being anti-matter, right?

If Phil had referred to his reactor as a "dark matter reactor" or a "photo reactor" or a "quark reactor" or anything like this - we would still be having the same discussion. All of those might sounds vaguely scientifically possible, but we have no solid basis to say the might or might not be real.

The fact is that
a) Valiant tried to be as "real world science" as possible
b) Valiant made an effort to make Phil's research sound realistic
c) Valiant made up the science/theories behind Phil's research (I say made up because it doesn't exist in the world today)

What if we were debating the science behind the black hole armors from Knights on Broadway?

Sure, it may be possible...but it may not. Correcnt me if I am wrong, but you seem to be working under the complete assumption that not only is it possible, but it is real science. It may be based on real science in the same way that when I talk about the Deep Thought computer in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, I am basing it on real computers (ie, referring to "inputting data, photon pumps, computers, reactors, etc). But that's doesn't mean it can or will happen. We don't know that, and making the assumption that it can or will happen is a stretch.

Which brings us back to the Verne debate.

When Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon the notion was that man would never reach the moon, specially in bullet-shaped capsules. 104 years later science proved that notion wrong.

[cjv]

But usually if something is discovered, it is due to a large number of events which are happening at the same time - events that influence other people as well. So even if person A doesn't discover a fact, other people may. Seldom is there such a COMPLETE leap in logic that it completely takes everyone by surprise and comes completely out of left field.

Darwin and evolution come to mind. That topic is still debated today, and no matter what kind of discoveries science makes religion adapts itself to them.

Evolutionary theory was studied and researched before Darwin (Lamark). In addition, Darwin's hypothesis about evolution were "jump started" by Malthus' idea of eponential population growth (while food supply is geometric) and by Lyells principles of geology, with information on the age of the earth. In addition, Alfred Wallace independently of Darwin basically developed the same idea of natural selection, and even asked Darwin for his advice on it. Darwin published first, and thus is thought of the originator of the idea.

I have to solidly disagree. There may be people who are there are the right time and place to figure out that 1+1 = 2, but that doesn't mean if they don't, no one else can.

Can you give me a real world example of someone you think was the "one special person in the universe" who discovered something that no one else would have? Obviously it is complete speculation since we DO know of it now, but I am curious as to who you think might fit the bill.

IMO, to fit that profile, the person would have to
a) have discovered/invented something that was completely unheard of and revolutionary - not just a new way of things, but a complete departure from EVERYTHING that was understood at the time.
b) the only person involved in the research/invention process. No collaboration, no partnerships, no external assistance.
c) something that isn't easilly tested/measured/compared/analyzed. If it is easy, then it would be easy for someone else to do it.

Maybe a couple of other criteria, but those are the only ones that I can think of right now.

Not at this time, I don't have the time to do the proper research as I'm inmersed in a couple of projects that requiere my full attention.

No problem at all. There may be a few people like that who exist, but my hunch is that the VAST majority of them based their work on others, had correspondance with other people, and even had similar ideas suggested and proposed by other people prior to or at the same time as their work.

My point is that usually scientific breakthroughs are a result of other research and inventions that are going on during the same time period. Person A has a new scientific theory, and this gets person B to think about something in a different way. Or something new is invented, and this gets person B to look at something in a different way.

Sure, but the world has existed for so long that there must be at least ONE person for whom that doesn't apply.[/quote]

Why must their be? I will completely agree that there are people who look at problems in different directions, who look at theories with new twists, but I completely disagree that there is an inventor/scientist who discovered something that would have not been discovered if they didn't exist. That would lead itself to some sort of "predestined" or "fate" like thinking - Person A was fated to discover this, person B was pre-destined to invent that - which I don't believe in.

Maybe you do?

No problem with that. But to speculate about how scientist B may apply the same science differently (presumably based on new theories or technologies that don't exist now) is entirely a matter of speculation. We can't really assume anything - because if we didn't we might as well be trying to apply the same knowledge as scientist B is right now.

The point here is that Phil may have very well been applying a constant science in a way that scientist won't be doing for another 50 or even 104 years.[/quote]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Phil may be using some scientific theory that we won't know about for another XXX years.

But my point is that is speculation, and you can say that about ANY science fiction (ie, material that is written about science and scientific achievements that don't yet exist in the real world). ANY science fiction. Heck, you could say it about Phil's ability to retain his consciousness when he turns to energy! True, there may be some science fiction that is more realistic, more probable than other science fiction writing, but until it actually happens or is proven possible, it is still fiction. And when we deal with something that we are just speculation about (ie, speculating about his machine, what it did, how it worked) without even any real facts about his machine, we are just tossing around "what if" scenarios - there is no way to know what could really happen and what couldn't.

