|
|
Post by Yin on Feb 29, 2008 5:58:08 GMT
So...The court isn't just science alone? Is that it? Instead of science versus nature (as seems usual), it seems we're talking about science versus magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by edzepp on Feb 29, 2008 6:05:05 GMT
It's like Tom is answering our questions or something. ;D
Is there some sort of link for the term 'Etheric Design'? I'm officially interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by popo on Feb 29, 2008 6:20:41 GMT
I was more interested in the fact that Kat knew about the symbol and Annie didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Feb 29, 2008 6:24:23 GMT
I'm pretty sure the root word of Etheric is Ether, which is another spelling of Aether. Wikipedia has articles on the Etheric plane and Etheric bodies; I've no idea how much of those are relevant. It seems Gunnerkrigg Court is a school of science and magic. |
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Feb 29, 2008 6:43:38 GMT
Well, Kat recognised Annie's pendant as the symbol for antimony, so it seems somewhat obvious that she would know about this too.
|
|
|
|
Post by pulvissolaris on Feb 29, 2008 9:55:24 GMT
The Ether is a discredited theory of the physics of light. In pre-20th century understanding, every wave had to come from a vibrating medium (sound, for example, is the result of vibrating matter). For light, this was postulated to be the ether, a solid which was at the same time extremely dense and not noticeable at all. Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to measure the ether and ended up disproving it instead.
If, in the Gunnerkrigg Court universe, etheric science is true (which it may well be, giving its steampunk stylings), that opens the door for many interesting applications. For example, you could achieve total invisibility by somehow eliminating the ether in a place (no medium for light to travel through).
|
|
|
|
Post by Boksha on Feb 29, 2008 11:06:16 GMT
Personally the "things science can't explain" thing in stories always bothers me a bit. Why? Because, in general, those "things" tend to be things science pretty damn well could explain in the universe they happen.
i.e. if magic was real, people would either be keeping it away from science (in which case it would be "things we don't allow science to explain") or people would be researching it intensely and most likely find plenty of explanations, or at least systemic properties; science generally doesn't seek to explain but rather to describe. (explanations are just a totally awesome by-product) If such properties cannot be found it would be because magic is completely random, which would also mean nobody can be good at it and nobody would be able to know anything about it (which is obviously false since in fantasy magic tends to be quite useful and learnable)
i.e. I'm not buying it. I've learnt better than to let it spoil my enjoyment of a story though. It's such a common trope that letting it spoil things for me would mean I wouldn't be able to enjoy like 99% of all fantasy stories ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by penguinfactory on Feb 29, 2008 11:50:50 GMT
It certainly has lots of magical elements to it, but I'd say GC is much more science based than magic based. The students aren't learning about alchemy and magic, which seems to be reserved for the teachers and the mediums.
One thing I was wondering: what were Eglemore and Mrs Donlan and the rest of them doing after they left Gunnerkrigg that involved learning how to use magic and slay dragons? It doesn't seem likely that they learned it at the Court.
