Did battlestars have deflector shields? [Archive]

Centurion Draco

December 30th, 2005, 09:32 AM

Exactly! As has been said, any ship wanting to travel at speeds approaching light speed needs some sort of deflector shields/ navigational deflector array, or it could be destroyed by impacting objects barely larger than grains of sand.

There are clearly force-fields preventing atmospheric loss at the hanger bays, and it would follow that these are an extension of the main shields, and would offer protection to some degree in the event of hull breaches, depending on how much power was available, and how 'stretched' the system was.
It can be sumised, that the system is extremely versatile, allowing for extension out forwards from the hull when flying at light speed, to deflect particulate matter, dust, small rocks etc. And as is seen when the Galactica shields Terra from a global missile strike, the forward energy array is massively powerful, able to project an energy field that is large enough to encompass the upper atmosphere of an entire planet. From the language that Adama uses when talking about it in that episode, I always assumed that it can also be focussed into a destructive 'beam' or Laser (as they'd say). So it's clearly a multi usage energy focusing system.
It seems obvious, that the system would be very power intensive, and is possibly better against matter than energy. Which is why in battle, it seems to pull in very close becoming almost part of the hull's skin, in almost an augmented structural integrity field, to allow outward fire from the defensive turrets, and two-way traffic from shuttles and vipers without the constant dropping and raising of shields that we see in Star Trek.
But lets not forget how important such a system would be on a ship like Galactica.
Another facet of it would probobly generate the artificial gravity. Another would be the inertia dampening that the ship would need when performing high speed manouvers, or accelerating to light speed (no use being fast, if you crew gets turned to puree!).
Seeing as Galactica's 'thrust' comes from traditional backwards facing 'burners', then the structural integrity field would need to stop this huge 'push' from turning the ship inside out!

All the ships have something of a similar system of shields and energy/gravity focusing systems. From the Vipers, with their massive thrust, right down to 'Colonial Movers' and 'Valley Forge' (the argo ship) with its delicate bio-domes.

AJMarks

December 30th, 2005, 03:16 PM

I've always thought that the Galactica had two different types of shielding. The first one is similiar to a window with almost no defensive qualities. These are seen in the landing bays where there is at least one or two scenes where a Cylon raider is flying into the landing bay. A true defensive shield should prevent something like this in a real attack. The second shield is the defensive shield that I feel is linked with the armor of the ship. The shielding enhances and spreads out an impact of and enemy weapon.

Just my two cents! :salute:

Dayton3

December 30th, 2005, 06:20 PM

Dawg

December 30th, 2005, 06:29 PM

By the way, at the end of "The Living Legend" when Cain is preparing to move in an finish off the two baseships doesn't he say words to this effect...."Arm all air to air missiles and prepare them for point blank launch. Not even their shields can protect them"............

I assume if the Cylon baseships at shields then battlestars did as well.

And mere seconds before that he ordered 'electronic defenses to maximum'.

Yeah, battlestars had force shields of some kind - they were just never discussed.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Westy

January 3rd, 2006, 03:07 PM

Yeah, battlestars had force shields of some kind - they were just never discussed.

Never discussed and not overly relied on to get them out of every bit of trouble to come their way like on some other shows...which adds more realism IMO.

I read up above here someone mentioning structural integrity fields and inertial dampening fields. I can possibly go with the inertial dampening fields, because they did have artificial gravity, but I can't buy into them having structural integrity fields at all. When the Galactica maneuvered, you could tell that she was massive, moved exactly and overall was majestic, she was not like the Enterprise....completely weightless, could turn on a dime and cheap looking in movement....again unlike certain other shows (ok ok...star trek!).

Star Trekian technologies aren't a good thing...too many lame ways to get you out of trouble, also they give the show more a sense of fantasy than realism. Sure...it can look neat on screen, but I always thought the Enterprise jumping around like it does...doing all those turns and stuff....makes the ship look more like a ballet dancer than something mean that can blow stuff up.

BST

January 3rd, 2006, 06:13 PM

When the Galactica maneuvered, you could tell that she was massive, moved exactly and overall was majestic, she was not like the Enterprise....completely weightless, could turn on a dime and cheap looking in movement....again unlike certain other shows (ok ok...star trek!).

Ok, now, quit pickin' on Trek..... that's the 2nd half of me name!! :D

****

This is an interesting thought, though, about the ships being weightless. Technically, both ships would be weightless in the vacuum of space but, I think what you may be referring to is 'mass' or perhaps a better word would be 'displacement'. Similar to ocean vessels, the ship's size would have a bearing on it's maneuverability, or turning radius, -- a PT boat would be more maneuverable than an aircraft carrier.

When comparing the Galactica to the Enterprise-D or -E, the Galactica was either just slightly longer than the Enterprise or up to 3 times as large, depending on which Galactica ship measurement is used. I've seen some peg the Galactica size at 2000 ft and some say 6000 ft. (Does anyone have the 'official word' on this?) According to the following website, the Enterprise (Galaxy class) measures out at 643 m, a bit more than 1900 feet.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/fleet-chart-1060.jpg

Damocles

January 5th, 2006, 03:16 PM

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating.html

Go here and scroll down and you'll see the Big G's shields in action!

Peter

I've been looking for visual evidence for the Colonials using a form of "electric armor" for quite some time!

http://dfn.dnmediagroup.com/story.php?F=1404845&C=thisweek

As for "projected" shields? There is a point diverter mentioned in BSG literature that I've always figured was a working magnetic diverter or MASER scanner;

You would build both in tandem to get this to work;

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/interstellar_ramjet.html

Thank you.

As always;

Damocles

January 5th, 2006, 03:51 PM

................we are discussing ROCKETS.

Ok, now, quit pickin' on Trek..... that's the 2nd half of me name!! :D

****

This is an interesting thought, though, about the ships being weightless. Technically, both ships would be weightless in the vacuum of space but, I think what you may be referring to is 'mass' or perhaps a better word would be 'displacement'. Similar to ocean vessels, the ship's size would have a bearing on it's maneuverability, or turning radius, -- a PT boat would be more maneuverable than an aircraft carrier.

When comparing the Galactica to the Enterprise-D or -E, the Galactica was either just slightly longer than the Enterprise or up to 3 times as large, depending on which Galactica ship measurement is used. I've seen some peg the Galactica size at 2000 ft and some say 6000 ft. (Does anyone have the 'official word' on this?) According to the following website, the Enterprise (Galaxy class) measures out at 643 m, a bit more than 1900 feet.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/fleet-chart-1060.jpg

For matter in micro-gravity, or on a ballistic trajectory; you refer to its inertial mass as the measurement.

Displacement is the acceleration of gravity measurement(weight) on a given mass to produce neutral buoyancy(float) in a given volume of displaced water.

Maneuvarability in space is strictly based on the ratio of thrust to inertial mass involved.

A unit with a ratio of 4/1(thrust to inertial mass) is more maneuverable on its vector than a unit with a ratio 2/1. That is a function independent of SIZE.

As always;

BST

January 5th, 2006, 04:21 PM

................we are discussing ROCKETS.

Ok, now, quit pickin' on Trek..... that's the 2nd half of me name!! :D

****

This is an interesting thought, though, about the ships being weightless. Technically, both ships would be weightless in the vacuum of space but, I think what you may be referring to is 'mass' or perhaps a better word would be 'displacement'. Similar to ocean vessels, the ship's size would have a bearing on it's maneuverability, or turning radius, -- a PT boat would be more maneuverable than an aircraft carrier.

When comparing the Galactica to the Enterprise-D or -E, the Galactica was either just slightly longer than the Enterprise or up to 3 times as large, depending on which Galactica ship measurement is used. I've seen some peg the Galactica size at 2000 ft and some say 6000 ft. (Does anyone have the 'official word' on this?) According to the following website, the Enterprise (Galaxy class) measures out at 643 m, a bit more than 1900 feet.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/s...-chart-1060.jpg

For matter in micro-gravity, or on a ballistic trajectory; you refer to its inertial mass as the measurement.

Displacement is the acceleration of gravity measurement(weight) on a given mass to produce neutral buoyancy(float) in a given volume of displaced water.

Maneuvarability in space is strictly based on the ratio of thrust to inertial mass involved.

A unit with a ratio of 4/1(thrust to inertial mass) is more maneuverable on its vector than a unit with a ratio 2/1. That is a function independent of SIZE.

As always;

Agreed. I used the naval analogy only because more folks might be familiar with it than with space vessels.

Much thanks on the explanation of maneuverability. :thumbsup:

So, if I understand correctly, a Battlestar would be just as maneuverable as a Viper as long as the Battlestar matched the Viper's 'thrust to inertial mass' ratio?

Hmm...

:)

Damocles

January 5th, 2006, 04:48 PM

Agreed. I used the naval analogy only because more folks might be familiar with it than with space vessels.

Much thanks on the explanation of maneuverability. :thumbsup:

So, if I understand correctly, a Battlestar would be just as maneuverable as a Viper as long as the Battlestar matched the Viper's 'thrust to inertial mass' ratio?