What if we were debating the science behind the black hole armors from Knights on Broadway

I have no idea what that might be in reference to.

When Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon the notion was that man would never reach the moon, specially in bullet-shaped capsules. 104 years later science proved that notion wrong.

Yes, and if you want to come back in 104 years and show me that there exists a machine like in the Soalr comic book, that I will agree 100% that it was possible.

However, at the time of writing Verne' writing was science [/i]fiction]/i] - not real. Perhaps with a greater realism and/or a greater chance of eventually happening than other science fiction writing, but it was still fiction none-the-less.

Just because something MAY be possible in the future doesn't mean it WILL be possible in the future, and without knowing if it will or not, it remains speculation and the story is ultimately a work of fiction.


Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

Why must their be? I will completely agree that there are people who look at problems in different directions, who look at theories with new twists, but I completely disagree that there is an inventor/scientist who discovered something that would have not been discovered if they didn't exist. That would lead itself to some sort of "predestined" or "fate" like thinking - Person A was fated to discover this, person B was pre-destined to invent that - which I don't believe in.

Maybe you do?

[cjv]

Why must their be? I will completely agree that there are people who look at problems in different directions, who look at theories with new twists, but I completely disagree that there is an inventor/scientist who discovered something that would have not been discovered if they didn't exist. That would lead itself to some sort of "predestined" or "fate" like thinking - Person A was fated to discover this, person B was pre-destined to invent that - which I don't believe in.

Maybe you do?

Well, if you want to discuss predestination or fate, that involves a much more detailed discussion encompassing theology, science, free will, etc.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

Well, if you want to discuss predestination or fate, that involves a much more detailed discussion encompassing theology, science, free will, etc.

Chris

Yep, it does.

[ManofTheAtom]

[cjv]

I don't understand - just because the line "It's too advanced. The technology doesn't exist yet"....followed by the line "I have the technology" suddenly means the technology/science that is being referenced is possible? Is that what you are saying?

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

I don't understand - just because the line "It's too advanced. The technology doesn't exist yet"....followed by the line "I have the technology" suddenly means the technology/science that is being referenced is possible? Is that what you are saying?

Chris

I'm saying that Phil, the made believe scientist that doesn't exist in the real world, is smart enough to create advanced technology that can't exist in the present.

Think of Phil like he was Doc Brown in the Old West with his refrigerator.

Phil was able to create technology that can't exist. He was thinking on a different level than everyone else.

[cjv]

I don't understand - just because the line "It's too advanced. The technology doesn't exist yet"....followed by the line "I have the technology" suddenly means the technology/science that is being referenced is possible? Is that what you are saying?

Chris

I'm saying that Phil, the made believe scientist that doesn't exist in the real world, is smart enough to create advanced technology that can't exist in the present.

Or the writers are smart enough to add that throw-away line to try and maintain the illusion that it really is our world outisde the window while at the same time allowing for the creation of science/technology that can't/doesn't exist in our world.

Think of Phil like he was Doc Brown in the Old West with his refrigerator.

You know, if you want to argue that a technology or scientific theory really is plausible, you would be much better off using REAL scientists, REAL theories, REAL technology instead of using fictional references from movies, tvs,and books.

Phil was able to create technology that can't exist. He was thinking on a different level than everyone else.

Okay, and your point?

Anyone can write a line of dialogue that indicates someone invented/discovered technology that doesn't exist yet. That is easy to do. Here, I will show you.

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

Just to summarize your viewpoint (and please correct me if I am wrong) - you are stating that Phil's reactor and the science behind converting matter to energy should be considered as possible, and because of that we should consider the science in Solar (the reactor and what it can do) as real?

Is that correct? If not, please correct me. A quick summary of your argument and view. I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from before I summarize my view.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

You seem to have lost track.

What I'm telling you is that made believe characters like Phil are what make the difference between the real world and the VU. Without those characters in the VU then that made believe universe would be indistinguishable from our own.

In that universe, Phil's science CAN be advanced (without being ridicolous to the point that instead of using science he uses glass slippers or the like) without being overtly comic booky.

The reactor didn't work off pixie dust, it worked off science. That science can be the very simple formula of E=mc2 applied in ways that real world scientist don't know how to use while Phil, the made up scientist, can.

[cjv]

You seem to have lost track.

Happens all the time.

What I'm telling you is that made believe characters like Phil are what make the difference between the real world and the VU. Without those characters in the VU then that made believe universe would be indistinguishable from our own.