..... Unless they did, and magic is only taught to the upper classes, thus explaining why Annie never seems to meet older students very often- the supernatural and scientific sides of the school are kept seperate. Or maybe students who show an aptitude at that sort of thing can choose to specialise in magic/alchemy/whatever later on, rather than science. Annie is already doing that with the medium training.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Feb 29, 2008 12:40:27 GMT
Since Bismuth officially symbolizes union, does this mean that these two symbols symbolize science and etheric design? |
|
|
|
Post by greyumbrella on Feb 29, 2008 13:17:33 GMT
Since Bismuth officially symbolizes union, does this mean that these two symbols symbolize science and etheric design? I googled symbols and the first site that came up was the official NASA website with the planetary symbols all explained. The first symbol of the circle with the dot inside means the sun. solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/all_symbols.jpgand the interconnected circles have been used in Africa to symbolize a married couple, or in hobo language to keep trying to beg at this house, but what seems promising is that is also means astrology "the study of stars." www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/25/253.htmlI think Mezzaphor's guess would be correct as the sun would mean the more scientific way to look at the night sky, astronomy and the circles depict the more magical side, and therefore the Bismuth symbol is the union of these two. |
|
rallan
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by rallan on Feb 29, 2008 13:34:07 GMT
The Ether is a discredited theory of the physics of light. In pre-20th century understanding, every wave had to come from a vibrating medium (sound, for example, is the result of vibrating matter). For light, this was postulated to be the ether, a solid which was at the same time extremely dense and not noticeable at all. Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to measure the ether and ended up disproving it instead. If, in the Gunnerkrigg Court universe, etheric science is true (which it may well be, giving its steampunk stylings), that opens the door for many interesting applications. For example, you could achieve total invisibility by somehow eliminating the ether in a place (no medium for light to travel through). While I'm sure that part of the reason Tom decided to drop the word "Etheric" on us was as a shout out to good old fashioned disproven science, you've gotta remember that the Luminiferous Aether theory isn't the origin of the word "Ether". Ether/Aether has been, among other things - the pure substance of the upper heavens that the Greek gods breathed, and the divine personification of that substance- the fifth element in classical Greek philosophy and medieval alchemy, the quintessence that all non-material stuff like ideas, dreams, philosophy, and art are made from, and arguably the stuff of the soul to boot. - a convenient filler label for all sorts of substances and mediums which scientists assumed must exist to explain how various things work, but which couldn't be detected, although the term's sort of gone out of style in the 20th century thanks to the way words like aether and ethereal now have very unscientific New Age connotations. - and speaking of New Age connotations, let's not even get started on Ethereal Planes and Astral Projection and all that jazz. So if I was gonna take a punt, I'd say that when Jones drops the word "ether" she's using it to represent everything that's either magical, metaphysical, intangible, not yet provable by science, or all of the above. Also, if Tom Siddell ever played Mage: the Ascension, you won't need to be a rocket scientist to guess what his favourite Tradition was (hint: rocket scientists!)  |
|
tonie
Junior Member
It's been a while...
Posts: 50
|
Post by tonie on Feb 29, 2008 16:04:32 GMT
I was confused until I realised I read "esoteric", not "etheric"  and thanks for all the definitions, guys, I think rallan is on to something. But I wonder why Jones is saying "processes unexplained by the science of man" - from what i know, in terms of classic Western scholarly traditions, the "sciences of man" are usually referred to in opposition to the "natural sciences" as all things related to meaning and interpretation, such as philosophy, literature and languages. The natural sciences, in contrast, are based on causal, predictive investigation through subjects such as maths, physics and geometry. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Feb 29, 2008 16:35:55 GMT
Personally the "things science can't explain" thing in stories always bothers me a bit. Why? Because, in general, those "things" tend to be things science pretty damn well could explain in the universe they happen. i.e. if magic was real, people would either be keeping it away from science (in which case it would be "things we don't allow science to explain") or people would be researching it intensely and most likely find plenty of explanations, or at least systemic properties; science generally doesn't seek to explain but rather to describe. (explanations are just a totally awesome by-product) If such properties cannot be found it would be because magic is completely random, which would also mean nobody can be good at it and nobody would be able to know anything about it (which is obviously false since in fantasy magic tends to be quite useful and learnable) i.e. I'm not buying it. I've learnt better than to let it spoil my enjoyment of a story though. It's such a common trope that letting it spoil things for me would mean I wouldn't be able to enjoy like 99% of all fantasy stories ever. I totally agree. Also, Given Jone's definition of "etheric", one could conclude that Gunnerkrigg was simple a school of economics as well as of natural science. Of course she was probably just hinting at the meaning rather than giving a proper definition. |
|
rc5
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by rc5 on Feb 29, 2008 20:32:28 GMT
I was confused until I realised I read "esoteric", not "etheric" Its funny 'cause etheric is an esoteric word. =D yee Its cool that we finally learn stuff! And I'm fine with things being unexplainable by science. Magic is far more magical if you don't understand it! =P |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 29, 2008 23:20:50 GMT
Don't forget that the Aether was mentioned in the last chapter, too.
