Could TNS just be the next step

[BST]

Well said, Rigel. Very well said.

Welcome to the Fleets!

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

Mustex -

I did not "skim" over your post. You made a reference to Space:1999 - a show that you admittedly had not yet seen and it's one that I'm fairly well versed with. How can you have an opinion or explain the nature of the show, if everything you know is by second hand information?

Do I have an opinion of the shows quality? No (although I hope Sci-fi reruns some episodes eventually, because I'm too cheap to buy most box sets).

My opinion is of it's realism, which is an unrelated concept.

I don't care if you called it "fantasy", "mushy" or whatever brand of SciFi that you're trying to label it. You're trying to explain the difference, but none of the references that you're using are applicable in this case. If you watch any number of episodes of Space:1999 - especially Year 1, you'll see a lot more science than an episode of TNS, but from the point of view of scientific concepts of the early 1970's.

Is it true that they went quickly from star to star without FTL?

When the orginal Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon movie serials were created back in the 30's, it was all speculative as humanity had no firsthand knowledge of traveling in outer space. When you look at all past SciFi shows throughout entertainment history, some of the science was real, some was speculative and some was just pure entertainment value.

The point I was getting at was this:

Do you think we'll ever have a show that was made just as much for realism, as for escapism?

This includes not only hard science (like sub-light travel and wormholes), but also theoretical science that can provide a rationale for breaking laws of physics (like the theoretical "Warp Drive," and no for anyone not familiar with it, that has nothing to do with ST, it's name is a homage).

If all SciFi shows provided was real, concrete science, then you might as well watch any number of programs on the Science Channel.

I've never said all. I like soft science and fantasy. I just want a decent balance between them and realism.

If you're going to cry foul with everyone that doesn't agree with you, then what's the point of having a discussion?

It's not that you're disagreeing with me, but rather that I specifically started this thread to get away from definitions, and just ask if you thought we might eventually have a show that was completely based around real science. I had honestly decided this argument had become pointless, and the only reason I'm still pursuing it in this thread it because people kept mis-quoting what I said, and I'm trying to clarify my POV.

You're seventeen

Actually I turned eigteen in December, not relevant, but thought I'd mention it.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by BST

Why? The items, "are possible" and "may be possible", are subjective.

O.k., let's consider wormholes for a minute. There's evidence for and against them, but no firm proof they can't happen. So I'd probably put them under "think are possible." Granted that may not be true for alot of scientists, but it gives us a simple scale to work by.

Next let's consider the theoretical "Warp Drive" technology. It could work, however it would still, in some instances, present you with time-travel paradoxes. Also, if we just made an engine for the thing the way it was originally concieved the power usage would be enormous (I think I recall reading that a cylinder-shaped spacecraft, 100 meters by 30 meters, would require 10 times the power in our universe). There's another theory that could make the ship appear smaller than an electron, so it could get by with the power of a star, but that creates engineering problems of it's own. So is it possible? Well, maybe, but it requires a heck of alot more work.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Warrior

What, specifically, was "supernatural" in osBG?

Appearently us old folks don't know this part.

I was referring to the star in "Lost Planet of the Gods" (unless some explanation was given to that, which I missed since I was trying to do my homework while watching that episode, in which case I've wasted everyone's time and am incredibly embarrassed ).

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Dawg

The term 'fiction' includes 'fantasy'.

'Science' carries with it the connotation of plausibility - face it, nobody believes there actually could be orcs and wizards and rings of power. But, some form of FTL drive....

So, none of the listed movies qualify as 'science fiction', they are all fantasy - but you knew that.

Where the lines are drawn are individual. 'Andromeda Strain' was fiction based on some pretty hard science, but it's still fiction. Jurrassic Park was science fiction, too - based on the hard science of DNA and the growing science of cloning, carried forward.

Can you say where the line is drawn between science fiction and science fantasy? I have news for you - you can't.

It's actually rather simple. When something supernatural happens, then suddenly everything can be labeled supernatural. This is actually a bit like taking the fifth in court.

Ask a Godzilla movie crew "how does the radiation cause these things to happen", the answer you'd get would be either:

A. It's just a movie.

or B. Ahhhh....weeeeeelllll....

However, ask the guys who made Star Wars (original trilogy, the new one has midichlorians) "how do you travel between stars at light speed so quickly?" and "Why is there sound in space." They'd be able to answer:

It is the will of the force that the universe operate in this manner.

In TNS maybe it's impossible to use explosions to propel a vehicle. Perhaps what's burning at the back of the Vipers are piles of incense given as an offering to the Lords of Kobol, who then provide them with the gift of motion.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Mustex

I was referring to the star in "Lost Planet of the Gods" (unless some explanation was given to that, which I missed since I was trying to do my homework while watching that episode, in which case I've wasted everyone's time and am incredibly embarrassed ).

The star? Just a simple ball of gas. Nothing spectacular about that. I actually thought, when you said supernatural, that you were referring to the Beings of Light.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Mustex

O.k., let's consider wormholes for a minute. There's evidence for and against them, but no firm proof they can't happen. So I'd probably put them under "think are possible." Granted that may not be true for alot of scientists, but it gives us a simple scale to work by.

Next let's consider the theoretical "Warp Drive" technology. It could work, however it would still, in some instances, present you with time-travel paradoxes. Also, if we just made an engine for the thing the way it was originally concieved the power usage would be enormous (I think I recall reading that a cylinder-shaped spacecraft, 100 meters by 30 meters, would require 10 times the power in our universe). There's another theory that could make the ship appear smaller than an electron, so it could get by with the power of a star, but that creates engineering problems of it's own. So is it possible? Well, maybe, but it requires a heck of alot more work.

What you described is a "subjective" analysis. Those 2 examples could very easily fit under a "may be possible" or "is possible" umbrella. It would just depend on which umbrella you are using. Another way of describing this, which may lead to less confusion, would be to have a category labelled "likely in our lifetime".

[Darrell Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Mustex

I was referring to the star in "Lost Planet of the Gods" (unless some explanation was given to that, which I missed since I was trying to do my homework while watching that episode, in which case I've wasted everyone's time and am incredibly embarrassed ).

It was simply a star, dying out, with the planet Kobol orbiting it.

What was supernatural about that?

That it just happened to appear in a window during Apollo and Serina's wedding?

Nothing supenatural about that.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by BST

The star? Just a simple ball of gas. Nothing spectacular about that. I actually thought, when you said supernatural, that you were referring to the Beings of Light.

No, I think they were just symbolic. And I thought I remembered the star just appearing out of nowhere to guide them to Kobol. Opps, sorry about all this trouble.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Mustex

No, I think they were just symbolic. And I thought I remembered the star just appearing out of nowhere to guide them to Kobol. Opps, sorry about all this trouble.

You're just a little off track, Mustex. Let me help fill in the blanks. It's no trouble.

From Lost Planet of the Gods:

The ships were traversing a magnetic void when, suddenly, the star DID appear, seemingly out of nowhere. From the "ancient records", Adama was aware of the position of Kobol with respect to the star and gave the bridge crew the coordinates. They found the planet.

****

From War of the Gods:

The Beings of Light were more than symbolic. They were real beings. They appeared in human form when Apollo, Starbuck, and Sheba were shown aboard the Ship of Lights. The symbolism that you may be thinking of is that many, myself included, have equated the Beings of Light with angels.

[Mustex]

Back to the original topic, does anyone think there will eventually be a show created as a collaboration of researchers in various fields, and talented writers?

[BST]

I thought that was answered already.