I have no problem with that statement in and of itself.

But it seems to me (and again, if I am off base, let me know) you are then taking this "made up person" and trying to extrapolate to our universe, and the validity or "real-ness" of the science. You are saying the science is/may be real, that was he did in the comic book COULD be done some day in real life.

Is that accurate? Which brings up to:

The reactor didn't work off pixie dust, it worked off science. That science can be the very simple formula of E=mc2 applied in ways that real world scientist don't know how to use while Phil, the made up scientist, can.

This is what I am talking about. You are assuming because something sounds logical and scientifically reasonable in a fictional story, it can than be "transported" to our world from the comic book (maybe not now, but perhaps be realistic sometime in the future). You are drawing a conclusion that the science COULD be real, just because it happens to toss in a few scientific ideas and be based on a scientific principle.

Thus you say that teleporting machines is scientific, that a reactor to turn someone into energy is scientific. When in reality, they SOUNDS scientific, but based on the knowledge we currently possess, we have no way of knowing how these would work, and so we have no way of saying if they could be real or not.

You can theoretically say that "in the future" just about anything might be possible. As such, to speculate whether the science in a comic book is/could be real is pointless, because there is no way to know (regardless how "real" or logical it sounds). ESPECIALLY when we don't know anything of how it worked, what it did, or even what it is!

In the future, we may have machines that can teleport, reactors that can turn matter into energy, cars that can fly, machines that can transmute elements, even a means to retain consciousness while in an energy state! But there is no way to know right now which of those might be possible, which ones might be likely, and which ones simply won't be possible due to laws of physics and reality. Until we do know what is possible, it remains just fictional. To pick one or two and say "these are scientific and might be real" while rejecting others doesn't make sense unless there is a real scientifically sounds reason to think something may be possible. And simply saying "E=mc2, so it is possible" isn't scientifically sound enough because it completely ignores all other problems and difficulties that might arise from turning someone into energy.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

But it seems to me (and again, if I am off base, let me know) you are then taking this "made up person" and trying to extrapolate to our universe, and the validity or "real-ness" of the science. You are saying the science is/may be real, that was he did in the comic book COULD be done some day in real life.

We already agreed that science is a contant, and that all that changes with time is our understanding of it and how we apply it, correct?

So it's not so much about whether or not the science is real (in this case the science being E=mc2... or to quote Phil, the made up scientist, that everything is energy. This is a science you can't argue against), the debate here is centered around the APPLICATION and UNDERSTANDING of the science being used. Would you agree with that?

Had Phil's transformation been centered around the not-so scientific principle of clacking his heels together while wearing ruby slippers, then I'd say with 100% certainty that it could NEVER happened.

That's not the case.

Can you say with the same degree of certainty that in the real world, be it 104 years from now or 1,040 years from now, that scientists won't understand E=m2 so well that they'll be able to create machines that transform matter into energy and viceversa?

Remember, the science is the machine, the fiction is the energy retaining its conciousness, so PLEASE don't rehash the argument that I'm saying that in the future scientists will create machines that can allow people to become sentient energy beings. I'm not. I'm telling you that it's POSSIBLE that in the future they'll be machines that can transform matter into energy and viceversa.

This is what I am talking about. You are assuming because something sounds logical and scientifically reasonable in a fictional story, it can than be "transported" to our world from the comic book (maybe not now, but perhaps be realistic sometime in the future). You are drawing a conclusion that the science COULD be real, just because it happens to toss in a few scientific ideas and be based on a scientific principle.

Thus you say that teleporting machines is scientific, that a reactor to turn someone into energy is scientific. When in reality, they SOUNDS scientific, but based on the knowledge we currently possess, we have no way of knowing how these would work, and so we have no way of saying if they could be real or not.

Contemporary understanding of a science is NOT the definite understanding of a science. As knowledge is adquired, science is better understood and applied differently.

Just because something can't be created today (or when Verne wrote From the Earth To The Moon), it doesn't mean it can never be created.

Phil's reactor was a machine that applied the scientific formula of E=m2 to change matter into energy. Just because that can't be done today it doesn't mean it won't ever be possible.

What I'm telling you is that Phil, the made up scientist, possessed knowledge that didn't exist in the 90's to create his reactor.

You can theoretically say that "in the future" just about anything might be possible. As such, to speculate whether the science in a comic book is/could be real is pointless, because there is no way to know (regardless how "real" or logical it sounds). ESPECIALLY when we don't know anything of how it worked, what it did, or even what it is!

