is atmospheric landing even possible with either of the 38 playable ships???

[Morbad]

All those theories posited something unobservable and therefore unfalsifiable and because of that violated Popper's ideas about falsifiability.

Falsifiability, according to Poppler, is the possibility for something to be incompatible with potential empirical observation. Nothing in your list qualified, certainly not by the time it became to be regarded as theory, even if some of their tangential implications do. Lacking the means to currently test something doesn't violate falsifiability...lacking the ability to conceive of a piece of evidence that could even be used to falsify something does.

The difference between God and multiverses is that multiverses are potentially detectable, just like electrons, neutrinos, photons etc. were potentially detectable, unlike God. Theism is not falsifiable, since God is a transcendental being that per definition escapes the realm of observable and thus completely escapes any possible falsification.

Plenty of physicists don't think the multiverse is a valid topic of scientific inquiry at this time. Other universes would have to exist beyond the observable universe almost by definition, and the few potential detection methods we've be able to conceive of haven't revealed any evidence of their existence. Something outside the universe is as equally transcendental as the divine, and equally unfalsifiable.

What's more likely, that the scoop is bigger than the ship or that the reality the situation is being ignored?

The former.

They have no problem ignoring reality for other situations so in lieu of a massive scoop, I'd assume they are just skipping reality.

I don't see the need to inject unreality where it's not at all necessary to explain something, other aspects have that covered.

You can't interact with what is going on outside of compressed space without also being compressed.

In this game we can and do. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing or being heated up by stars, be subject to the effects of outside gravity, or be able to scoop fuel in SC.

Assuming that supercruise is working precisely the way an Alcubierre drive hypothetically would is your main mistake.

You overheat due to a collapse of the field instantly instead of planned. That field energy is what causes the heat.

This is not consistent with in-game observations.

Did you think you overheat due to space friction?

Thruster thermal load, which scales with the level of thrust demanded. It's why inverting a ship with poor vertical thrust on a high-G world causes a huge increase in temperature.

It's supercruise because nothing else can explain how it works. There's nothing on your ship that would accelerate you to those speeds, nothing that can decelerate you.

Thrusters, which have their performance artificially capped by the flight control systems. All that would be required to reach 2.5km/s is a temporary change of these restrictions.

Nothing special at all is required for ships thrusters to rapidly decelerate our ships from extreme velocities, and the same planetary landing suite that unlocks arbitrary ventral thrust to keep ships aloft irrespective of gravity is the most straightforward explanation for the ability to come out of glide gracefully.

If you want an example of rapid deceleration in normal space, from well in excess of glide velocities outside of glide, I have one:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvI2-xBheGw


That spike in thermal load you can see around 3:00 is extremely similar to what happens when you abort a glide.

 

[Darth Ender]

I don't see the need to inject unreality where it's not at all necessary to explain something, other aspects have that covered.

Fiction isn't being injected, it's already there and it better explains how this and other things work than saying supercruise works 1 way for ships and another way for other things.

In this game we can and do. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing or being heated up by stars, be subject to the effects of outside gravity, or be able to scoop fuel in SC.

Assuming that supercruise is working precisely the way an Alcubierre drive hypothetically would is your main mistake.

Fdev described how it worked and used that as an example. I did not.

The fact that you dont generate gamma rays and nuke yourself or everyone around you while using supercruise is for gameplay reasons. The same reason why you can see outside of your bubble and communicate etc without issue. Gameplay reasons.

Your ship is not stationary in supercruise. You are travelling forward. That travelling requires that space and thus the things inside space are leaked into your normal bubble of non-warped space at a rate and at the density and otherwise make up of normal space. In this way sc differs from normal warp drive ...which has the object stationary, since it doesn't make sense to be able to move forward in a bubble.

But the best solution to rectify that inconsistency is with the least amount of handwavium. That means normal space leaks in and leaks out at a rate consistent with what your ship is travelling at in real space. Rather than you having magic things that can resist the warpage of the space it's travelling in.

This is not consistent with in-game observations.

Dude, seriously? what game are you playing where there is friction in space? You made a statement that would require at atmosphere to produce in a game that doesn't let you do anything in atmospheric planets yet. And you're telling me what I'm saying is not consistent with in-game observations.