Hmm...

:)

Correct.

As long as the roll, pitch, yaw, rotate thrust axes as well as the main engines' thrust vectors maintain a constant equivalent ratio to inertial mass to that of a Viper, an Alligator should have equivalent moment of arc and acceleration to a Viper. If the thrust to inertial mass ratio is greater(and in a bigger rocket you can design this into it more easily than you could in a small rocket) the Alligator would out-rotate and out-accelerate a Viper.

The moment of inertia is the primary matter impedence property to overcome in space.

You don't have the friction of drag of air as you would have with aircraft, or of water as you would have with ships.

In space, its simpler; you have a vacuum, therefore minimal drag.

1. Moment of inertia
2. Gravitational tractor
3. Thrust to inertial mass

Are the primary physical parameters on the rocket.

Note that because of the(current) need to expel mass to obtain thrust that the ratios increase as the rocket's mass decreases?*

* This holds true as your relativistic mass increases over the delta vee as the constants for thrust mass expelled increase correspondent; as with the mass of the rocket at .9c+ when the inertial masses seem to approach infinity. Remember that this thrust to mass function is a directly proportional ratio, and is an observer viewpoint derived measurement. If you are inside the rocket you won't measure the rocket changing mass, nor would you detect a relativistic increase in mass expelled thrust.

As an extenal observer? You would be looking at the formation of a hypermass as it zipped by you at .9(bar)c^10

As always,

Westy

January 6th, 2006, 02:16 AM

Ok, now, quit pickin' on Trek..... that's the 2nd half of me name!! :D

LOL! :) Nothing personal! I still love TOS Trek though. And some of TNG...and a couple Voyager too. I lost interest when the focus moved from the people to whatever tech the writters could think up to save the day, that's all I was basically saying.

BST

January 6th, 2006, 02:35 PM

No problem, Westy. ;)

I just have to stomp my feet every now and then. Sometimes with my shoes on. But, I never do it when I'm holding a cup of coffee.

:D

Centurion Draco

January 6th, 2006, 06:33 PM

LOL! :) Nothing personal! I still love TOS Trek though. And some of TNG...and a couple Voyager too. I lost interest when the focus moved from the people to whatever tech the writters could think up to save the day, that's all I was basically saying.

'Like a Balloon...And something bad happens...'

Damocles

January 7th, 2006, 05:32 PM

'Like a Balloon...And something bad happens...'

In science, its called a pin.

Berman Trek.

Yuck.

It kind of grates on the nerves to be ;

holodecked,
timelooped,
particle of the weeked,
and technobabbled ad nauseum. :rotf:

Plus; to have to endure Patrick Stewart, or Kate Mulgrew acting (Mrs. Columbo). Or see Scott Bakula miscast as an actor(Best actor on that show was the dog.) Avery Brooks(Old Stoneface) at least tried.

Bring back Kirk!

As always;

Centurion Draco

January 7th, 2006, 06:49 PM

In science, its called a pin.

Berman Trek.

Yuck.

It kind of grates on the nerves to be ;

holodecked,
timelooped,
particle of the weeked,
and technobabbled ad nauseum. :rotf:

Plus; to have to endure Patrick Stewart, or Kate Mulgrew acting (Mrs. Columbo). Or see Scott Bakula miscast as an actor(Best actor on that show was the dog.) Avery Brooks(Old Stoneface) at least tried.

Bring back Kirk!

As always;

You must remember the Futurama episode with the original trek cast, and the energy field alien? I think it's 'Where no fan has gone before'.
They go on about how it always ends up with some incredibly complicated science solution, that then gets summed up in an incredibly simple analogy.
At which point I think Leela comes up with the plan which involves reconfiguring the energy-motron and using the ships phasers, tuned to the energy field's frequency to overload his molecular quantum matrix (or something)
And Bender turns around and says: 'Like putting too much air in a balloon!'

But when it invariably all goes tits up, Fry in a panic refers to the plan as 'like a balloon... and something bad happens'.

hmm, guess you had to be there, it's not funny reading it :/:

So saying, I did love the next gen! Even though the last season or so wasn't up to scratch.
Yesterday's Enterprise, Inner light, Tapestry. You just can't fault them!
DS9 was OK.
Voyager I kind of watched until Brad Dourif got killed off, but never really liked it.
Enterprise I only watch if I want to make myself angry for the rest of the day.

Weirdly, I'm half way through watching the DVDs of B5 at the moment.
I'm savouring every moment, as we are nearly mid-way into season three. Which of course is some of the greatest TV sci-Fi ever written.
In fact, just watched my personal fav (or one of them) Severed Dreams.

Damocles

January 7th, 2006, 07:31 PM

You must remember the Futurama episode with the original trek cast, and the energy field alien? I think it's 'Where no fan has gone before'.<snip>

But when it invariably all goes tits up, Fry in a panic refers to the plan as 'like a balloon... and something bad happens'.

Pop.

hmm, guess you had to be there, it's not funny reading it :/:

It was/is if you visualize Bender holding the pin while Fry inflates the balloon.

So saying, I did love the next gen! Even though the last season or so wasn't up to scratch.
Yesterday's Enterprise, Inner light, Tapestry. You just can't fault them!

Yesterday's Enterprise; You have two of Berman's favorite cliches; timeloop and reset Button. Whoopi Goldberg's acting was horrible.

Inner Light, No Apollo-era technology should have telemetry capability designed to pierce Federation shields. Patrick Stewart gave a pedestrian performance. The rest of the cast was better than average for them.

Tapestry? Another P)atrick Stewart solo vehicle. Here it isn't a timeloop or the holodeck, but we get the induced coma dream as we had in Inner Light. On top of that it features (Ugh) Q. Then we have the reset button again.

Yes, the episodes were okay, but what could you have done with them without Mister Ego and the supporting cast of cheese doodles to act the play or the average quality writing?

DS9 was OK.
Voyager I kind of watched until Brad Dourif got killed off, but never really liked it.
Enterprise I only watch if I want to make myself angry for the rest of the day.

Brad Dourif never made an impression on me. Total null set

Weirdly, I'm half way through watching the DVDs of B5 at the moment.
I'm savouring every moment, as we are nearly mid-way into season three. Which of course is some of the greatest TV sci-Fi ever written.

Even though B5 has some stinkers;

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/063.html

in general I love that series.
[/quote]
In fact, just watched my personal fav (or one of them) Severed Dreams.[/QUOTE]

You will love season four as you watch/;rewatch it; especially as you run up to Endgame.

But nothing's pewrfect. Just as CBSG has BSG1980; so does JMS have to answer for LoTR. I really think that SKIFFY and he might have killed B5 with that turkey.

But back on topic.

What do you think "Negative shield" meant in the context of the hypothesis about the Alligator's super-conducting armor?

As always;

Centurion Draco

January 8th, 2006, 11:46 AM

Pop.

It was/is if you visualize Bender holding the pin while Fry inflates the balloon.

Yesterday's Enterprise; You have two of Berman's favorite cliches; timeloop and reset Button. Whoopi Goldberg's acting was horrible.

Inner Light, No Apollo-era technology should have telemetry capability designed to pierce Federation shields. Patrick Stewart gave a pedestrian performance. The rest of the cast was better than average for them.

Tapestry? Another P)atrick Stewart solo vehicle. Here it isn't a timeloop or the holodeck, but we get the induced coma dream as we had in Inner Light. On top of that it features (Ugh) Q. Then we have the reset button again.

Yes, the episodes were okay, but what could you have done with them without Mister Ego and the supporting cast of cheese doodles to act the play or the average quality writing?

Brad Dourif never made an impression on me. Total null set

Even though B5 has some stinkers;

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/063.html

in general I love that series.

In fact, just watched my personal fav (or one of them) Severed Dreams.

You will love season four as you watch/;rewatch it; especially as you run up to Endgame.

But nothing's pewrfect. Just as CBSG has BSG1980; so does JMS have to answer for LoTR. I really think that SKIFFY and he might have killed B5 with that turkey.

But back on topic.

What do you think "Negative shield" meant in the context of the hypothesis about the Alligator's super-conducting armor?

As always;

LOL, you're so full of Grace Damocles!
How could anyone not instantly warm to you? ;)

OK,
Yesterdays Enterprise.
I hope Berman did like it! Its a great piece of work.
Of course it wasn't written by Berman. It was based on a script submitted under Micheal Piller's 'open submissions policy' by Trent Christopher Ganino (A great idea to encourage new talent!) And it was then reworked and fleshed out by the TNG staff writer and script co-ordinator Eric Stillwell, along with Ganino and Piller (although Piller doesn't get a writing credit). I deal with Eric from time to time (really nice bloke!) next time, I'll ask him if it was a favourite of Berman's. I would think so, everyone else loved it. Voted the best or one of the best episodes by just about everyone. A huge fan favourite, multi award winning etc etc.

