Reverse homage

Originally Posted by Warrior

"I think the word hijacked would objectively be called "bought", "purchased", or were "sold". It's a business not the bible."

antelope, that response to Dawg makes no sense.

You don't know the history of the DeSanto project, do you?

When Dawg said BG was hi-jacked from DeSanto, that is *exactly* what he means.

I think sometimes we lose sight that we are talking about a for profit television show.

Whoever owned the rights to make and/or financed the Desanto continuation at the time it was shut down, shut it down. No one held a gun to their head. They simply decided rightly or wrongly that further investment in the project would not provide the desired return on investment at that particular point in time.

No one is scheming out there to "destroy" the show. No one is trying to "rape" the fans. No one is or was trying to "hijack" anything. All the people involved were trying to make as much money as they could off the franchise.

The fact that all these money oriented people may not understand their product and may be incompetent I would not dispute.

And Yes I am now aware of the history behind the Desanto Continuation thanks to the many great original Battlestar Galactica series fans I have met here over the past year.

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Firefly was an interesting show. I really liked it. I can’t wait for the movie. But one reason it didn’t work as television is because it broke too many dramatic necessities to make it interesting to a larger audience, and one of these was trying to be too realistic in its portrayal of vacuum operations.

As for what constitutes “realistic” in scifi, I’ll reiterate something I said earlier by posting a quote from another source: “We inevitably tend to envision the capabilities of putative extraterrestrials as being similar to, or slightly more advanced than ours”. (Seth Shostak November 2003, Space.com). Meaning that the more scientific-minded of us usually want our heroes to live and work in a world that follows roughly the same rules as ours does. Yet who is to say what those rules will be in 100 years, or 200, or 500?


JJR

I love Firefly and had no problem adjusting to no sound in space in fact when Serenity is passing close to the Reevers ship there was no sound and frankly I found it very eerie I loved it. I'm a total animal nut and vegetarian but I love the moment when Mal shot the horse because it broke the rules and loved it when he shot the "police officer" in his cargo hold without a second thought - again because it broke the rules. One of my most favorite Sci-Fi books is the series by C.J. Cherryh about Pyanfar Chanur who is an upright feline creature. In her culture only the females of her species are allowed on spaceships as males are notoriously unstable and emotional (sorry boys ) it's an area of space were oxygen breathers (Hani, Kif etc.) and methane breathers (the Knnn) have worked out an intricate web of communications and politics designed to maintain a mutually profitable economic climate and a shaky peace until one human arrives and throws the whole thing out of whack. Kind of like the way John does in Farscape. I love the battles and chases portrayed in these books all the variety of species and all the space stations everything is alien to me and the rules don't apply and that is why I like it. I like my Sci-Fi to be gritty, scary , unpredictable, I like fast paced but I also enjoy watching the day to day routines of peoples lives as lived on a ship or space station. I want it to be intense and not pretty and I don't want to feel safe. It's only in the third season of Enterprise that I started to like that show once it got a little less safe and characters that were around for a few shows were getting killed and alien species were plotting to eliminate the human race and when Archer throws his morals away. I want it to entertain me but I also want it to blow me away with it's imaginativeness and challenge my morals, ideals, my "humanity" this is why I liked the baby killing scene in BSG 2003. ( I'm not saying this to stir the $hit pot just using it as an example of how moraly / emotionally challenging I like it)

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by antelope526

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

Sadly, you may very well be right.

Peter

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works), and the second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

The first field must also be configurable for shape, allowing for gravitic streamlining of the ship in an atmosphere (how else can the Viper reach escape velocity with a wind-sock in its nose?)