Fdev is hardly consistent with what they adhere to scientifically in-game and what they ignore because it's more convenient for gameplay reasons. But when it comes to planets without atmospheres and how we interact with them and in space-in-general, there is no friction and thus nothing to cause the ship to heat up due to relative differences in velocity of any kind of matter you are flying thru.

The only thing that can explain heatup is excess energy having to be shunted to heat or being directly imparted to the ship (like via lasers or sitting close to stars, thrusters).

Thruster thermal load, which scales with the level of thrust demanded. It's why inverting a ship with poor vertical thrust on a high-G world causes a huge increase in temperature.

Thrusters, which have their performance artificially capped by the flight control systems. All that would be required to reach 2.5km/s is a temporary change of these restrictions.

Nothing special at all is required for ships thrusters to rapidly decelerate our ships from extreme velocities, and the same planetary landing suite that unlocks arbitrary ventral thrust to keep ships aloft irrespective of gravity is the most straightforward explanation for the ability to come out of glide gracefully.

There's nothing special about having everything explained via supercruise. There is something special about you having magic thrust that you didn't have at the beginning of supercruise show up at the beginning of glide and then being able to de-thrust with magic thrusters that dont produce anywhere near the heat of even normal boosts but provide hundreds of times more power.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_V0Y1twblQ


Short video. you can see the speed going into the glide, just falling from supercruise speed. Which is indicative of supercruise still powering the flight. otherwise you would have seen an acceleration from the velocity your ship was moving at (capped at say 250m/s-500m/s) jump to 2500+ But you dont. Then at deceleration, you get a massive output with no heat at all generated. Also indicative of a gradual drop of supercruise into normal space rather than the sudden drop we normally experience.

All of that is far more believably and realistically explained thru supercruise than magic thrusters that dont produce heat and put out insane power that they can't do any other time and alters the behavior of supercruise in how it works everywhere else. (hint, you dont drop out of supercruise going thousands of meters per second and it's not your thrusters that are responsible for that behavior). You're arguing for completely different and contradictory ways supercruise works to exist at the same time, and saying that you're not injecting fiction? Please.

You're insistence that glide is not supercruise or that supercruise can't easily enter atmospheres contradicts far more of how the game behaves than saying that it does. And it requires far more new handwavium that doesn't already exist in the game.

 

[Morbad]

What game are you playing where there is friction in space?

Never once did I come anywhere near implying anything was due to friction.

That said, with the density of gas you claimed there had to be around stars, there would definitely be significant friction. Which is one reason why I think it's a poor explanation.

The only thing that can explain heatup is excess energy having to be shunted to heat or being directly imparted to the ship (like via lasers or sitting close to stars, thrusters).

Thrusters are the best explanation.

There's nothing special about having everything explained via supercruise.

I'm convinced supercruise is the more complex and less substantiated explanation.

There is something special about you having magic thrust that you didn't have at the beginning of supercruise show up at the beginning of glide and then being able to de-thrust with magic thrusters that dont produce anywhere near the heat of even normal boosts but provide hundreds of times more power.

The thrust is always available, as our ships could accelerate at several g, or greater, almost indefinitely, without the speed cap in place. This speed cap may be wholly absent in SC for all we know (there is no particular reason to assume zero momentum within the bubble), and is evidently 2.5km/s in glide.

Thrust, without additional thermal load, when staying within arbitarty flight parameters, also has a significant in game precedent in the form of the ability to hover, with any ship, irrespective of planetary gravity, as long as one stays within 10-20 degrees of level.

Outside of planetary surfaces, all ships have the same vertical and dorsal thrust/acceleration (not between ship, but the same given ship can accelerate up or down at the same rate). That planetary landing suite, when used in the presence of gravity, is almost as magical as supercruise.

You're insistence that glide is not supercruise or that supercruise can't easily enter atmospheres contradicts far more of how the game behaves than saying that it does. And it requires far more new handwavium that doesn't already exist in the game.

I vehemently disagree, on all of these points.

 

[Darth Ender]

Never once did I come anywhere near implying anything was due to friction.

That said, with the density of gas you claimed there had to be around stars, there would definitely be significant friction. Which is one reason why I think it's a poor explanation.

No friction in suprecruise

Thrusters are the best explanation.

Obviously not. Your explantion requires far more internal inconsistancies and contradictary behavior than supercruise.

I'm convinced supercruise is the more complex and less substantiated explanation.

