My sci-fi universe works on the premise that our modern assumptions regarding physical laws are wrong...

You are missing the point. When the next theory that reconciles general relativity and quantum mechanics arrives and explains the predictions, that will not prove general relativity and our current knowledge of quantum mechanics wrong, just like quantum mechanics didn't prove thermodynamics or anything done by Maxwell wrong, but only complemented the knowledge. Predictions made by quantum mechanics will still work just fine even when we come up with a more general theory.

In the end, you have to realize that all we have are models, and all we care about is the predictive power of said models. Geocentrism wasn't something that came out of a vacuum and was 100% baseless and wrong. It still had predictive power when it came to the Sun and the Moon. It was only when they tried to use it to predict something other (movements of other planets) that it fell out of favor, but even today, with all our knowledge of orbital mechanics, a basic two-body geocentric model is still good enough to predict the phases of the moon, for example.

So no, a new model will not do anything to prove general relativity or quantum mechanics wrong, they will still be totally usable for the things we use them for today. Just like we still use Newton, Maxwell or Boltzmann.

nit the guy you're replying to but
the idea that time and "correctness" have a irrefutable positive correlation seems a tad far fetched to me.

advancement of all things imo on a graph looks like a series of mountain peaks - ideas doubling back on them selves every hundred yrs or so

sorry for typos and shit I'm on a phone - I like your perspective of ever improving models based on predictability. But I find that idea falls too closely to the shitty "right side of history " mantra the social studies seem to fall into

>ideas doubling back on them selves every hundred yrs or so
That just hasn't been the case throughout history, though. The most you can say is that people have attempted to use certain models to explain phenomena that those models weren't capable of explaining. "Not applicable" is a better phrase to use than "wrong" in most cases.

You might want to point to theories like luminiferous aether that came about during the exploration of the nature of light, but ideas like that are generally short lived because they are proven not to work, and there had been competing theories at the same time.

Anyway, when speaking about science, it's best to forget the idea of right or wrong altogether, and focus instead only on predictive power, since that is the only thing that matters. You'll find that the predictive power of human knowledge in general has always been on an upwards trend. Maybe the line itself is noisy, with a few peaks here and there, but they're not large.

Except when general relativity arrived it revolutionized our way of thinking about the nature of space (and time), explaining how it was possible to achieve things thought previously impossible like atom bombs. Right now we think that things like time travel are impossible, but a new theory might show that it's trivially easy when you know how.

>Remember all those classic science fiction moments that lead you to love the genre? Forget all but a tiny fraction of them, because they're not scientifically possible.

Hard science fiction in a nutshell.

You are once again missing the point. General relativity expanded our knowledge. It did not invalidate Newton's classical mechanics. They still work for most cases.

You're the one missing the point.

It's easy to be confident that you're right when you pick examples of yourself not yet being wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong. Newton died in 1726. In 1912, some dude was laughed at by geologists for suggesting continents drift over time, as opposed to Africa and South America being connected by a land bridge extending across the entirety of the Atlantic Ocean. Taking your time->correctness idea at face value, it'd stand to reason that we might refine how the land bridge came to be, vanished, etc, but it's always going to remain a solid idea, and people suggesting it's wrong and whole fucking continents MOVE are complete dumbasses with no idea how science works.

Needless to say, this is retarded. More importantly, it's curmudgeony with your science fiction, falling into exactly the hardsci trap talks about.

As long as there are laser gun and space babes I'm all in

>space marines coming out of cold-storage to fight bio-engineered terror weapons is still possible in hard-science fiction
Booyeah

>Taking your time->correctness idea
But this is not my idea at all, hence my insistence that you're missing the point. Correctness isn't something you measure for, it's not even possible to measure.

The proper thing to measure for science is predictive power. Once again, this is the only thing that matters.

The Nazis stopped researching atom bomb because according to the old model they worked with it would take far more plutonium than existed on Earth to reach the critical mass. But in the end the "Jewish science" they despised let the Allies succeed in something the Nazis thought impossible. In similar way something completely impossible today might be trivial in the world of the future because our understanding of the nature of reality has radically shifted.

They're just going to keep pointing to edge cases even though you specifically said most cases, user.
You know it.

Then you're arguing a semantic point of literally no relevance. Newton's laws mostly holding for the things we mostly use Newton's laws for under current circumstances has no bearing on spaceships ramming each other or gravity being a retarded caveman notion.

This is not true. The Nazi atomic bomb project failed mostly because they drove out or lost a lot of their best scientists and because they lacked the resources to run a project of that magnitude. Even the remaining scientists had a pretty decent grasp of the theory of operation and could have completed a bomb had the resources been available. They absolutely did not have an erroneous idea about the amounts required.

But in the future the most cases might be something we can't even think of yet, thanks to a radical shift in our perception of reality. What if tomorrow a new theory showed iron-clad proof that it's not gravity that keeps planets in orbit, but Love? It would completely invalidate both the Newtonian mechanics and general relativity as theories, opening up a new era of completely different paradigms. You might laugh at that idea as ridiculous, but you could be making an error just like Nazis laughing at the idea of atom bomb.

I am not arguing anything relating to that image, I was answering the question posed by about the general lack of scientific literacy. This thread has done nothing to change my mind.

Well, that's how it was explained to me.

actually newtonian mechanics would be pretty much unchanged in almost all aspects, as would many aspects of general relativity.
It's just the gravity parts that are wonked up.

Which, again, has nothing to do with anything. Nobody's talking about a setting where apples fall up half the time but we haven't noticed yet, but you're directly arguing against people with the point that even if gravity is totally different, we'll still be able to use it to predict which way apples will fall- even though you back out of a counterexample of even that.

You're being obtuse and pedantic, and then acting smug when nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about and vice versa.