JJR

If you believe in UFOs and also certain military and private propulsion theories future craft (and current UFOs) will be (are) enveloped in an artificial gravitational field. The craft basically "falls" in whichever direction the controller wants. Such artificial fields also supposedly can result in the occupant not feeling acceleration. Both Boeing, NASA, and Russia are now openly working on projects in this arena. If such things turn out to be true we should see super acceleration and near light speed craft in the next 100 years.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

I'm here to represent a large number of people who are sick to death of roaring space ships and zinging laser bolts. We are tired of space vessels making turns as if they were in atmosphere and are bored with 'torpedoes' that do less damage than a WW2 era weapon.
Futhermore we think 'flying bridges' on spaceships are FRACKING STUPID.
STUPID



We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We in our TV dinners every time we see a Federation vessel line up nicely on a two dimensional plane with its opponent.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
We cant take it anymore!!!

Any concession on these points will earn our viewership.
We would watch the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series for this reason if they used a CGI Miss Piggy to play Adama and everyone onboard was a transvestite muppet!

.....uh urr (wiping foam from mouth), I think its time for my meds....

SO SAY WE ALL!...errr except for the part about the meds. I take mine in the morning (I'm ADD, and take a small dosage of aderol, although my doctor has said the dosage is SO small I've apparently outgrown it, and the aderol just serves as a pick-me-up).

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Warrior

Must not be too many, considering the droves of people that show up to watch Star Wars... the very epeditomy of what you hate.

"Star Wars" at least doesn't pretend to be science. "Star Trek" on the otherhand should make up it's mind, STOP PRETENDING TECHNO-BABBLE IS SCIENCE!

And tell me, prior to "Star Wars" what was the highest grossing sci-fi movie of all time?...say it...say it...SAY IT!...THAT'S RIGHT "2001" BABY! Silly science has it's place, but I think there should be a balance of the two on TV, and this is the first step.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

A number of folks have already addressed this well as far as the dramatic reasons for doing this, but I’ll try to put it another way. Space combat governed by the science of today would be boring. And who is going to watch boring?

Firefly was an interesting show. I really liked it. I can’t wait for the movie. But one reason it didn’t work as television is because it broke too many dramatic necessities to make it interesting to a larger audience, and one of these was trying to be too realistic in its portrayal of vacuum operations.

As for what constitutes “realistic” in scifi, I’ll reiterate something I said earlier by posting a quote from another source: “We inevitably tend to envision the capabilities of putative extraterrestrials as being similar to, or slightly more advanced than ours”. (Seth Shostak November 2003, Space.com). Meaning that the more scientific-minded of us usually want our heroes to live and work in a world that follows roughly the same rules as ours does. Yet who is to say what those rules will be in 100 years, or 200, or 500?

Our understanding of the nature of the universe has changed so many times in the last 2000 years we often find it comical to see how our ancestors viewed creation. And the more we learn about he nature of the universe today, the more we realize just how much we still don’t know. How will our descendents 2000 years hence see our view of the universe? Probably the same way we see the view of our ancestors.

How do we KNOW that in 200 years ships won’t move through space as if in a liquid medium, and may then create some form of sound? If you accept FTL capabilities in any form, or the control over the force of gravity, then why is the rest so difficult?

JJR

Let me put this in another way. I COULD be riding an invisible, pink unicorn. But can you provide me with evidense that I am? There's a rule in science (can't remember what it's called) that says "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't." Furthermore, while our ancestors might not have understood the world, it's those ideas they got through observations that are most accurate (we have not yet disproven Newton, because he was observant, as we try to be). What you're referring to is called a "singularity", or a point at which predicting the advancement of science becomes impossible. But this does not override previously established laws of physics. The fact that E=MC2, doesn't mean that an object in motion no longer tends to stay in motion. For more, follow this link:

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/grading.html

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by peter noble

Hmm, interesting, very interesting.

You do know that Vipers and Raiders etc manouver in some sort of 'gravity bubble' don't you?

Best,

Peter

So why can't this "gravity bubble" be used for all acceleration, rather than just having thrusters on the back?

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Sept17th

What the hell is a "flying bridge"?

I think you all or ya'll are in the minority. I think the group you represent have a boring idea of what science fiction on TV should be. I think some one as highly enlightened as your self shouldn't be eating TV dinners its so 1978.

I think what you described above with the silence of space, bullets and Muppets should have its own name...maybe something other than Battlestar Galactica which clearly is so flawed to you.