Inner light.
Thats the whole crux of the show. Those elements of the doomed society who haven't got their heads buried in the sand, develop the technology specifically to save a representation of the essence of their culture.
It's got nothing to do with direct technological comparisons. They aren't trying to develop starships, they develop a specific technology for a specific task. Luckily for them, it happens to work despite the federation's mighty advanced technology.
But then again, hasn't that always been the way?
The simple low-tech often trumps the complicated high-tech.
It's a beautiful story, one of my favourites.

Tapestry.
Absolutely superb. A classic 'fable'. It's well written, the inclusion of 'Q' isn't overbearing, the story is solid, and the message very appealing to someone with my philosophical leanings.
You moan about the 'reset button'?
Isn't that the same plot device used in virtually every tv show?
The premise that by the end of the show everything will be back to normal, and almost exactly the same as it was when the show started.
It's no different from ST-TOS and it's supporting cast of disposable red-shirted cast members. The audience is comforted by the knowledge that by the end of the show, and no matter how many red-shirts are dead, or how great the danger was etc etc, everything will be 'back to normal'.
There is no difference between the show ending with Kirk saving the day for the umpteenth time by triumphing over the latest alien threat (in a torn shirt, and after teaching the latest alien woman to looovvve etc) than the status quo being restored by 'flicking off' the holodeck program or restoring the timeline etc.

Patrick Stewart's acting?
Yeah, damn those highly respected classically trained RSC 'hacks'.
Will they never learn that the pinacle of acting talent is simply being 'yourself' in a variety of costumes, while using different catchphrases.

Brad's a good actor. He's perpetually typecast as the nut-job serial killer type, and its a shame! But even in that familiar role he was still the best thing about Voyager.

Whoopie Goldberg's a comic. Her popularity at the time, and her love of Trek got her into the show. Not her acting talent.
It's a shame when shows include that sort of 'name vehicle' but it's not a new thing is it?
No I don't want to talk Hector and Vector! ;)

B5
Season 3 is the top of the pile for me.
It hit such a high point that even if JMS had hired a crew of top sci-fi writers to continue it, it couldn't have maintained the pace.
Season four is still excellent.
Season five is good, but ultimately I found a little unfullfilling.

I haven't seen the new movie yet.
I was waiting until I shown the mrs the entire series run first.
I'm shocked to hear it's not up to par. But then again, if your views on TNG are anything to go by, I guess I might well love it :D

At least it's got Andreas in it!
And if the rumours about his health are true, we should be happy for any chance to see him reprise his greatest role.

hmmm, negative shielding!
I'll ponder that while I do some work and get back to you Damo!
BTW, don't you think it's more like a monitor than a gator?

Later
Draco :cylon:

Damocles

January 8th, 2006, 07:22 PM

LOL, you're so full of Grace Damocles!
How could anyone not instantly warm to you? ;)

I'm a

http://www.acraftaffair.com/images/Teddy%20Bear.jpg

OK,
Yesterdays Enterprise.
I hope Berman did like it! Its a great piece of work.
Of course it wasn't written by Berman. It was based on a script submitted under Micheal Piller's 'open submissions policy' by Trent Christopher Ganino (A great idea to encourage new talent!) And it was then reworked and fleshed out by the TNG staff writer and script co-ordinator Eric Stillwell, along with Ganino and Piller (although Piller doesn't get a writing credit). I deal with Eric from time to time (really nice bloke!) next time, I'll ask him if it was a favourite of Berman's. I would think so, everyone else loved it. Voted the best or one of the best episodes by just about everyone. A huge fan favourite, multi award winning etc etc.

JMS spoiled me. You need to understand a little something. Each person brings a set of chops to criticism. What I wield as an ax is more of a Niven/Pournelle/Asimove approach to the genre. It is not so much a Humanist/socialist approach. I also hate stories that muck up the science.

So when I see Yesterday's Enterprise I notice things like the timeloop and the reset button. This episode could have been so much better, if the writing had been tighter, ,ore credible, and the time honored cliche of the Klinks being the Feds mortal enemy due to Romulan sneak attack premise hadn't been tried. There is your number one glaring plot hole. I don't like co-incidences leading to pivot points in plot or series history. Just why is it that this ship has to be the Enterprise C? Why can't it be the Intrepid or a Vulcan ship?

Now as to the acting?

Actually the best acting in that episode came from these people;

Denise Crosby as Lieutenant Tasha Yar
Christopher McDonald as Lieutenant JG Richard Castillo
Tricia O'Neil as Captain Rachel Garrett

Patrick Stewart, when given the opportunity to outKirk Kirk, muffed it.

I've seen Patrick Stewart act He can act. but not as a a TV actor in general or a Federation Starship Captain in particular. Royal Shakespeare or not, he never got the role of a Federation Captain down. I blame that on the lousy hack writing in ST;TNG and his mis-interpretation of his part. The "Tell them we surrender" jokes didn't come into the Trekker community for Cisco, Janeway, or even for Archer. Patrick Stewart is not Federation Captain Material. Period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damocles

January 8th, 2006, 07:48 PM

Inner light.
Thats the whole crux of the show. Those elements of the doomed society who haven't got their heads buried in the sand, develop the technology specifically to save a representation of the essence of their culture.

Why? What is the point? An artist may buy that line, but an engineer in the story will be working on a parasol shade to put into orbit, to cut down on the sunlight. The point is that the conditions presented in the story are totally boguis and not credible to anyone with even a high school education in chemistry or biology.

Neither should or could a culture like that develop anything to pierce terajoule event shielding-ever. To do so, they must understand how such shielding should work. Its like asking Aztecs to communicate with a future Arleigh Burke destroyer, by casting a canoe adrift into the Gulf of Mexico with a preset smoke signal device.

It's got nothing to do with direct technological comparisons. They aren't trying to develop starships, they develop a specific technology for a specific task. Luckily for them, it happens to work despite the federation's mighty advanced technology.

As you can see from my above remarks, the story succeeds or fails if you accept the premise. I KNOW better. It fails. Plus; as I have already explained, I find Stewart to be an actor who mis-interprets his role completely. Here, he is given a slice of life of life role to interpret, and he overacts it. He should have understated it a bit more.

But then again, hasn't that always been the way?
The simple low-tech often trumps the complicated high-tech.
It's a beautiful story, one of my favourites.

Historically? No. The over-complex and untried technology has teething troubles, until the engineers work out the bugs, and then the people who stay with the tried and true, who face it, die-in droves. That is the history of civil and military engineering. If you would like data, I refer you to highway safety statistics as an example. You will find that the deaths per 100,000 miles travelled are greater in ratio in 1939; than they are today in 2005/6.

Part of that is due to better built more crashworthy cars; as well as better engineered highways. You will also find that the collision energy in a typical accident has DOUBLED per kilogram mass. Faster cars.

So on the whole I find that "Inner light" appeals to the fantastical to establish its premise. It does not appeal to me. If you wish to write fantasy or produce it; then do so. Don't try to disguise it as science fiction.

That is a difference in philosophy and perspective I suppose. I found out a long time ago, I don't like the fold up and die with nobility type personality or story. Its not real: because it is not HUMAN.

Tapestry.
Absolutely superb. A classic 'fable'. It's well written, the inclusion of 'Q' isn't overbearing, the story is solid, and the message very appealing to someone with my philosophical leanings.

If you like that kind of story, then you must like "Its a Wonderful Life" or Dicken's "A Christmas Carole". Been there. Done that. I like Capra and Dickens; but I don't like this particular variation on the theme. It is phony and manipulative and preachy instead of being story driven. This episode did have one saving grace. It allowed Stewart to be Picard; as he truly is. The attempt to make the character seem to be a daring lieutenant fell flat. I believed Stewart as the Lt. jg astro-physcist. I don't believe in him as a captain-ever. He has no leadership charisma or command presence.

You moan about the 'reset button'?
Isn't that the same plot device used in virtually every tv show?

Look, sometimes, at Bonanza or Gunsmoke. Over the years the backstory comes in to bite Marshall Dillon or the Cartwrights in the backside. They have a history and those series show it from time to time. Check out Miss Kitty over the years or Hop Sing.

The premise that by the end of the show everything will be back to normal, and almost exactly the same as it was when the show started.
It's no different from ST-TOS and it's supporting cast of disposable red-shirted cast members. The audience is comforted by the knowledge that by the end of the show, and no matter how many red-shirts are dead, or how great the danger was etc etc, everything will be 'back to normal'.
There is no difference between the show ending with Kirk saving the day for the umpteenth time by triumphing over the latest alien threat (in a torn shirt, and after teaching the latest alien woman to looovvve etc) than the status quo being restored by 'flicking off' the holodeck program or restoring the timeline etc.