|
|
gdwarf
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by gdwarf on Mar 1, 2008 3:47:20 GMT
Personally the "things science can't explain" thing in stories always bothers me a bit. Why? Because, in general, those "things" tend to be things science pretty damn well could explain in the universe they happen. i.e. if magic was real, people would either be keeping it away from science (in which case it would be "things we don't allow science to explain") or people would be researching it intensely and most likely find plenty of explanations, or at least systemic properties; science generally doesn't seek to explain but rather to describe. (explanations are just a totally awesome by-product) If such properties cannot be found it would be because magic is completely random, which would also mean nobody can be good at it and nobody would be able to know anything about it (which is obviously false since in fantasy magic tends to be quite useful and learnable) i.e. I'm not buying it. I've learnt better than to let it spoil my enjoyment of a story though. It's such a common trope that letting it spoil things for me would mean I wouldn't be able to enjoy like 99% of all fantasy stories ever. Agreed entirely. If something cannot be explained by science then it must be entirely random (and even then, science would still be able to define it as that) and so would be useless to anyone. Now, if what's meant is that the school is founded on a world-view that accepts currently-accepted science and fringe theories, then that works (Though the two would be difficult to fuse properly), but that seems to rarely be what is meant by such statements. By way of example: Should, against all current evidence, alchemy turn out to be real, then you might be tempted to claim that it is something that science cannot explain. This is not true. Science has discarded alchemy, but if you could show that every time you heated lead to 476K, added 3% Iodine, and then let it simmer for 3 days you'd end up with gold, then science would immediately accept that and take it into account. Actually, re-reading the comic, it might be saying that the school was founded on both things science has accepted, and ideas that the founders knew to be true but which have not been accepted by the scientific community at large. This is entirely possible, but I do wonder why they didn't publish what they found and become famous. |
|
|
|
Post by popo on Mar 1, 2008 4:06:47 GMT
I think when she said was talking about things unexplained by science, she was more talking about the afterlife and all that. But that's just me.
|
|
gdwarf
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by gdwarf on Mar 1, 2008 4:24:50 GMT
Which still doesn't qualify.
If you can show that the afterlife exists, then science can be applied to it.
|
|
Heltec
New Member
Live in Fear: Rita Repulsa has returned
Posts: 3
|
Post by Heltec on Mar 1, 2008 6:12:27 GMT
Well, Perhaps this is my eternal nerd-dom finding a connection where there isn't meant to be one, but:
Bismuth, the element that that symbol stands for in the window, most closely chemically resembles the metalloid and semiconductor element Antimony.
|
|
tonie
Junior Member
It's been a while...
Posts: 50
|
Post by tonie on Mar 1, 2008 11:00:04 GMT
Its funny 'cause etheric is an esoteric word. =D yee Its cool that we finally learn stuff! And I'm fine with things being unexplainable by science. Magic is far more magical if you don't understand it! =P Exactly, I'm sure I read "esoteric" because it was the word my brain expected to read, it seemed perfectly appropriate... Which is why I didn't understand all the need for definitions! Anyway, I still think Jones is talking about the rationally explainable vs. the irrational and magical (including the afterlife!), but then again I'm waiting to see what comes next! |
|
|
|
Post by Tenjen on Mar 1, 2008 11:45:11 GMT
Thing is, science is our perspective, and our prespectives tend to be erroneous [or from another point of view, close to the truth but not quite there] and limited. Therefore while science should be able to explain everything, at our current state [therefore at [science's] it's current state] it is unable to explain certain concepts and events labled. Which are labeled as etheric.
Remember science isnt something seperate from magic and nature. If anything its our study of these things and attempt to harness them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boksha on Mar 1, 2008 13:59:08 GMT
Actually one of the important functions of science is describing things that don't make sense from our perspective. That's how something as patently absurd as quantum mechanics came to be.
What's more, if there's people in the world using, teaching and studying magic, then magic is already well within the perspective of the people of that world.