You are wrong.

The thrust is always available, as our ships could accelerate at several g, or greater, almost indefinitely, without the speed cap in place. This speed cap may be wholly absent in SC for all we know (there is no particular reason to assume zero momentum within the bubble), and is evidently 2.5km/s in glide.

Thrust, without additional thermal load, when staying within arbitarty flight parameters, also has a significant in game precedent in the form of the ability to hover, with any ship, irrespective of planetary gravity, as long as one stays within 10-20 degrees of level.

This ignores how supercruise behaves in the game. Your ship moves at the rate you travel at in normal space. For your explanation to make any sense we should see a drop from SC result in the same behavior we get anywhere else and then the ship engage it's "planetary landing suite thrusters" to accelerate to glide speed. We do not.

It makes far more sense for it to just be an artifact of ultra slow gradual dropping of supercruise.

Outside of planetary surfaces, all ships have the same vertical and dorsal thrust/acceleration (not between ship, but the same given ship can accelerate up or down at the same rate). That planetary landing suite, when used in the presence of gravity, is almost as magical as supercruise.
I vehemently disagree, on all of these points.

And you're wrong. Thrusters do what they do near planetary surfaces because fdev didn't want cry baby players to complain about trying to land on a 6g planet in undersized D thrusters so they could min-max their trade ship. It has no realistic explanation rooted in physics. It's just that way because of gameplay reasons. For the same reason that stars that are colder than ice glow, for the same reason that black holes are safe. For the same reason that getting into the jets of a neutron star and white dwarf is otherwise safe. For the same reason that your shields can apparently protect you from all that and solar radiation but a couple lasers can pew pew them away.

Some things are fully in the realm of gameplay nonsense and some can be bent to make some kind of sense.

What makes more sense and is more likely.
1. Ships that have to sustain reentry in atmospheric planets regardless of their shield strength (cuz fdev wont want any crying about exploding due to weak or no shields) and regardless of the shape and size of the ship and regardless of the density of the atmosphere as well as have to explain how you can supercruise out just 2km over the surface but couldn't supercruise in at all.. Because it's done in normal space via thrusters.

2. Or that supercruise is how we already deal with planetary landing and works all the way down to the surface and just releases you 12km or so above after slowing down for your own safety and that of others. And that it will work exactly the same in atmospheric planets. Circumventing any and all physical inconsistencies and keeping the behavior of the game consistent with how it currently is?

If you think it's #1 then you're living in a fantasy land

 

[Morbad]

No friction in suprecruise

There wouldn't be any scooping at zero relative velocity either.

Your explantion requires far more internal inconsistancies and contradictary behavior than supercruise.

I'm not sure you know what my explanation is, but anyone with the game can demonstrate otherwise simply by comparing glide to both supercruise and normal flight.

For your explanation to make any sense we should see a drop from SC result in the same behavior we get anywhere else and then the ship engage it's "planetary landing suite thrusters" to accelerate to glide speed. We do not.

What's preventing accelerating into supercruise from suspending the velocity cap and retaining momentum while in SC, then either bleeding it off during drop (for a drop that doesn't go into glide), or retaining (for glide)? Why can't we engage SC while stationary?

It makes far more sense for it to just be an artifact of ultra slow gradual dropping of supercruise.

That's what the manual vaguely implies, but the actual gameplay shows something else.

It's just that way because of gameplay reasons.

I never implied otherwise and that doesn't mean there can't be contextual explanations for them.

What makes more sense and is more likely.
1. Ships that have to sustain reentry in atmospheric planets regardless of their shield strength (cuz fdev wont want any crying about exploding due to weak or no shields) and regardless of the shape and size of the ship and regardless of the density of the atmosphere as well as have to explain how you can supercruise out just 2km over the surface but couldn't supercruise in at all.. Because it's done in normal space via thrusters.

2. Or that supercruise is how we already deal with planetary landing and works all the way down to the surface and just releases you 12km or so above after slowing down for your own safety and that of others. And that it will work exactly the same in atmospheric planets. Circumventing any and all physical inconsistencies and keeping the behavior of the game consistent with how it currently is?

If you think it's #1 then you're living in a fantasy land

I'm not sure why you'd think reentry would be an issue for ships that can arbitrarily control their rate of decent, or why even an uncontrolled, sheidless, descent would would cause damage to any ship in the game, given their ultra-low densities and extreme resistance to heat.