As lame as William Shatner is as an actor, he has COMMAND PRESENCE and he makes you believe he is the Captain. For comparison, try David Hedison or Richard Basehart(two hams if there ever were ones) as naval officers in "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". Basehart has it. Hedison doesn't. So you can see it on the screen; side by side. Or take a look at Stewart and Shatner together. Who carried that film? It wasn't Patrick. Patrick Stewart simply doesn't have that kind of presence. So what if Shatner, as Kirk, baffles the aliens and has a girl in every port? That is what sea captains did(and to be honest still do.)

As for the red-shirts?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&revid=729759863&qpos=0&upos=0&oi=revisions_inline&q=http://members.tripod.com/~cuculus/cook.html

Try being a bluejacket under that guy. Real life intrudes to verify the true basis for the fantastic red-shirt syndrome. Roddenberry, Forrester, and Weber didn't/don't write in a vacuum.

Patrick Stewart's acting?
Yeah, damn those highly respected classically trained RSC 'hacks'.
Will they never learn that the pinacle of acting talent is simply being 'yourself' in a variety of costumes, while using different catchphrases.

See the above remarks for the reason why I think Mister Stewart flubs the dub. This must be a case where I took a an instant dislike to the interpretation because it rang FALSE to my own REAL WORLD experience. I alsp frankly hate the idea of an Englishmen playing a Frenchman. It didn't fit from the opening of "Farpoint" on.

Brad's a good actor. He's perpetually typecast as the nut-job serial killer type, and its a shame! But even in that familiar role he was still the best thing about Voyager.

Can't help that. He's still a total null set to me. Not impressed.

Whoopie Goldberg's a comic. Her popularity at the time, and her love of Trek got her into the show. Not her acting talent.
It's a shame when shows include that sort of 'name vehicle' but it's not a new thing is it?
No I don't want to talk Hector and Vector! ;)

Whoopi has no excuse. She was good enough in "Ghost" to prove she can.

B5
Season 3 is the top of the pile for me.
It hit such a high point that even if JMS had hired a crew of top sci-fi writers to continue it, it couldn't have maintained the pace.
Season four is still excellent.
Season five is good, but ultimately I found a little unforfilling.
[quote]

Season four is rushed; but it still outshines three for performances and story arc. Claudia Christain rises(finally) to the occasion and as for Peter Jurasik? Almost flawless. Even Bruce Boxleitner wakes up and realizes rthat he's supposed to ACT!

[quote]
I haven't seen the new movie yet.
I was waiting until I shown the mrs the entire series run first.
I'm shocked to hear it's not up to par. But then again, if your views on TNG are anything to go by, I guess I might well love it :D

Don't take my word for it;
http://www.imdb.com/rg/title-tease/usercomments/title/tt0280453/usercomments

On second thought? Take my word for it.
The effects are muddy and mistimed; the plot stinks, the technology feels wrong, and I could care less if that haunted ship went POOF along with everybody in the movie with it!

At least it's got Andreas in it!
And if the rumours about his health are true, we should be happy for any chance to see him reprise his greatest role.

Without Peter Jurasik, as Londo, to act as his foil, Katsalas' G'Kar, doesn't work. Trust me, Andreas is just another Narn in the film.

hmmm, negative shielding!
I'll ponder that while I do some work and get back to you Damo!
BTW, don't you think it's more like a monitor than a gator?

For negative shielding I suggest you GOOGLE negative energy.

As to the battlestar being a monitor lizard?

I'Ve done this once; but here we go again;

Battlestar;
http://www.synapse.ne.jp/save/readers/yongari/galactica.jpg

Monitor lizard;
http://www.metroweb.co.za/~burgess@metroweb/RSA03_G02-25_Monitor_Lizard.jpg

Alligator;
http://www.neatherd.org/astronomy/NASA%20Gallery/Alligator%202.jpg
**************************************

Based on this last exchange CD, we have radically different viewpoints as to what each of us likes in SF; outside of CBSG.

I tend to like my science fiction a bit more realistic and credible/plausible, with a lot less fantasy, and sheer unadulterated baloney; which I find in the "socialist and militantly dystopian Federation" as portrayed in Berman Trek. It positively makes me want to cheer for the Romulans to do that abvomination in! Guess I'm a Ferengi at heart.

Fantastic I enjoy. Show me a Dyson Sphere and I'm with you. Fantasy, as is in not being credible in premise; or in the willing suspension of belief? Show me a holodeck that I know is impossible; or try to con me with the "Year of Hell" from "Voyager" or "The Arsenal of Freedom" from the ST/TNG? That I won't tolerate. Not even from JMS.

As always;

Centurion Draco

January 10th, 2006, 11:42 AM

Why? What's the point? An artist may buy that, but an engineer will be working on a parasol shade to put into orbit to cut down on the sunlight. The point is that the conditions presented in the story are totally boguis and not credible to anyone with even a high school education in chemistry or biology.

Neither should or could a culture like that develop anything to pierce terajoule event shielding-ever. To do so, they must understands how such shielding should work. Its like asking Aztecs to communicate with a future Arleigh Burke by casting a canoe adrift into the Gulf of Mexico with a preset smoke signal device.

As you cansee from my above remarks, the story succeeds or fails if you accept the premise. I KNOW better. It fails. Plus as I have already explained, I find Stewart to be an actor who mis-interprets his role completely. Here, he is given a slice of life of life role to interpret, and he overacts it. He should have understated it a bit more.

You don't know better at all Damocles, you simply have an opinion, which is fine.
However, you're just being plain insulting when you resort to Insinuations about peoples level of 'education'. It doesn't help you make your point.
I made a firendly jibe about you being 'full of grace' that's your 'starter for ten', take it on board, because if you want to continue our discussion, keep it friendly.

Anyway, back to subject.
Re-watch the episode Damo. I think there are plenty of examples of cultures ignoring their impending demise. We could all live to see something similar with Global Warming.
Different cultures develop different solutions to similar problems. The element of the society that produces the satelite realises that they cannot save themselves, so they try to save an 'essence' of their culture. You seem to be saying that's not important? I'd say that it's of absolutely paramount importance.
They realise that when their culture finally dies, everything that they have ever achieved, all their history, and their very memory will be extinguised. A few of them work to find a way to preserve something of their struggle. What could be more noble than that? They find a way to allow others to experience their struggle, to walk in their shoes. To see them 'warts and all' for the period of an entire lifetime in the twilight of their civilisation, without harm or risk in the form of an electronically induced 'lucid dream', what could be more perfect than that?

You assert that the satelite's 'nucleonic beam' couldn't pierce the shields of Enterprise?
Why not?
Because you want to dismiss one of the best episodes of any sci-fi series ever made, by arguing that one piece of ficticious technology can't possibly defeat another?
Even were I to agree that it's 'not possible', it would simply mean that virtually all sci-fi would be invalidated, as lets face it, ST-TNG is a damn site more 'scientifically correct' than most in the genre.
If you're going to dismiss any sci-fi that you can nit-pick, you are not going to watch much are you?

As for Jean-luc!
At least PS is an actor, and can 'act' as opposed to just playing himself. You don't like him? Your opinion. You think 'Inner light' is a bad episode? Again.
But you're not a fan of the show, and that shows in the fact that you dislike episodes that are universally aclaimed as some of the greatest by ST fans.
So I guess we're on different sides of the fence.

Historically? No. The over-complex and untried technology has teething troubles, until the engineers work out the bugs, and then the people who stay with the tried and true, who face it, die-in droves. That is the history of civil and military engineering. If you would like data, I refer you to highway safety statistics as anexample. You will find that the deaths per 100,000 miles travelled are greater in ratio in 1939 than they are today in 2005/6.

Part of that is due to better built more crashworthy cars as well as better engineered highways. You will also find that the collision energy in a typical accident has DOUBLED per kilogram mass. Faster cars.

So on the whole I find that "Inner light" appeals to the fantastical to establish its premise. It does not appeal to me. If you wish to write fantasy or produce it; then do so. Don't try to disguise it as science fiction.

A difference in philosophy and perspective I suppose. I found out a long time ago, I don't like the fold up and die with nobility type personality or story. Its not real because it is not HUMAN.

Are you seriously suggesting that low-tech can't defeat high-tech?
Tell that to the longbowmen at Agincourt, or the Zulu at Isandlwana, the list is endless.
The farmer who shot down the F118 Stealth fighter in Iraq.
The gunners who shot down Cruise Missiles over Baghdad.
But if you want to talk in the simplest terms, of low tech defeating high-tech.
Chaff/silver foil strips defeat complex radar.
Flares defeat heat seeking guidance systems.
Polished surfaces defeat Lasers.
Sand defeats Apache copter's.
Cardboard cut-outs defeat spy-satelites.
45 degree's defeats armour piercing sabo rounds.
Rock defeats Scissors ;)
I'm being daft, but you get the point.
It's no stretch at all to accept that somehow, an unexpected 'nucleonic' energy beam managed to pierce the Enterprise shields long enough to hit Picard.