So liking realism means we don't like TOS? So are you saying that all fans of "2001: A Space Oddessey" hate "Star Wars". Well guess what, in spite of liking realism every now and then, I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you don't like sound in space, then TURN THE VOLUME OFF!

And how do you propose I edit out the visible lasers?

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by antelope526

If you believe in UFOs and also certain military and private propulsion theories future craft (and current UFOs) will be (are) enveloped in an artificial gravitational field. The craft basically "falls" in whichever direction the controller wants. Such artificial fields also supposedly can result in the occupant not feeling acceleration. Both Boeing, NASA, and Russia are now openly working on projects in this arena. If such things turn out to be true we should see super acceleration and near light speed craft in the next 100 years.

Fine, but if this were the case there would be NO thrusters, not just thrusters on the back.

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by Mustex

So liking realism means we don't like the original Battlestar Galactica series ? So are you saying that all fans of "2001: A Space Oddessey" hate "Star Wars". Well guess what, in spite of liking realism every now and then, I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made.

Mustex -

I just finished watching a 13-minute documentary on the bonus disk for the Star Wars DVD trilogy set. It's called "The Force is With Them - Inspiring a Generation". Basically, it's a mini-documentary where they have interviewed post-Star Wars directors and producers on how Star Wars as a style of filmmaking inspired them to do what they do and make the films they make.

The list includes names like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Dean Deviln, Roland Emmerich & Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott was quoted as saying "George Lucas took the starkness of space in 2001 and took it to a higher level..." All of these directors/producers talk about how Star Wars inspired them on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.

These guys also talk about how Lucas pioneered such industry standards as THX sound recording, Skywalker Sound and their "edit droid" process, the development of motion control photography and the creation of ILM. They also talk about how the action adventury/sci-fi fantasy style basically changed the way modern science fiction and fantasy stories are told.

Basically, if we go with your point of view on filmmaking, you want to go back to the dark ages because you are all geeked out on scientific reality being the new style when it comes to Sci Fi storytelling on a visual/audio level. Like I said, they did it "quiet-like" with 2001 and that was 36 years ago. Since 1977, it's been a whole other way of doing things.

You can flog this horse over and over again, but there's 3 generations or more that grew up with filmmaking the way it is and I don't think many want to go back!

Best of luck on your 'crusade for scientific truth'....

Best,
Bryan

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

Let me put this in another way. I COULD be riding an invisible, pink unicorn. But can you provide me with evidense that I am? There's a rule in science (can't remember what it's called) that says "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't."

I doubt that that is a “rule”, and sounds more like a variation on what many people think Ockham’s Razor propounds (many scientists suggest Ockham’s Razor means things it actually doesn’t, and apply it improperly). Your statement is counter to the foundation that nothing can be proved, only disproved. Just because the evidence isn’t observable doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It simply means we can’t observe it.

Originally Posted by Mustex

Furthermore, while our ancestors might not have understood the world, it's those ideas they got through observations that are most accurate (we have not yet disproven Newton, because he was observant, as we try to be).

Actually the observations of our ancestors were what lead us to believe that there was life on Mars and that time is cyclical and not linier (it may be, but that is more of a philosophical discussion). As for Newton, if he were putting forth his theories today, he would probably be shot down. Newton’s observations don’t really explain anything as to cause, but simply show us how to measure the effect. It can be (and has been) argued very convincingly that Newtonian gravity is a fundamentally flawed concept, and that it violates established physical laws (Conservation of Energy, and no, the Work Function doesn’t fix the problem). And while “disproven” may be too strong a word, Newton has been replaced as being archaic and incomplete. Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is considered the standard model today (which doesn't mean that GR is NOT flawed).

Originally Posted by Mustex

What you're referring to is called a "singularity", or a point at which predicting the advancement of science becomes impossible. But this does not override previously established laws of physics.

Interesting, I had never heard that term used in that way before. However, new science is always overriding previously established science. History is full of examples. And physics is not sacrosanct as a branch of science. Laws can be found to be fallacious, but even if they are not, theory should not hold the weight law does.

Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the site, but it’s cool to have it posted here.

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

And how do you propose I edit out the visible lasers?

Even today, the term "laser" has become a euphamistic one for any directed energy beam created by population inversion. They are even using a proton "laser" in medical research (this is not the same as the cancer-zapping proton beam). Traditional lasers also have issues as space-born weapons, suggesting that what you are seeing aren't traditional lasers.

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Warrior

BTW, nuBG uses "bullets", or hard projectile weapons on the Vipers, right?

This has yet to be solidly established, and is more an interpretation of some viewers.

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by peter noble

I'd like to here more about this, I've never heard of this in SF before, is it like an Alderson Drive?

Peter,


Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.



JJR

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

This has yet to be solidly established, and is more an interpretation of some viewers.

JJR

With all due respect, considering that the primary armaments of the Galactica herself in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series were bullet/projectile based, and considering that Adama specifically said: "Go find me some bullets, Chief." and "No, get the bullets back to the Galactica." I think it's safe to say that the Vipers and the Galactica in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series use bullets.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by martok2112

With all due respect, considering that the primary armaments of the Galactica herself in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series were bullet/projectile based, and considering that Adama specifically said: "Go find me some bullets, Chief." and "No, get the bullets back to the Galactica." I think it's safe to say that the Vipers and the Galactica in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series use bullets.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Martok, my man! Drawing conclusions so quickly with a whole series ahead of us?



Here’s why I’m reserving judgment:

1) Just as “laser” can be euphemistic, so too can “bullet”.
2) While bullet translates to projectile, it does not necessarily translate to solid.
3) We don’t know that the “bullets” being referred to are specifically viper ammunition. We do know that there are other types of ammo there, as Tigh tells us.
4) The rail guns mounted on the Galactica are much larger than the weapons mounted on the Vipers, look different, and their issue is rendered very differently. This suggests a different technology.



JJR

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Peter,


Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.



JJR

Thanks JJR, interesting stuff.

Could you post a link to your website so I can bookmark it?

Best,

Peter

[Rowan]

For those interested in Dr. Alcubierre's theory on warp drive


http://www.members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf


and there is this site that supports his theory through various theories and calculations

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetin...bierreWarp.htm

his work was made public in : Miguel Alcubierre’s, landmark paper "The Warp Drive: Hyper fast travel within General Relativity," in the journal Classic and Quantum Gravity(11, L73, 1994)

There is also this page that directs you to various other pages where discussion on physics and space travel are taking place
http://www.stahlbrandt.com/html/beyo...arp_drive.html


and for those who love history and space travel etc. there is this book...
http://www.daviddarling.info/works/spaceflight.html

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by peter noble

Thanks JJR, interesting stuff.

Could you post a link to your website so I can bookmark it?

Best,

Peter

Thanks.

I'll be moving it to another domain once its finished, but this is where it lives now...

http://www.geocities.com/gilesdancer/index.html

I intend to finish the majority of the content by the end of the year, and then start to work on the graphics and design. I will also be opening up a section to track my other "TOS" projects...a fan film project, and a full-scale "TOS" Viper cockpit and its "flight manual" .

But real life gets in the way all the time, so things are slow...



JJR


( Every time I tried to abbreviate "TOS" it would post as "the Original Battlestar Galactica", or something like that. The quotes seem to have taken care of that, but uhhh...)

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Thanks.

I'll be moving it to another domain once its finished, but this is where it lives now...

http://www.geocities.com/gilesdancer/index.html

I intend to finish the majority of the content by the end of the year, and then start to work on the graphics and design. I will also be opening up a section to track my other "TOS" projects...a fan film project, and a full-scale "TOS" Viper cockpit and its "flight manual" .

One word: "Wow".

I've got a lot of reading to do!

Best,

Peter

[Ioraptor]

Thanks for the links Rowan. If you scroll down to page 9 of the first links pdf you find the classic problem with warp drive and wormholes. You need exotic matter or negative energy; both exist only in theory.
A smart friend of mine pointed out that equations for wormholes and warp drives require a whole lot of energy (once you figure out a way to generate negative energy). To travel any significant distance you would have to convert the mass of a Jupiter size planet into energy! Yikes!