That said, I think #2 is probably pretty close to what we'll actually get, and I would be astounded if we couldn't supercruise through and out out of the upper atmosphere of planets, the same way we do with airless ones.

I still don't think glide will bear any more resemblance to supercruise than it does now, which is virtually none.

 

[KylePanarid]

Atmospheric booster engines to increase thrust in atmosphere?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

It's a space game, and they will fake it.

 

[Darth Ender]

There wouldn't be any scooping at zero relative velocity either.

Unlike real warp drive, you are moving relatively in your own bubble in supercruise. Not moving is both a requirement for real warp drive and a paradox because to actually go anywhere while warping space, you have to move but move where? you can't.

This is why sci fi warp drive works and all attempts at theorizing the real thing keep hitting brick walls even if you ignore the energy requirements.

What you get while in supercruise is normal space leaked into your "sc bubble". It's a necessary requirement and it's why you have to be traveling forward to initiate it.

I'm not sure you know what my explanation is, but anyone with the game can demonstrate otherwise simply by comparing glide to both supercruise and normal flight.

Limited maneuverability, unable to spin around etc. Hallmarks of supercruise. Similar speeds regardless of thrusters equipped. Hallmark of supercruise. 0 inertial impact of dropping speed, also hallmark of supercruise.

What's preventing accelerating into supercruise from suspending the velocity cap and retaining momentum while in SC, then either bleeding it off during drop (for a drop that doesn't go into glide), or retaining (for glide)? Why can't we engage SC while stationary?

Nothing would prevent you from say, boosting via these magic planetary landing thrusters to 2500m/s but you dont ever do that in the game. You slowly decelerate (effectively) with no apparent increase in local velocity illustrated in any way. If what you say was true, you should see a massive jolt of your ship going from normal SC local velocity of your max ship speed of when you entered supercruise to glide velocity.

Whether that's a failure of implementation on fdev's part or not. it's easier to attribute all of this to an ultra low power supercruise than a magic new thrust power that all ships have and produces impact like thrusters produce for any other time it accelerates.

That's what the manual vaguely implies, but the actual gameplay shows something else.

And this is where fdev couldn't care any less about lore if it offers any kind of resistance to gameplay. I'm talking about what requires the least amount of new magic. Fdev could release a new thing in the next update that doesn't comply with how something already works elsewhere in the game and we'll have to start all over trying to explain away how come the game works a certain way.

I prefer leaving thrusters as realistic as possible (with magic planet suite thrusters mostly behaving normal except in their power output ) and attributing what doesn't make sense regarding ship travel to fsd since it's all magic anyway.

I'm not sure why you'd think reentry would be an issue for ships that can arbitrarily control their rate of decent, or why even an uncontrolled, sheidless, descent would would cause damage to any ship in the game, given their ultra-low densities and extreme resistance to heat.

Because the relative velocity of the planet's atmosphere movement would have to be matched and if we want to get realistic, planets are moving very fast relative to a stationary barycenter in a given system (earth is moving at 107,000 kph and it's spinning at 1600km/h on the surface ) If you tried to go slow enough so that you weren't many times super sonic when entering the atmosphere, you'd miss the planet. The reason why things that orbit earth can do so at only 29,000kph is because they're already moving along with the earth at 107,000kph. Elite doesn't simulate gravity that way and our speed is always relative to the barycenter of the system. Gravity in elite shuts down at like 7km from the surface of a planetoid. The best you can hope for is instance dragging.

Now, if you could match the speed of the planets orbit, (it would be just shy of a few thousand m/s for earth for instance) and be moving in the direction of it's spin once around it so that you match that relative velocity too, then maybe you could descend without being a fireball. Real stuff just lets friction do all that due to fuel concerns (if it has fuel).

It would make for a more fun game to have landing in a planet with an atmo require actual piloting skills or you'll die. But because it would require skill, fdev wont implement it that way.

That said, I think #2 is probably pretty close to what we'll actually get, and I would be astounded if we couldn't supercruise through and out out of the upper atmosphere of planets, the same way we do with airless ones.