Centurion Draco

January 10th, 2006, 11:43 AM

If you like that kind of story, then you must like "Its a Wonderful Life" or Dicken's "A Christmas Carole". Been there. Done that. I like Capra but I don't like this variation on the theme. It is phony and manipulative and preachy instead of being story driven. This episode did have one saving grace. It allowed Stewart to be Picard; as he truly is. The attempt to make the character seem to be a daring ensign fell flat. I believed Stewart as the Lt. jg astro-physcist. I don't believe in him as a captain-ever. He has no leadership charisma or command presence.

"Its a Wonderful Life" IS GREAT!
But Anything by Dickens is perfection.
Particularly "A Christmas Carole".
'Hear the insect on the leaf, proclaiming there is too much life among his brothers in the dust'.
As for Tapestry, I disagree that it was 'phony and manipulative and preachy'. The message is perhaps a truism, but if everyone from Plato to Nietzsche can have their own variation on 'what does not kill us makes us stronger' then I think it's not only an important lesson to bear in mind, but one that bears repeating. Especially when IMHO it's done with some class, as in Tapestry.

Look sometimes at Bonanza or Gunsmoke. Over the years the backstory comes in to bite Marshall Dillon or the Cartwrights in the backside. They have a history and those series show it from time to time. Check out Miss Kitty over the years or Hop Sing.

A backstory doesn't alter the fact that the 'reset' as you refer to it, is the mainstay of TV drama series, and always has been.

As lame as William Shatner is as an actor, he has COMMAND PRESENCE and he makes you believe he is the Captain. For comparison, try David Hedison or Richard Basehart(two hams if there were ever ones) as naval officers Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Basehart has it. Hedison doesn't. So you can see it on the screen side by side. Or take a look at Stewart and Shatner together. Who carried that film? It wasn't Patrick. Patrick Stewart simply doesn't have it. So what if Shatner, as Kirk, baffles the aliens and has a girl in every port? That is what sea captains did(and to be honest still do.)

As for the red-shirts?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&revid=729759863&qpos=0&upos=0&oi=revisions_inline&q=http://members.tripod.com/~cuculus/cook.html

Try being a bluejacket under that guy. Real life intrudes to verify the basis for the fantastic. Roddenberry Forrester and Weber didn't/don't write in a Vacuum.

See the above remarks for the reason why I think Mister Stewart flubs the dub. This must be a case where I took a an instant dislike to the interpretation because it rang FALSE to my own REAL WORLD experience. I alsp frankly hate the idea of an Englishmen playing a Frenchman. It didn't fit from the opening of Farpoint on.

I don't want to get into a Kirk Vs Picard argument. I like them both, possibly Kirk slightly more. BUt thats not to say I don't respect PS as an actor.

An Englishman playing a Frenchman! GOOD GOD! Whatever next? An American playing a Scotsman? ;)

Can't help that. He's still a total null set to me. Not impressed.

Whoopi has no excuse. She was good enough in "Ghost" to prove she can.

[quote]
B5
Season 3 is the top of the pile for me.
It hit such a high point that even if JMS had hired a crew of top sci-fi writers to continue it, it couldn't have maintained the pace.
Season four is still excellent.
Season five is good, but ultimately I found a little unforfilling.
[quote]

Season four is rushed but it still outshines three for performances and story arc. Claudia Christain rises(finally) to the occasion and as for Peter Jurasik? Almost flawless. Even Bruce Boxleitner wakes up and realizes rthat he's supposed to ACT!

Don't take my words for it;
http://www.imdb.com/rg/title-tease/usercomments/title/tt0280453/usercomments

On second thought? Take my word for it.
The effects are muddy and mistimed; the plot stinks, the technology feels wrong, and I could care less if that haunted ship went POOF with everybody in the movie went with it!

Without Peter Jurasik, as Londo, to act as his foil, Katsalas, G'Kar, doesn't work. Trust me, Andreas is just another Narn in the film.

For negative shielding I suggest you GOOGLE negative energy.

As to the battlestar being a monitor lizard?

I'Ve done this once but here we go again;

Battlestar;
http://www.synapse.ne.jp/save/readers/yongari/galactica.jpg

Monitor lizard;
http://www.metroweb.co.za/~burgess@metroweb/RSA03_G02-25_Monitor_Lizard.jpg

Alligator;
http://www.neatherd.org/astronomy/NASA%20Gallery/Alligator%202.jpg
**************************************

Based on this last exchange CD, we have radically different viewpoints as to what each of us likes in SF; outside of CBSG.

I tend to like my science fiction a bit more realistic and credible/plausible, with a lot less fantasy, and sheer unadulterated baloney which I find in the "socialist and militantly dystopian Federation" as portrayed in Berman Trek. It positively makes me want to cheer for the Romulans!

Fantastic I enjoy. Show me a Dyson Sphere and I'm with you. Fantasy as is in not being credible in premise or in the willing suspension of belief? Show me a holodeck that I know is impossible or try to con me with the "Year of Hell" or "The Arsenal of Freedom"? That I won't tolerate. Not even from JMS.

As always;

Brad's and acquired taste I grant you.
Didn't like Whoopie in Ghost either.
I can barely accept her in TNG.

B5?
umm, I didn't dislike s4, I just liked 3 more. I thought 5 was down on the scale.

Negative shielding, I'll rewatch saga and get back to you.
Tech eps?
Yeah, I'm a fan too.
But the episodes that further the cause of the Utopian socialist Federation are closer to my heart, and I believe Roddenberry's vision.

Damocles

January 10th, 2006, 01:29 PM

A little CHAOS is a GOOD thing!

Look at that quote and then see what I value.

Freedom. I hate Vorlons.

You didn't have freedom in Roddenberry's Dystopia.

What you had was a socialist bureaucratic state that imposed its vision on all its citizens and refused to allow them to vary from the acceptable mean.

Consider for example, the idiocy about Hologram rights. First of all when does a hologram acquire substance in fact as well in physical presence as in law? The last time I checked, even a self-organizing algorithmn was not self-adapting or self-aware-two conditions which a corporation will be able to fulfill tghis present day.

As for the non-use of money? Baloney. The measure of worth is labor/time and that is both qualitatively and quantitively pegged. The lack of incentive means a stratified and static society. That is your Federation.

The Klinks and the Roms are better organized and more progressive and Liberal. The Feds are reactionaries.

As always.

3DMaster

January 11th, 2006, 03:14 PM

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating.html

Go here and scroll down and you'll see the Big G's shields in action!

Peter

That's not a deflector/energy shield. That's the energy absorption, redistribution and radiating the energy back out of the hull; not a shield. Of course, one would have to ask wether it's the hull, or the weapon that's doing it, but alas. I don't think the BG has an energy shield. It's armor is extremely tough, and possibly has something similar to polarized hull-plating, but not a shield.

3DMaster

January 11th, 2006, 03:50 PM

Look at that quote and then see what I value.

Freedom. I hate Vorlons.

You didn't have freedom in Roddenberry's Dystopia.

What you had was a socialist bureaucratic state that imposed its vision on all its citizens and refused to allow them to vary from the acceptable mean.

Right, of course, that's why there was freedom to be of any religion you wanted to be, free to do whatever you wanted to do, free to go wherever you wanted to go, free to buy whatever you wanted to buy - hell, Pike was half-thinking to go into selling sex slaves.

Consider for example, the idiocy about Hologram rights. First of all when does a hologram acquire substance in fact as well in physical presence as in law? The last time I checked, even a self-organizing algorithmn was not self-adapting or self-aware-two conditions which a corporation will be able to fulfill tghis present day.

Yeah, but a Hologram, the ones advanced enough to become self-aware and self-adapting and whatever. Just because our software today isn't self-aware, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future. If you're criteria for possible or impossible is: "Whatever we can't do now, we can never do in the future" it's a damn good thing the average human doesn't have the same criteria, or we'd never have managed to invent a knife or a wheel. Further, a corporation does not exist, it's a fictional existence; the people runing a corporation exist; the corporation and the rights it was given is nothing but a creation to keep rich managers from ever getting put in prison for stuff they did, they just go, "Hey, fine the corporation, that's what did it, not me." If soemthing as ludicrous as a corporation can be given the status of a person with rights, a hologram can get that too.

As for the non-use of money? Baloney. The measure of worth is labor/time and that is both qualitatively and quantitively pegged. The lack of incentive means a stratified and static society. That is your Federation.

Except that the Federation is anything but static, it does have currency, it grows, adapts and becomes stronger. I know, we still have a long way to go before we could become enlightened enough for the majority of us not to want and need money anymore, and you've provent that quite nicely, but there are people today who don't want or need money, and don't get money. Buddhist monks come to mind. So perhaps, someday.

The Klinks and the Roms are better organized and more progressive and Liberal. The Feds are reactionaries.

As always.

Right; much more progressive and liberal: because they enslave entire races, and kill everyone who doesn't agree with them, unless they're too powerful to do that too. Enslaving and killing... exactly where is it that enslaving and killing is the hallmark of progressive and liberal? Hmm...