>you're directly arguing against people with the point that even if gravity is totally different, we'll still be able to use it to predict which way apples will fall
I am not, though.

Honestly, at this point I'm sure what the fuck you're even trying to say.

Let's go back to the beginning, then.

>OP: my sci-fi universe works on the premise that our modern assumptions regarding physical laws are wrong, similar to how geocentrism was revealed to be wrong
>fpbp: brainlet.jpg
>user: but why?
>some dude, I assume you:
>Relativity didn't prove Classical mechanics wrong, for example
>extremely unlikely that anything already established will be proven outright wrong. The best you can expect is "wrong for these particular cases."

So what do we have so far? In hindsight, a claim that science is never wrong, just incomplete. This is retarded and probably not very relevant to Space Magellan, so we move on to:

>user: an anti-heliocentric revolution equivalent is still waiting for its turn to arrive
>you I assume:
>missing the point
>So no, a new model will not do anything to prove general relativity or quantum mechanics wrong, they will still be totally usable for the things we use them for today. Just like we still use Newton, Maxwell or Boltzmann.
Again confirming that science is never wrong, not in the context of scifi worldbuilding- eg how hyperdrives work- but pedantic douchebaggery regarding modern uses for it.

>me probably:
>no u
>tectonics
>you probably: I never said knowledge was always complemented, never replaced
>I just said the word wrong in a scientific context triggered me
You dodge out of your own point (Newtonian physics will always work) and claim a different, totally semantic point (knowledge isn't wrong, it has shitty predictive power).

>me again: ur a fagt
>you again: everyone but me is retarded
>me again: oh, ur a fagt
>you again: wut?
Which brings us to the current situation where you're a faggot.

>It turns out goblins really do cause milk to spoil.

>Corn does grow better when you toss some human blood in the fields.

>Stepping on a crack doesn't break your mother's back, but it does have something to do with cancer.

So are we doing an Unknown Armies thread or what?

You got propaganda'd, my friend.

Relativity only gives true predictions if you fudge the numbers.

Perhaps you should practice some independent reading then instead of parroting every stupid thing your friends say.

...

Just because it works it doesn't mean that it's true

then none of our theories (in the scientific sense) are true, since none of them can, do or will describe everything.
They always have "This theory is false if we measure X, Y, Z,...". Just because we haven't encountered X, Y and or Z yet doesn't mean that we never will. We just assume that if a theory explains better/more that it is closer to "truth"

Not that guy but you're mostly incorrect.
Just because something "works" in a very specific context doesn't make the theory correct.

Just because Geocentrism formulas work to an extent doesn't mean geocentrism as a theory works.

i.e. the math behind it is fine, but as a theory it doesn't work. so you can incorporate the formula as is, but as a whole you're still "wrong"

Or a better example
Just because you can say acceleration of gravity is 9.81 m/s on earth, if you state a=9.81 then you're going to be wrong for everything outside earth and some places on earth.
just because a=9.81 in certain circumstances does not mean the model works, it only works in specific circumstances and by using the model as the "truth" you're severely limiting yourself and can lead you to miss very easily made discoveries.

>le dark matter is just wrong maths
Gravitational lensing says hi

So, Vulcans are our future?

I read a great quote from one of the Nazi high-up scientists that the Allies housed in a special bugged house right after the war. He basically said "All our small and compartmentalized atomic-bomb research teams were constantly backstabbing each other and fighting to keep what we knew secret from each other, and the Americans had 100,000 people all cooperating together".

They also said that a lot of them had been purposefully retarding their progress because they didn't want the Axis to succeed.

It does, actually.

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

It is not scientifically possible to talk with an advanced AI that wants to become human... for now.

>t. dumb /pol/hacks
Do not trust those pieces of garbage.

as a guy who's taken quite a lot of history classes, nazis didn't think nukes were impossible, man.
They just had a very realistic problem of almost every smart person working against them or trying to flee them.

The inverse of that is also true though, which seems to be the point the other guy is trying to get at.
Discovering that a =/= 9.81 outside of the general space of earth's surface does not mean that a no longer equals 9.81 WITHIN earth gravity. Expanding on a set of facts does not invalidate the original set within it's original context, unless something is explicitly found wrong with that context. That's why most sci-fi explains it's future tech by way of some undiscovered element or technology (gravitons are popular lately I hear).

>They disagree with me
>That means they must be /pol/acks

>not doing hard sci fi using already disproved or discredited theories
Fuck that, let's get some MORPHOGENIC FIELDS in our slower than light travel.
Imagine how much space crazy you can get done on a generational ship with morphogenic fields.

...

Are they not ?

Or the new theories will describe observations more appropriately, as with eliptical orbits and epicycles.

considering they openly state that nazi shit scares away smart people, they must not be.
Either that or they are calling themselves idiots.

they had the same problem that the soviets ended up with: smart people, of the scientific bent especially, like to find and explain problems in things. Even a completely loyal scientist is going to eventually run into something that clashes with the official narrative, naively bring it to their superiors because they think they've made some groundbreaking discovery that will aid their side in being more right, and promptly get purged for being the Xth person in line to discover some suppressed thought.

or, TLDR, curious people make discoveries, and curious people tend to stick their noses in political beartraps.

basically, any smart class of people are going to be the first up against the wall when some idiots form a radical regime of any sort.

N-not the morphogenic engine, sir. P-please...

Specifically because, even if genuinely loyal, the "smart" trait of curiosity will always lead to problematic thought.
Soviet stories are really good for showing this; there's no end of bright eyed soviet scientists who got deleted for bringing some flaw in communism to Stalin's 'attention', because they thought it was unknown and wanted to help 'the party'.

see, this guy gets it.
You can get up to some DANK SHIT with morphogenic fields and space madness.