I still don't think glide will bear any more resemblance to supercruise than it does now, which is virtually none.

glide would be exactly the same as it is now. Whether you think that reflects supercruise or not. The whole mechanic would be exactly as we have currently for airless worlds.
it's the easiest way to do it and it makes the most sense considering they wouldn't force players to have to travel around 100KM more or less to escape the atmosphere before engaging supercruise. And if they'll allow it for takeoff, it doesn't make sense to prohibit it for landing.[/quote]

 

[Ralph Vargr]

About forty years ago, some physics guy calculated the waste heat of a Traveller starship.

It would have wound up in a molten pile of metal glob in milliseconds.

This is a space game.

 

[Morbad]

Unlike real warp drive, you are moving relatively in your own bubble in supercruise.

What you get while in supercruise is normal space leaked into your "sc bubble". It's a necessary requirement and it's why you have to be traveling forward to initiate it.

So what's the problem with taking SC velocity into account when scooping? Where is the requirement for artificially increased coronal density?

Limited maneuverability, unable to spin around etc. Hallmarks of supercruise.

Blackout/redout (which implies actual movement, not displacement of one's local space bubble), ability to deploy hardpoints, ability to interact with normal space, etc are hallmarks of normal space flight.

The only axis that we are unable to spin around in while in glide is the vertical one, because deviating from between -5 and -60 degree ends glide (gracefully in the former, abruptly in the latter). You can roll in a 360 or completely reverse direction.

Nothing would prevent you from say, boosting via these magic planetary landing thrusters to 2500m/s but you dont ever do that in the game.

Because there is a speed cap in most circumstances, not because our ships lack the thrust to quickly reach such velocities.

You slowly decelerate (effectively) with no apparent increase in local velocity illustrated in any way. If what you say was true, you should see a massive jolt of your ship going from normal SC local velocity of your max ship speed of when you entered supercruise to glide velocity.

Whether that's a failure of implementation on fdev's part or not. it's easier to attribute all of this to an ultra low power supercruise than a magic new thrust power that all ships have and produces impact like thrusters produce for any other time it accelerates.

There is no requirement for a 'magic new thrust power', it's already there.

I'm talking about what requires the least amount of new magic.

What I'm talking about requires none.

I prefer leaving thrusters as realistic as possible (with magic planet suite thrusters mostly behaving normal except in their power output ) and attributing what doesn't make sense regarding ship travel to fsd since it's all magic anyway.

Elite's thrusters have never been even vaguely realistic. Ships react realistically to the forces they apply, but the actual thrust generated is often extremely arbitrary and the source of power is fantastical.

Elite doesn't simulate gravity that way and our speed is always relative to the barycenter of the system. Gravity in elite shuts down at like 7km from the surface of a planetoid.

This is not the case.

Our normal space speed is usually relative to the body we are closest to, if we are within a certain distance. You can see this by dropping out of SC in the orbital path of a planet or moon...once it gets close enough your ship will be caught up by it and switch to it's frame of reference.

Gravity also extends vastly further from the surface, often to roughly the diameter of the planetoid, or even more. This is also easily demonstrable. For example, in CZs around landable planets materials and debirs will often fall toward the planet and have to be chased...even from hundreds or thousands of km up.

About forty years ago, some physics guy calculated the waste heat of a Traveller starship.

It would have wound up in a molten pile of metal glob in milliseconds.

This is a space game.

Speaking of the waste heat tangent, I've seen some creative explanations about how to handle this sort of stuff plausibly.

Here's an example: https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-drive.html

I thought the Epstein drive in the Expanse was outright fantasy until I considered it could be powered by an aneutronic fusion reaction that is kept hundreds of meters outside the vessels.

Anyway, some games are most entertaining when they take themselves seriously.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

It's a video game.

 

[Midian Cabal]

Plenty of physicists don't think the multiverse is a valid topic of scientific inquiry at this time. Other universes would have to exist beyond the observable universe almost by definition, and the few potential detection methods we've be able to conceive of haven't revealed any evidence of their existence. Something outside the universe is as equally transcendental as the divine, and equally unfalsifiable.

Science is luckily neither a democracy in which the truth is voted for, not a dictatorship in which authorities decide what the truth is. Plenty of physicists think that the cosmological multiverse is a valid topic: Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking among others.

Dude, transcendental is something that's wholly independent of the material universe and beyond all physical laws. A Type V civilization is still well within material universe(s).