Damocles

January 11th, 2006, 05:06 PM

Right, of course, that's why there was freedom to be of any religion you wanted to be, free to do whatever you wanted to do, free to go wherever you wanted to go, free to buy whatever you wanted to buy - hell, Pike was half-thinking to go into selling sex slaves.

Can you legally have Romulan Ale? No. Assertion set one destroyed.

If you think the Federation doesn't frown on religion then you haven't noticed the supercilious attitude the Feds adopt when they meet "quaint cultures?"

Religion in Trek?

http://www.ircruise.com/stasis/spgod.htm

Assertion two destroyed.

Can you build a cloaking device if you wanted to do so? No.

Assertion three destroyed.

Yeah, but a Hologram, the ones advanced enough to become self-aware and self-adapting and whatever. Just because our software today isn't self-aware, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future. If you're criteria for possible or impossible is: "Whatever we can't do now, we can never do in the future" it's a damn good thing the average human doesn't have the same criteria, or we'd never have managed to invent a knife or a wheel. Further, a corporation does not exist, it's a fictional existence; the people runing a corporation exist; the corporation and the rights it was given is nothing but a creation to keep rich managers from ever getting put in prison for stuff they did, they just go, "Hey, fine the corporation, that's what did it, not me." If soemthing as ludicrous as a corporation can be given the status of a person with rights, a hologram can get that too.

An imaging projection machine is not a differential algorithmn: nor is it self aware-ever. Period.

Don't confuse an ayeye with a hologram. The image of a reality is not the same as a simulcrum of intelligence.

Except that the Federation is anything but static, it does have currency, it grows, adapts and becomes stronger. I know, we still have a long way to go before we could become enlightened enough for the majority of us not to want and need money anymore, and you've provent that quite nicely, but there are people today who don't want or need money, and don't get money. Buddhist monks come to mind. So perhaps, someday.

Show me where the Federation grows adapts and becomes stronger?

The technology of TNG and Voyager as well as DS9 is actually performance-wise INFERIOR to the technology of ST/TOS. The science as well as the engineering is ludricrously awful;

http://www.stardestroyer.net/

Enough there to prove my point.

Assertion without proof is simply that. Assertion.

Do you think Buddhists live on air? They have to barter for their daily bread as does everybody else. Whether if it is preaching or farming they pay in labor.

Buddhist monks don't build starships. Engineers and technicians do. They also raise families and need to eat. Hence money.

So............no day...........no way.

Right; much more progressive and liberal: because they enslave entire races, and kill everyone who doesn't agree with them, unless they're too powerful to do that too. Enslaving and killing... exactly where is it that enslaving and killing is the hallmark of progressive and liberal? Hmm...

I remind you of John Schuck's speech as the Klingon Ambassador to the Federation Council (Shots 15-17 inclusive as in the script) to the Federation Council?

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin7/Star_Trek_IV.htm

Gives a very good view as to how the galaxy at large saw the imperialistic and aggressive and repressive ways of the Federation, doesn't it?

Now in the real world.........

Do you object to the murders going on in Myamar and Cambodia and Laos?

Maybe the ^Federation^ should do something about it? :D

:rotf:

Reality intrudes. Money isn't going anywhere. Communists, socialists and Buddhists all study Adam Smith religiously, and in general, people will like you; if you mind your own business, and don't try to impose your own views on their way of life. They may even be gently persuaded by trade and cross cultural contact to come around to your way of thinking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll take my ^Earth Alliance^ to your ^Federation^ any day.

As always

Westy

January 11th, 2006, 05:47 PM

Fantastic I enjoy. Show me a Dyson Sphere and I'm with you. Fantasy, as is in not being credible in premise; or in the willing suspension of belief? Show me a holodeck that I know is impossible; or try to con me with the "Year of Hell" from "Voyager" or "The Arsenal of Freedom" from the ST/TNG? That I won't tolerate. Not even from JMS.

Oh...I don't know...I remember the Holodeck episode in Voyager where it was like an old OLD scifi show...Capt. Proton and the evil genius dude with the death ray and Kate Mulgrew actually vamped it up. Now THAT was a riot. I didn't like much of Voyager, but that episode was a scream.

3DMaster

January 11th, 2006, 06:18 PM

Can you legally have Romulan Ale? No. Assertion set one destroyed.

Could you have Cuban cigars? ...oops, the US is just as bad as the Federation than; also a repressive sickoning state that does not grow, and most certainly does not think freedom is important, they take it away, all the time.

Further; last time I checked, there was no actual BAN on Romulan Ale for the civillian population. All we've seen is that Starfleet officers shouldn't have it.

Nothing destroyed.

If you think the Federation doesn't frown on religion then you haven't noticed the supercilious attitude the Feds adopt when they meet "quaint cultures?"

Religion in Trek?

http://www.ircruise.com/stasis/spgod.htm

Assertion two destroyed.

:lol: Oh, sweetheart. Just becuase the smart, scientist Starfleet people and the average government looks at religion as backwards, and unenlightened, does NOT mean you are not allowed to practice it, or that they would not let you serve in Starfleet or anywhere else if you have religious beliefds: see Worf. There are SEAS of difference. Me, I think religion is backwards, unenlightened and quaint as well, still think you're allowed to practice it, believe it, and do everything you want, be anything you want, do any job you want. Nothing destroyed.

Can you build a cloaking device if you wanted to do so? No.

Assertion three destroyed.

Uh... sure you could? Why not? There's not a single rule anywhere that a federation citizen can't build a cloaking device, or buy one and mount his ship with it. The Federation GOVERNMENT and STARFLEET signed a treaty that THEY would not develop and use them. Has nothing to do with any civillians.

An imaging projection machine is not a differential algorithmn: nor is it self aware-ever. Period.

Don't confuse an ayeye with a hologram. The image of a reality is not the same as a simulcrum of intelligence.

:rolleyes:

1. Data is a machine, he was built to be self-aware, so you could build an imaging projection machine that is self-aware as well. A total waste of resources fully overpowering anything, not to mention that the imaging projection machine will probably consider his existence hell; having no way to communicate other than to decide not to project what the computer wants it to project, or project his own holographic avatar. If you can built a self-aware robot/android, you can build a self-aware imaging machine.

2. The holograms, are NOT the imaging machine. In fact, the imaging machine has nothing to do with the holograms and whether or not they are self-aware at all, they're just projected by the imaging machines. It's the computer that runs their program that could allow them to be self-aware and intelligent.

3. If the computer running the holograms is powerful enough, the holographic programs/the characters can be given enough memory space and computational power to achieve self-awareness and intelligence. The same way the program that is commander Data has a powerful enough computer running it that he is self-aware, the same way that you and I are a program running in a powerful enough computer (our brains) that we are self-aware. If those holograms are complex enough, and have been given the knowledge of what they are, or even have been able to figure out what they are (like Moriarty) they would be self-aware and thus alive. In fact, a hologram would probably easier to become self-aware, self-changeable than Data. Data's computer and memory core is not changeable, unless he screws upon his head, and replaces a section of his memory with a new memory core and downloads the memory of the old smaller unit on the new one. A hologram would only have to issue a request to the computer for more of its power and memory; and if the program has the right priorities and security allowances, the computer - its operating system - gives it, allowing the hologram to expand itself and grow.

4. There are alive programs even now. Bilogists and computer scientists have made evolution simulations - simulated single celled organisms - that behave just like the physical ones. According to them, they behave so close to the real thing; they multiply, they adapt, they grow, that the computer scientists and biologists consider them alive, it's environment a computer cpu and memory, restricted to the memory blocks assigned to the program; but alive while they are active nontheless.

Show me where the Fedewration grows adapts and becomes stronger?

The technology of TNG and Voyager as well as DS9 is actually performance wise INFERIOR to the technology of ST/TOS. The science as well as the engineering is ludricrously awful;

http://www.stardestroyer.net/

Enough there to prove my point.

Please, SD.net are bunch of half-wits.

Ships grow bigger, they can go faster; they have survived multiple skirmishes, fought full out war against an enemy with superior numbers and technology, adapted to them and beat them: the Dominion.

Assertion without proof is simply that. Assertion.

Do you think Buddhist live on air? They have to barter for their daily bread as does everybody else. Whether if it is preaching or farming they pay in labor.

Preaching is not labor: labor is performing a job against a fixed pay. And a lot of them, don't even do that. There are monks that do nothing but meditate, the people nearby give them what they need. It's a different culture, the people who do work, freely give some of their stuff away supporting them.

Buddhist monks don't build starships. Engineers and technicians do. They also raise families and need to eat. Hence money.

So............no day...........no way.

If they don't need to pay to get a house, to eat, because everything is free, they have no need for money, and won't bother with it.

I remind you of John Schuck's speech as the Klingon Ambassador to the Federation Council (Shots 15-17 inclusive as in the script) to the Federation Council?

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin7/Star_Trek_IV.htm

Gives a very good view as to how the galaxy at large saw the imperialistic and aggressive and repressive ways of the Federation, doesn't it?