Of course, it could be that Jones is talking about things that are known by some, but so few people (perhaps because only certain talented people can research it; like only people born as mediums can see psychopomps without requiring consent from the pomp and without dying) that there's no scientific community to speak of and as such it was never documented in a scientific fashion.
|
|
gdwarf
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by gdwarf on Mar 1, 2008 16:12:22 GMT
Thing is, science is our perspective, and our prespectives tend to be erroneous [or from another point of view, close to the truth but not quite there] and limited. Therefore while science should be able to explain everything, at our current state [therefore at [science's] it's current state] it is unable to explain certain concepts and events labled. Which are labeled as etheric. Remember science isnt something seperate from magic and nature. If anything its our study of these things and attempt to harness them. Nope. Science is not a world-view, it is a methodology that can describe and, eventually, explain anything that is non-random. |
|
tonie
Junior Member
It's been a while...
Posts: 50
|
Post by tonie on Mar 1, 2008 16:26:56 GMT
Science is not a world-view, it is a methodology that can describe and, eventually, explain anything that is non-random. Ah, but "non-random" according to whose definition? What facts do you select as representing "order" as opposed to "randomness"? Aren't such definition dependent on which language you speak, which metaphors your mind relies on to make things make sense and seem coherent, and which "facts" you therefore construct as being "facts"? Just to play the obligatory post-modern advocate  |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Mar 1, 2008 16:54:42 GMT
Science is just finding consistent models that resemble reality to a certain extent. That allows us to analyse them on a logic level. If this is done properly, you can make statements about whether something is true or false within the model.
At GC they actually do research on some of the yet unexplained stuff going on. Like Kat finding out that Shadow 2 is actually not some mysterious ghost but a thin layer of some substance or the Donlans trying to find a way to extract Reynardine from Sivo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenjen on Mar 1, 2008 19:48:57 GMT
chaos is just a collection of ordered events happening so much and so fast we cant take record of it in our minds.
Not contesting that. But its more, "expanding our perspective or scope of knowledge", than science explaining what doesnt make sense.
|
|
gdwarf
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by gdwarf on Mar 1, 2008 22:04:32 GMT
Ah, but "non-random" according to whose definition? What facts do you select as representing "order" as opposed to "randomness"? Aren't such definition dependent on which language you speak, which metaphors your mind relies on to make things make sense and seem coherent, and which "facts" you therefore construct as being "facts"? Just to play the obligatory post-modern advocate Heh, postmodernism is simply a way for people with simple opinions to obfuscate what they're saying to sound smarter than they otherwise would. It's also a really easy way to say utter nonsense without anyone being able to tell. On the plus side, it let's you use neat words like "paradigm" alot. |
|
|
|
Post by abalidothascendant on Mar 2, 2008 21:24:52 GMT
It's interesting to note that until recently bismuth was the heaviest known stable isotope. (It was recently proven to be radioactive, albeit with an insanely long half-life.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerose on Mar 4, 2008 13:47:02 GMT
Ether/Aether has been, among other things - the pure substance of the upper heavens that the Greek gods breathed, and the divine personification of that substance- the fifth element in classical Greek philosophy and medieval alchemy, the quintessence that all non-material stuff like ideas, dreams, philosophy, and art are made from, and arguably the stuff of the soul to boot. - a convenient filler label for all sorts of substances and mediums which scientists assumed must exist to explain how various things work, but which couldn't be detected, although the term's sort of gone out of style in the 20th century thanks to the way words like aether and ethereal now have very unscientific New Age connotations. - and speaking of New Age connotations, let's not even get started on Ethereal Planes and Astral Projection and all that jazz. Omgs. The amount of geekery in here just makes me squee. Aethyr is considered a "fifth element" by some but I don't think the Greeks really counted it as much as some trads do today. I'd geek some more but I'd rapidly go off topic.... |
|
|
|
Post by Tenjen on Mar 4, 2008 15:44:19 GMT
your welcome to do so here. The next page is out already.
|
|
and thanks for all the definitions, guys, I think rallan is on to something. But I wonder why Jones is saying "processes unexplained by the science of man" - from what i know, in terms of classic Western scholarly traditions, the "sciences of man" are usually referred to in opposition to the "natural sciences" as all things related to meaning and interpretation, such as philosophy, literature and languages. The natural sciences, in contrast, are based on causal, predictive investigation through subjects such as maths, physics and geometry. Or am I missing something? 