So yes, I think those theories are eventually going to open up space to us, but its not going to be anytime soon. More promising are the discoveries being made concerning electromagnetism and gravity. Some kind of gravity control, even if its merely a way to reduce the weight of a mass (easing fuel costs dramatically) will appear in our lifetimes.
And I wouldnt rule out a dramatic discovery that revolutionizes travel.

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

If you scroll down to page 9 of the first links pdf you find the classic problem with warp drive and wormholes. You need exotic matter or negative energy; both exist only in theory.

(I'm enjoying this man! Thanks to you and everyone else for the stimulating discussion!!! )

There are flaws, although a number of these have been addressed in later papers. Yet, I must point out first that while negative energy on the scale we are talking about is only theoritical, negative energy states are not, and have been shown to exist in a number of experiments.

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf.../wormhole.html

Let me also point out that much of modern cosmology and physics is also only theory, including General and Special Relativity.

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

So yes, I think those theories are eventually going to open up space to us, but its not going to be anytime soon.

And therein lies my point all along. Who is to say that these technologies, so far acvanced for us, won't be commonplace in 500 or 1000 years?




JJR

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Martok, my man! Drawing conclusions so quickly with a whole series ahead of us?



Here’s why I’m reserving judgment:

1) Just as “laser” can be euphemistic, so too can “bullet”.
2) While bullet translates to projectile, it does not necessarily translate to solid.
3) We don’t know that the “bullets” being referred to are specifically viper ammunition. We do know that there are other types of ammo there, as Tigh tells us.
4) The rail guns mounted on the Galactica are much larger than the weapons mounted on the Vipers, look different, and their issue is rendered very differently. This suggests a different technology.





JJR

In that, good sir, I do believe ye have a point.

Clearly, if anything, all the projectile weapons (the cannons on the Viper, and the CIWS systems on the Galactica) are high explosive rounds of some type, and bullets may be the catch all phrase for such weaponry.

I am also interested to see the tech explanations behind the Galactica's rail gun system. I know the principles of a rail gun, but it'll be interesting to see their take on it.

Perhaps we will see a Tech Manual published for the new show.


Respectfully,
Martok2112

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

Mustex -

I just finished watching a 13-minute documentary on the bonus disk for the Star Wars DVD trilogy set. It's called "The Force is With Them - Inspiring a Generation". Basically, it's a mini-documentary where they have interviewed post-Star Wars directors and producers on how Star Wars as a style of filmmaking inspired them to do what they do and make the films they make.

The list includes names like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Dean Deviln, Roland Emmerich & Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott was quoted as saying "George Lucas took the starkness of space in 2001 and took it to a higher level..." All of these directors/producers talk about how Star Wars inspired them on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.

These guys also talk about how Lucas pioneered such industry standards as THX sound recording, Skywalker Sound and their "edit droid" process, the development of motion control photography and the creation of ILM. They also talk about how the action adventury/sci-fi fantasy style basically changed the way modern science fiction and fantasy stories are told.

Basically, if we go with your point of view on filmmaking, you want to go back to the dark ages because you are all geeked out on scientific reality being the new style when it comes to Sci Fi storytelling on a visual/audio level. Like I said, they did it "quiet-like" with 2001 and that was 36 years ago. Since 1977, it's been a whole other way of doing things.

You can flog this horse over and over again, but there's 3 generations or more that grew up with filmmaking the way it is and I don't think many want to go back!

Best of luck on your 'crusade for scientific truth'....

Best,
Bryan

You're confused. I was AGREEING WITH YOU. I said I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made (read over my post more carefully next time, please). I actually consider "2001" to be strictly mediocre, but I do like the realistic science. I think we need a balance between realism, and sillytech, with some shows that represent either on TV. Just because I enjoy "2001" DOES NOT MEAN I HATE STAR WARS! I LOVE STAR WARS, AND WILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO DOESN'T!