The Klingons are the enemy: they're conquerers, murders, enslavers; the Federation does none of those things. If people join them, they do it freely. Excuse me if I don't take the one enmies political manipulations as the view of the galaxy at large, let alone that it's the truth.

Now in the real world.........

Do you object to the murders going on in Myamar and Cambodia and Laos?

Maybe the ^Federation^ should do something about it? :D

The Federation wouldn't, because the lot of them are too primitive to be bothered with. Prime Directive... which is to leave them alone and do nothing, the exact OPOSITE of being imperialistic, but eh.

:rotf:

Reality intrudes. Money isn't going anywhere. Communists, socialists and Buddhists all study Adam Smith religiously, and in general, people will like you; if you mind your own business, and don't try to impose your own views on their way of life. They may even be gently persuaded by trade and cross cultural contact to come around to your way of thinking.

LOL. That's why the blow up buildings. "Doing business" with other cultures, the 'third world' on this mudball constitutes as bleeding them dry for hunger wages. If you think that will engender them toward you, you're seriously deluded. They'll hate you with fiery passion... like the average attitude toward America from that side of the world.

As for currencyless, sweety, the Federation isn't currencyless; it has Federation credits. People buy stuff all the time. They own ships, and run transports. They are however moneyless. The difference between currency and money is simple:

Currency is nothing but a bartering tool. No matter how much currency you have, you will NEVER be able to buy any power, NEVER buy a judge, NEVER buy a seat of office, never bring down companies and economies by gambling, etc.

Money is more: it allows you to buy power. Buy your way into the governemnt, buy judges, it allows you to buy pieces of paper, and buy doing that destabilize entire countries economics, even the simple trade, buying, production, etc. continues to go in.

In short: a society with money, is the opposite of capitalism, where there is only two things important: supply and demand. In true capitalism there's nothing more, no gambling/speculating can ever bring down a company; because the supply and demand, selling their products will go on regardless of what some poeple decide to gamble on. If gambling can bring down a company; you don't live in capitalism.

Damocles

January 11th, 2006, 10:23 PM

Could you have Cuban cigars? ...oops, the US is just as bad as the Federation than; also a repressive sickoning state that does not grow, and most certainly does not think freedom is important, they take it away, all the time.

Further; last time I checked, there was no actual BAN on Romulan Ale for the civillian population. All we've seen is that Starfleet officers shouldn't have it.

Oh really?

Nothing destroyed.

Assertion without proof. There is a a ban. Star Trek; The Undiscovered Country. Kirk to Chang comments on the Federation ban, but notes that command has its priveleges

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin/Star_Trek_Feature_6.htm

Shot 46 Chang says "I thought Romulan Ale was illegal?" Kirk replies, "One of the advantages of being a thousand light years from Federation Headquarters." a direct comment on the Federation's bureaucratic repressiveness.

:lol: Oh, sweetheart. Just becuase the smart, scientist Starfleet people and the average government looks at religion as backwards, and unenlightened, does NOT mean you are not allowed to practice it, or that they would not let you serve in Starfleet or anywhere else if you have religious beliefds: see Worf. There are SEAS of difference. Me, I think religion is backwards, unenlightened and quaint as well, still think you're allowed to practice it, believe it, and do everything you want, be anything you want, do any job you want. Nothing destroyed.

Ro Laren and Picard. Enough said.

Uh... sure you could? Why not? There's not a single rule anywhere that a federation citizen can't build a cloaking device, or buy one and mount his ship with it. The Federation GOVERNMENT and STARFLEET signed a treaty that THEY would not develop and use them. Has nothing to do with any civillians.

Treaty of Algeron;

It says the Federation shall not have a cloaking device. No distinction is made between civilian and military vessels. TNG; The Pegasus

:rolleyes:

1. Data is a machine, he was built to be self-aware, so you could build an imaging projection machine that is self-aware as well. A total waste of resources fully overpowering anything, not to mention that the imaging projection machine will probably consider his existence hell; having no way to communicate other than to decide not to project what the computer wants it to project, or project his own holographic avatar. If you can built a self-aware robot/android, you can build a self-aware imaging machine.

Bull. The computer is the entity;not the image. By the way a differential engine needs a positive feedback loop to be self aware. More inept Berman science here.

No feedback loop? no self learning mechanism. No adaptation and no ^choice^-hence non-sentience. You just have a heuristic program that responds to preset conditions.

2. The holograms, are NOT the imaging machine. In fact, the imaging machine has nothing to do with the holograms and whether or not they are self-aware at all, they're just projected by the imaging machines. It's the computer that runs their program that could allow them to be self-aware and intelligent.

Show me the computer? The hologram is treated as an independent entity and that is ERRANT NONSENSE.

You comncede the need for the computer, the ayeye. My point exactly. Thank you for restating it

3. If the computer running the holograms is powerful enough, the holographic programs/the characters can be given enough memory space and computational power to achieve self-awareness and intelligence. The same way the program that is commander Data has a powerful enough computer running it that he is self-aware, the same way that you and I are a program running in a powerful enough computer (our brains) that we are self-aware. If those holograms are complex enough, and have been given the knowledge of what they are, or even have been able to figure out what they are (like Moriarty) they would be self-aware and thus alive. In fact, a hologram would probably easier to become self-aware, self-changeable than Data. Data's computer and memory core is not changeable, unless he screws upon his head, and replaces a section of his memory with a new memory core and downloads the memory of the old smaller unit on the new one. A hologram would only have to issue a request to the computer for more of its power and memory; and if the program has the right priorities and security allowances, the computer - its operating system - gives it, allowing the hologram to expand itself and grow.

Computers don';t work that way. The differential engines we build run nothing like the way our brains operate.

http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/[url]

4. There are alive programs even now. Bilogists and computer scientists have made evolution simulations - simulated single celled organisms - that behave just like the physical ones. According to them, they behave so close to the real thing; they multiply, they adapt, they grow, that the computer scientists and biologists consider them alive, it's environment a computer cpu and memory, restricted to the memory blocks assigned to the program; but alive while they are active nontheless.

Baloney.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Don't confuse mathematical properties with sentience.

Please, SD.net are bunch of half-wits.

An opinion, but no proof.

Ships grow bigger, they can go faster; they have survived multiple skirmishes, fought full out war against an enemy with superior numbers and technology, adapted to them and beat them: the Dominion.

Baloney. U.S.S. Odyssey destroyed by a ramming Jem Heddar fighter; that an Earth Force HYPERION would send out a damage control party to repair by painting over the scorch marks where the Jem Heddar fighter bounced off before it exploded. The old U.S.S Enterpise(TOS) survived a close burst from a fusion bomb that detonated within a hundred meters of the hull. Balance of Terror

------------------------------------------

Damocles

January 11th, 2006, 10:24 PM

Preaching is not labor: labor is performing a job against a fixed pay. And a lot of them, don't even do that. There are monks that do nothing but meditate, the people nearby give them what they need. It's a different culture, the people who do work, freely give some of their stuff away supporting them.

Those monks pray when they meditate? People give them stuff to do that? Sounds like religious labor and pay to me. QED barter.

If they don't need to pay to get a house, to eat, because everything is free, they have no need for money, and won't bother with it.

TANSTAFL. They are paid for doing nothing and it is defintely not free. They cost somebody something. Conservation and Entropy principles remember?

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/2001-Aug-17_CAF_One_Page_Introduction.pdf

Incidentally Mister Wong is a practicing engineer who is fully cognizant of these things. Dismiss his expertise? From the mistakes you made above? I think you should not do that.

The Klingons are the enemy: they're conquerers, murders, enslavers; the Federation does none of those things. If people join them, they do it freely. Excuse me if I don't take the one enmies political manipulations as the view of the galaxy at large, let alone that it's the truth.

Ameniar and Vendicar. A Taste of Armageddon The feds sure are a peaceful culture all right? Ever figure out how Bajor wound up in the Fed column?

The Federation wouldn't, because the lot of them are too primitive to be bothered with. Prime Directive... which is to leave them alone and do nothing, the exact OPOSITE of being imperialistic, but eh.

Right................That's why Spock is subverting Romulan youth, right? TNG;Unification

LOL. That's why the blow up buildings. "Doing business" with other cultures, the 'third world' on this mudball constitutes as bleeding them dry for hunger wages. If you think that will engender them toward you, you're seriously deluded. They'll hate you with fiery passion... like the average attitude toward America from that side of the world.

Oh, so now you see (at last) the real world stand-in for the ^Federation^ that was the point of the morality ST;TUC tale. The rest of the world doesn't mind the money we give them or the stuff we buy from them. Its the arrogant attempt, by us, to impose our vision on their reality; that they resent[/U].(I happen to think that in the case of butchers and mass murderers that it is necessary, but I'm not hypocritical to think that we will be loved for the doing.).

As for currencyless, sweety, the Federation isn't currencyless; it has Federation credits. People buy stuff all the time. They own ships, and run transports. They are however moneyless. The difference between currency and money is simple:

You better not call me sweety, friend. We don't know each other well enough for such informality.