Other universes don't have to exist beyond the (currently) observable universe. If our universe collided with one, maybe there are some residual effects that could be detected? Maybe there's a universe in each black hole and perhaps we'll be able to shoot devices into them that'll be able to encode information into Hawking radiation?
Were other stars and exoplanets observable when Giordano Bruno said that the lights we see at night are actually stars, just like our Sun?

Even Popper himself revised his theory: "...what was a metaphysical idea yesterday can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow; and this happens frequently." (1974, Reply to my critics) and he offers Greek Atomists as an example. I find it really amusing that Popper himself calls them metaphysicians, since their hypothesis was clearly falsifiable and therefore scientific.

Now I really have to ask you if you're claiming that theoretical physicists are pseudo-scientists in the same way that flat-earthers, climate change deniers and astrologists are?

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Are we really using science to explain things in video games?

A medium that is usually used to do the IRL-impossible?

 

[Morbad]

Science is luckily neither a democracy in which the truth is voted for, not a dictatorship in which authorities decide what the truth is.

And the falsifiability criteria is a big reason for that. Science reveals facts that are testable in some manner, facts that can be used to make relevant predictions.

Something can also be true, and not be science.

Plenty of physicists think that the cosmological multiverse is a valid topic: Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking among others.

I think the cosmological multiverse is a valid topic.

Being a valid topic and being a valid scientific theory are not the same.

Dude, transcendental is something that's wholly independent of the material universe and beyond all physical laws. A Type V civilization is still well within material universe(s).

A universe is the entire contents of spacetime. A universe beyond our own is not within our material universe or physical laws. That seems about as transcendental as it gets.

Other universes don't have to exist beyond the (currently) observable universe.

By most definitions of universe, they would. Even in multiverse hypotheses they are fundamentally disconnected in causality, which is what defines them as separate universes.

If it's just another space 'over there', or some phenomena causally tied to this universe, it's not another universe, it's part of this one.

If our universe collided with one, maybe there are some residual effects that could be detected? Maybe there's a universe in each black hole and perhaps we'll be able to shoot devices into them that'll be able to encode information into Hawking radiation?

Maybe, but the former is hypothetical and hasn't had any supporting observations while the latter is wildly speculative.

Were other stars and exoplanets observable when Giordano Bruno said that the lights we see at night are actually stars, just like our Sun?

Giordano Bruno's idea didn't constitute a scientific hypothesis when he came up with it, because he had no way to test it. Doesn't matter that it was eventually tested and found to be correct; the science wasn't there at the time.

Even Popper himself revised his theory: "...what was a metaphysical idea yesterday can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow; and this happens frequently." (1974, Reply to my critics) and he offers Greek Atomists as an example. I find it really amusing that Popper himself calls them metaphysicians, since their hypothesis was clearly falsifiable and therefore scientific.

That quote doesn't represent a revision of his views, or at least not a revision of the core falisifiability principle.

It should be a given that ideas--as new information and new ways of applying it come to light--can evolve from the speculative, to the hypothetical, to working theory; from fantasy to hard science.

Now I really have to ask you if you're claiming that theoretical physicists are pseudo-scientists in the same way that flat-earthers, climate change deniers and astrologists are?

Of course not, and I don't think I've said anything that could be interpreted as such.

I doubt most theoretical physicists are pushing their more speculative ideas as facts, or are incapable of distinguishing from speculation, testable hypothesis, and theories that make accurate predictions. Psuedo-scientists pretend their ideas are something more than they are, either by claiming scientific rigor that hasn't been satisfied, pushing ideas that have already failed it's tests, or both.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Now I really have to ask you if you're claiming that theoretical physicists are pseudo-scientists in the same way that flat-earthers, climate change deniers and astrologists are?

Theoretical physicists use mathematics and models to explain or predict things. Theoretical physics follows the same underlying methods for acceptance as other branches of science. Primarily that the mathematics & models can be reproduced and verified by other scientists. In some ways it is similar to a democracy: other credible physicists will analyze proposed ideas and the evidence provided and proceed to agree or disagree. If a proposed theory does not hold up to the scrutiny of other credible experts it is disregarded. In the modern world of science the scrutiny of credible experts is based on established mathematics and science, which we generally believe in and has allowed the development of cars, cell phones, and electric toothbrushes.

In this context "theoretical" does not mean cool ideas that popped into my head while I was drunk at a party. Pseudo-science and speculative science tend to not follow principles of modern science, but rather the "hey, this might be the explanation" route for explaining and predicting the world around them.