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

I doubt that that is a “rule”, and sounds more like a variation on what many people think Ockham’s Razor propounds (many scientists suggest Ockham’s Razor means things it actually doesn’t, and apply it improperly). Your statement is counter to the foundation that nothing can be proved, only disproved. Just because the evidence isn’t observable doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It simply means we can’t observe it.

I looked it up, and it was the Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor. Here's a quote from stardestroyer.net:

Originally Posted by Mike_Wong

This is the tactic of shifting the burden of proof onto the wrong party. Another version is the assumption that a lack of evidence for side A constituted de facto evidence for side B, even though it was side B that actually bore the burden of proof. For example:

"You can't prove that Earth in Star Trek is not protected by massive shield grids which can withstand orbital bombardment, huge surface weapon emplacements, and orbiting weapon platforms. The fact that we haven't seen them doesn't prove that they don't exist."

"Since you've never actually seen Borg cubes destroyed by a Death Star superlaser, you have no evidence for your claim that they wouldn't be able to adapt to it."
In real life:

"It takes just as much faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in Him, because you can't disprove God's existence any more than I can prove it."

"How can you deny all of the alien abduction stories? You can't seriously tell me that all of the witnesses are lying or delusional. You can't seriously tell me that all of the pictures are faked or inconclusive. You're buying into the Big Lie, and you won't admit that you can't disprove these theories."
In general, the logical principle of parsimony (also referred to as Occam's Razor when discussing the philosophy of science) means that the default condition for a phenomenon is not to believe in its existence. This is a logical and practical policy; if we automatically believe in everything until it is disproven, then we immediately paralyze ourselves because there is quite literally an infinity of ideas which we could invent out of thin air (for example, try to prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn).

In other words, belief in any phenomenon is a positive condition which must be justified, ie- the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming the existence of a phenomenon, not the person denying it. Let's apply that principle to the above examples:

The first Star Wars example is pretty straight-forward; it is unreasonable to demand that someone prove that things we've never seen do not exist. It's true that we have no absolute proof of their nonexistence, but we must choose the most logical conclusion in this situation, and that is "no massive planetary defenses". We cannot assume their existence without some kind of positive evidence. The second Star Wars example is a bit more convoluted: he tries to turn the situation upside down. Borg adaptation technology with limitless capabilities is an absurd idea, yet he expects us to accept it as a default condition, thus demanding that we accept the burden of proof to show that it is not limitless!

The first real-life example is a classic religionist ploy. However, the logical principle of parsimony means that when faced a lack of evidence either way, the most logical conclusion is that it does not exist. In other words, the burden of proof is on anyone who would claim that God does exist (that's why honest Christians admit that they have nothing but their faith, while the idiots and liars try to pretend that their belief system is no less logical than an atheist's conclusions). The second real-life example is another unfortunate but common ploy: he acts as though we should assume the existence of a patently absurd phenomenon: interstellar travellers who would travel dozens, perhaps thousands of light years (an act which might not even be physically possible), only to mutilate cows and abduct people from trailer parks! As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (certainly much more than appeals to popularity or laughably grainy pictures), yet he puts the onus on us to disprove them.

[thomas7g]

I think we need fantasy fun tech. But it must never make a glaring and annoying mistake. It must be reasonably believable.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Peter,


Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.



JJR

That isn't ST Warp. ST Warp requires inertial dampeners to keep you from splatting, meaning it DOES involve acceleration.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

(I'm enjoying this man! Thanks to you and everyone else for the stimulating discussion!!! )

There are flaws, although a number of these have been addressed in later papers. Yet, I must point out first that while negative energy on the scale we are talking about is only theoritical, negative energy states are not, and have been shown to exist in a number of experiments.

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf.../wormhole.html

Let me also point out that much of modern cosmology and physics is also only theory, including General and Special Relativity.



And therein lies my point all along. Who is to say that these technologies, so far acvanced for us, won't be commonplace in 500 or 1000 years?




JJR

It's like the invisible, pink unicorn. You're trying to move the burden of proof.