But again, we're not debating the reality of the science, we're debating the application of the science.

In the future, we may have machines that can teleport, reactors that can turn matter into energy, cars that can fly, machines that can transmute elements, even a means to retain consciousness while in an energy state! But there is no way to know right now which of those might be possible, which ones might be likely, and which ones simply won't be possible due to laws of physics and reality. Until we do know what is possible, it remains just fictional. To pick one or two and say "these are scientific and might be real" while rejecting others doesn't make sense unless there is a real scientifically sounds reason to think something may be possible. And simply saying "E=mc2, so it is possible" isn't scientifically sound enough because it completely ignores all other problems and difficulties that might arise from turning someone into energy.

As I said, you lost track

What made Phil's transformation possible was the APPLICATION of the science. What made him retain his conciousness was fiction.

One doesn't make the other any more scientific than the other makes the one anymore fictional.

[cjv]

We already agreed that science is a contant, and that all that changes with time is our understanding of it and how we apply it, correct?

Yup.

So it's not so much about whether or not the science is real (in this case the science being E=mc2... or to quote Phil, the made up scientist, that everything is energy. This is a science you can't argue against), the debate here is centered around the APPLICATION and UNDERSTANDING of the science being used. Would you agree with that?

You are confusing a scientific principle with a practical application. Just because a scientific theory or principle may be true, doesn't mean that a fictional application of that principle will work.

Just because E=mc^2 doesn't mean that you can create a controlled 100% efficient conversion of matter to energy.

For example, in THEORY, something that travels faster than light may travel through time. That is a scientific theory. But that doesn't mean that it could be somehow applied to create a time machine.

Had Phil's transformation been centered around the not-so scientific principle of clacking his heels together while wearing ruby slippers, then I'd say with 100% certainty that it could NEVER happened.

That's not the case.

Since we don't know how his reactor worked, or what it actually did to him (other than the end product of him being energy), it might as well be him clicking together ruby shoes.

Can you say with the same degree of certainty that in the real world, be it 104 years from now or 1,040 years from now, that scientists won't understand E=m2 so well that they'll be able to create machines that transform matter into energy and viceversa?

Not at all. Nor can you say they WILL be able to create a machine that transforms matter into energy and vice versa. It is speculation.

And you are approaching it by saying that since E=mc^2, well then of COURSE at some point someone will be able to create a machine to change matter to energy.

It isn't that simple. It may happen, but it may be absolutely impossible. We don't know. And to say it will happen just because the underlying scientific theory is correct is...well...wrong.

Remember, the science is the machine, the fiction is the energy retaining its conciousness, so PLEASE don't rehash the argument that I'm saying that in the future scientists will create machines that can allow people to become sentient energy beings.

I was not saying that.

And the science isn't the "machine". The science is E=mc2. The fiction is the application of that scientific hypothesis, the idea that there is a machine that can chance a person to energy. It doesn't exist in real life, so it is fictional.

It may become real at some point, but we don't know.

I'm telling you that it's POSSIBLE that in the future they'll be machines that can transform matter into energy and viceversa.

Sure it's possible. But it definitely isn't CERTAIN, and unless it is certain, than any account of such a machine is fictional.

Just because something can't be created today (or when Verne wrote From the Earth To The Moon), it doesn't mean it can never be created.

But nor does it mean it CAN or WILL be created. So until it is created/learned/discovered (or at least proven that it CAN be created/learned/discovered) it is fiction. Doesn't mean that the ideas expressed in the fictional story may someday have some semblence of truth, but right now it is fiction.

Phil's reactor was a machine that applied the scientific formula of E=m2 to change matter into energy. Just because that can't be done today it doesn't mean it won't ever be possible.

And just because E=mc2 is true, it doesn't mean that it WILL be possible to have a machine to convert matter to energy. We don't know.

But again, we're not debating the reality of the science, we're debating the application of the science.

And you are confusing an real, scientific theory/fact with a fictional application of that very real fact.

Just because E=mc2 doesn't mean that Phil's machine will exist in the future.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

From Solar #3

Dialogue by Doctor Solar.

"Here he (Phil) is a few years later, the principal theologist behind the fusion reactor being built at the Edgewater nuclear facility"

The emphasis is mine.

From Solar #4

Caption Box (dialogue by the Phil from Alpha & Omega)

"So he (Solar) doesn't understand that this reactor's anti-proton "pilot light" mixes just enough anti-matter into the plasma to rip the stuffing out of positive-polarity beings, like us."

So Phil was a theologist and the reactor was an anti-matter fusion reactor with a plasma core.