Admittedly the more abstract elements of science are usually made more "simple" for non-scientists like myself to understand. Which is why pseudo-science can be easily confused with actual science by general public.

Note:
It should also be noted that credible modern scientists can have ideas that are not intended to be taken as a formal proposals of scientific theory. It is easy to take things out of context. They can have working hypothesis, as well as non-scientific personal beliefs. These things should not be confused.

 

[Midian Cabal]

And the falsifiability criteria is a big reason for that. Science reveals facts that are testable in some manner, facts that can be used to make relevant predictions.

No, falsifiability isn't a big reason for that. As I already stated, it isn't the way how science works. Scientists don't seek to falsify theories. Sometimes it can happen as a side effect if there are other competing theories, but most of the time scientists try to verify their hypothesis and are not disheartened when the results contradict them. Science has never proceeded by falsification anyway. If a theory has real explanatory power, scientists don’t abandon it just because it seems too flexible or even if it’s disproven by an anomalous observation. They abandon it if a better theory comes along.

Falsifiability criteria is a big reason for rejection of pseudo-sciences, not for rejection of induction in science. What cosmologists (and other scientists and laymen) discuss is most often naïve falsificationism rather than the sophisticated versions of authentic Popperianism.

“The theoretician puts certain definite questions to the experimenter, and the latter, by his experiments, tries to elicit a decisive answer to these questions, and to no others. ... Thus it is he [the theoretician] who shows the experimenter the way.”

Something can also be true, and not be science.

Yeah, many things in our everyday life haven't been explained by science yet, and they're all true.

A universe is the entire contents of spacetime. A universe beyond our own is not within our material universe or physical laws. That seems about as transcendental as it gets.

There are 3 types of unobservables:

1. Logically unobservable - those are self-contradictions, like round triangle.
2. Practically unobservable - we can conceive those as observable but we're prevented from observing them by practical difficulties.
3. Physically unobservable - those can never be observed by any existing sense-faculties of man.

Anything transcendental is physically unobservable, while another universe is practically unobservable.

I haven't read all multiverse theories, so I'll stick with the Andrei Linde's theory. He came up with it not because of boredom but because of necessity as a consequence of his theory of inflation. Theory of inflation is based on the Standard model of the universe and AFAIK the strongest criticism (eternal bouncing) of his theory was strongly disfavored by the latest results from the Planck satellite. While his theory of inflation elegantly explains uniformity of our (visible) universe, the same theory predicted that the universe looks completely different at much greater scale. Those different parts of the same universe also have completely different laws of physics. Transitions are not predictable, because they're governed by quantum physics.

His theory of multiverse isn't a stand-alone theory, it's a part of the theory of inflation and you can't refute just one part of a theory as unscientific, it's either-or.

By most definitions of universe, they would. Even in multiverse hypotheses they are fundamentally disconnected in causality, which is what defines them as separate universes.

If it's just another space 'over there', or some phenomenal causally tied to this universe, it's not another universe, it's part of this one.

No, they aren't disconnected. but according to Linde, transitions between those vastly different parts of our universe are governed by quantum physics and therefore unpredictable. Inflation doesn't stop at the same time everywhere. As our universe exits the inflationary phase and begins its ordinary subluminal expansion, a little patch of scalar field remains. That little patch inflates into a whole new universe, which in turn leaves behind yet another patch, creating yet another universe, ad infinitum. Each universe can contain different fields with different particles with different masses with different behavior. Linde called it the eternal self-reproducing universe. Today, physicists call it the multiverse.

Unrelated to the theory of inflation, some physicists propose that dark matter and dark energy are in another universe.

Maybe, but the former is hypothetical and hasn't had any supporting observations while the latter is wildly speculative.

Popper: "all knowledge is hypothetical", also "All knowledge remains... conjectural."

Giordano Bruno's idea didn't constitute a scientific hypothesis when he came up with it, because he had no way to test it. Doesn't matter that it was eventually tested and found to be correct; the science wasn't there at the time.

I thought we already covered that. Einstein had no way to test the existence of photons, Pauli couldn't test the existence of neutrinos, Atomists and Boltzmann couldn't test the existence of atoms, Bruno couldn't test the existence of exoplanets etc.

You could dispute that Atomists and Bruno weren't scientists because they didn't have theoretical systems based on experiments, but not because they had no way to test it.

That quote doesn't represent a revision of his views, or at least not a revision of the core falisifiability principle.

It should be a given that ideas--as new information and new ways of applying it come to light--can evolve from the speculative, to the hypothetical, to working theory; from fantasy to hard science.

My apologies, 2 days ago I didn't have the whole text and I was quoting a quotation. Here's more:
"In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable, or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. ... If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are." (Popper, “Difficulties of the Demarcation Proposal", 1974)

"There is a legitimate place for dogmatism, though a very limited place. He who gives up his theory too easily in the faceof apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory. There is room in science for debate: for attack and therefore also for defence. Only if we try to defend them can we learn all the different possibilities inherent in our theories. As always, science is conjecture. You have to conjecture when to stop defending a favourite theory, and when to try a new one." (ibid.)

In his autobiography he wrote: "I also realized that we must not exclude all immunizations, not even all which introduce ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. ... All this shows not only that some degree of dogmatism is fruitful, even in science, but also that logically speaking falsifiability, or testability, cannot be regarded as a very sharp criterion.”

In an interview 2 years before his death he said that his principle doesn't apply to all sciences, but he didn't say to which ones.

Of course not, and I don't think I've said anything that could be interpreted as such.

I doubt most theoretical physicists are pushing their more speculative ideas as facts, or are incapable of distinguishing from speculation, testable hypothesis, and theories that make accurate predictions. Psuedo-scientists pretend their ideas are something more than they are, either by claiming scientific rigor that hasn't been satisfied, pushing ideas that have already failed it's tests, or both.

No of course you haven't and that's why I asked, because of your difficulties to accept theoretical physics as science. It clearly isn't metaphysics so pseudo-science is in Popper's philosophy the only option that's left.

The Big bang theory made 3 predictions and all three predictions have been verified, but it doesn't explain the uniformity, the lack of relic particles like magnetic monopoles and the lack of spatial curvature.

The inflation theory extended the Big bang theory, successfully solved all 3 puzzles and made 6 new predictions. From those 6 predictions, 5 have been observationally confirmed and the 6th has been tested down to the ~0.4% level and is consistent with inflation, but they haven't reached the critical level.

So I'd say yeah, they do proper science.

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

Apparently in the game lore they are. All of the ships in the game are/will be atmosphere capable.

Perhaps they will create differences in the atmospheric flight models for the different ships (I'd wager that a T-7 could be more "difficult" to fly in air then something more streamlined like an imperial eagle) Spoliers will now be useful

 

[Arioch]

Apparently in the game lore they are. All of the ships in the game are/will be atmosphere capable.

Perhaps they will create differences in the atmospheric flight models for the different ships (I'd wager that a T-7 could be more "difficult" to fly in air then something more streamlined like an imperial eagle) Spoliers will now be useful

I reckon if FDev give us rain on the canopy like AirCarVR then we’ll all not bloody care about anything else

Cloud shadows for me plz (need to sit on the pad at Sirocco Station, looking at Aster, wind blowing, tvm)

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

I reckon if FDev give us rain on the canopy like AirCarVR then we’ll all not bloody care about anything else

Cloud shadows for me plz (need to sit on the pad at Sirocco Station, looking at Aster, wind blowing, tvm)

While I'd love to see what landing on an earth like planet would be like, I'm a bit more curious on how they will handle "less then hospitable worlds". Take our real world (and by extension, in game world) planet Venus. Can we land there? Will we be able to stay long? I can imagine, if done well, some atmospheric worlds being landable, but not for long... perhaps our hulls start taking caustic damage?

On the other hand, other atmospheric worlds, such as our current day (non terraformed) Mars might seem like paradise in comparison, no damage, no environmental threat.

Also, the question of water worlds remains. Will we be able to "land/float/submerge" there as well?

 

[Neutronium]

Since, as stated by many, our ships can land and lift-off on multi-g worlds (up to 10 g reportedly) on non-atmospheric worlds, they would have no problem on atmospheric ones. In fact the atmosphere will help even on ships with the worst aerodynamics.
But anyway your worries are irrelevant anyway since we are not going to get atmospherics with this update. Legs and bases it seems. Maybe in 2025 or later we'll get mars-like worlds..