As for money? If you transfer it electronically or by paper chit or by an instrument of credit.................

Definitions of money on the Web:

the most common medium of exchange; functions as legal tender; "we tried to collect the money he owed us"
wealth reckoned in terms of money; "all his money is in real estate"
the official currency issued by a government or national bank; "he changed his money into francs"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Money is any marketable good or token used by a society as a store of value, a medium of exchange, or a unit of account. Money objects can meet some or all of these needs. Since the needs arise naturally, societies organically create a money object when none exists. In other cases, a central authority creates a money object; this is more frequently the case in modern societies with paper money.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Currency is nothing but a bartering tool. No matter how much currency you have, you will NEVER be able to buy any power, NEVER buy a judge, NEVER buy a seat of office, never bring down companies and economies by gambling, etc.

Definitions of currency on the Web:

the metal or paper medium of exchange that is presently used
general acceptance or use; "the currency of ideas"
a current state of general acceptance and use
currentness: the property of belonging to the present time; "the currency of a slang term"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A currency is a unit of exchange, facilitating the transfer of goods and services. It is a form of money, where money is defined as a medium of exchange (rather than e.g. a store of value). A currency zone is a country or region in which a specific currency is the dominant medium of exchange. To facilitate trade between currency zones, there are exchange rates i.e. prices at which currencies (and the goods and services of individual currency zones) can be exchanged against each other. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

Exactly backwards as you define it. You really need to work on that.

Money is more: it allows you to buy power. Buy your way into the governemnt, buy judges, it allows you to buy pieces of paper, and buy doing that destabilize entire countries economics, even the simple trade, buying, production, etc. continues to go in.

That is how George Soros uses currency. Its left to small timers like Kennedy and Simpson to use their money to buy their way.

In short: a society with money, is the opposite of capitalism, where there is only two things important: supply and demand. In true capitalism there's nothing more, no gambling/speculating can ever bring down a company; because the supply and demand, selling their products will go on regardless of what some poeple decide to gamble on. If gambling can bring down a company; you don't live in capitalism.

You have got to be kidding! :rotf:

Gambling, or risk entertainment, is a form of [U]naked capitalism where a service(the literal odds factored chance to obtain a profit by risking ^capital^(the bet) is the mechanism.

There is no measure for capital without a benchmark for time, labor, raw resource, and final product or service worth. A dress may be worth two cows but that dress is measured. The unit of exchange is the cow, or the hours you labor to obtain the dress, but in the end it is all the same- a transaction of worth for worth. There is currency involvged in every form of financial transaction and money is one form of it. Notice how that works?

You seriously need this;

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html

As always;

Damocles

January 11th, 2006, 10:50 PM

Oh...I don't know...I remember the Holodeck episode in Voyager where it was like an old OLD scifi show...Capt. Proton and the evil genius dude with the death ray and Kate Mulgrew actually vamped it up. Now THAT was a riot. I didn't like much of Voyager, but that episode was a scream.

I'm not THAT old, but yes I enjoyed Captain Proton(Captain Video?) whenever he appeared;

http://uk.geocities.com/chakoteya/S5/513.htm

The key, Westy, is that this episode was a FANTASY; and so it was written. You could laugh at it, because it was a comedy. Never mind the complete nonsense about holographic aliens or the bogus science;

SEVEN: I've run a trans-spectral analysis. The area between space and subspace is unstable throughout this region.
TORRES: Basically, we've run aground on a subspace sandbar. I've tried realigning the warp field, reversing hull polarity.
PARIS: Maybe we should just get out and push.
SEVEN: The gravimetric forces are disrupting our control systems.
TORRES: As long as we're trapped here we won't have access to the computer core, tactical, holodecks, and all but six replicators.
JANEWAY: What about those distortions on the holodeck? What's the connection?
SEVEN: They appear to be random energy fluctuations. I don't believe they post a threat.
JANEWAY: Let's keep an eye on them anyway, and evacuate that deck just to be safe. A few years back when I was a science officer on the Al-Batani, we tried to navigate a dense proto-nebula. It stopped us dead in our tracks. For three days we attempted to force our way out, until we realised we were trying too hard.
TORRES: Captain?
JANEWAY: Every time we engaged the engines we were increasing the resistance of the nebula's particle field. We may be facing a similar situation.
SEVEN: Our own warp field may be increasing the gravimetric forces. If we power down the core and use minimal thrusters we might be able to break free.
JANEWAY: You took the words right out of my mouth.
SEVEN: Your plan could work.
TORRES: Now that we have your blessing.
JANEWAY: Let's give it a try.

Now if they said they were stuck in a clump of WIMPS, or tangled in a segment of superstring, then I might believe it.

But as it is? Unless that nebulae, that trapped Lameway, the science officer; had the density of 1*10^23 proton masses per cubic centimeter? No way, will I buy that treknobabble.

Its so simple to get the science RIGHT. Plus; it would send everybody to their books; or computers to find out(WIMPS? who?)

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/strange_wimps.html

(Superstring? What?)

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

what was just said.

So instead, I ignored eveything not Chaotica and enjoyed Mulgrew, who does have a sense of ^Porky^ when it comes to comedy.

As always;

3DMaster

January 12th, 2006, 04:42 AM

Oh really?

.

Assertion without proof. There is a a ban. Star Trek; The Undiscovered Country. Kirk to Chang comments on the Federation ban, but notes that command has its priveleges

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin/Star_Trek_Feature_6.htm

Shot 46 Chang says "I thought Romulan Ale was illegal?" Kirk replies, "One of the advantages of being a thousand light years from Federation Headquarters." a direct comment on the Federation's bureaucratic repressiveness.

So the US is repressive, evil government as well then?

Besides... how do you think they GOT that Romulan Ale? Hmm? That would be: buying it from someone who transports and distributes it into the Federation among others to Starfleet captains apparently. Since they aren't in jail for doing that, they aren't breaking the law either. Which means that indeed civillians can buy and sell Romulan Ale, not to mention move into Romulan space and conduct business, as indeed we have heard mention happens. Frankly, the fact that Kirk speaks about 'priviledge of command' as in he can get it; buy it, and not have to worry about getting caught, he's showing it's only the Government of the Federation and its military arm that isn't allowed to have it. Quite rightly so, calling someone an enemy and then specking their economy by buying their ales would seem a little hypocritical.

Ro Laren and Picard. Enough said.

LOL. You do understand that Ro Laren was IN Starfleet, was allowed IN starfleet, and was even allowed to where her dangerous to her body Bajoren religious earring that the bajoran wasn't allowed to wear on Voyager against regulations, right? She was allowed to practice her religion, she was allowed her opinions, Federation citizenry and vote. So exactly how did Picard restrict her rights, repress her ability to follow a religion? And even IF Picard somehow did that; being that he is just a captain on a ship, and not the Federation government, how does that say anything about the Federation government? You're deluded, man, sorry to say this.

Treaty of Algeron;

It says the Federation shall not have a cloaking device. No distinction is made between civilian and military vessels. TNG; The Pegasus

Riker and company didn't need to make a distinction;

1. They're in Starfleet, they're not talking about civillians.

2. The people in Starfleet they're talking to are smart enough and have enough knowledge to know what the treaty entails.

3. The writers thought people watching are smart enough to realize when a government signs a treaty with another governmen, while at the same time that government is all about individual freedoms as stated and shown over and over again, that a treaty with the Federation and THE FEDERATION developing them, it's THE FEDERATION (government) and STARFLEET that's meant. But alas, some people are either not smart enough, or too anal to demand that the Federation must be restricting all its citizens in just about everything, to realize a little bit of common sense.

Hell, if the Romulans allowed their citizens to sell cloaking devices (only old outdated ones no doubt) a Federation citizen could fly to the Romulans and buy one - probably do it in the neutral zone.

Bull. The computer is the entity;not the image. By the way a differential engine needs a positive feedback loop to be self aware. More inept Berman science here.

No feedback loop? no self learning mechanism. No adaptation and no ^choice^-hence non-sentience. You just have a heuristic program that responds to preset conditions.

No the image wouldn't be the entity, it would be just part of the entity. The entire program that includes the image is the entity. An entity whose environment is the CPU and memory, as well as the real world through its image. And if a positive feedback loop is necessary, than undoubtedly they had one.

Show me the computer? The hologram is treated as an independent entity and that is ERRANT NONSENSE.

Actually, no it isn't. Programs running on a computer are separate from the computer, if the program is powerful enough and has all the trappings needed to become self-aware, it could.

You comncede the need for the computer, the ayeye. My point exactly. Thank you for restating it

Again, you fail to understand. Just because the program runs on a computer, doesn't mean it can't be seperate from the computer's operating system, and thus have mental capacities exceeding the computer's operating system. A lot of present day programs use more memory than the operating system of a computer... that is if you have one of the good operating systems that keeps its memory usage down to a bare minimum.

The program is not the computer; it simply uses the computer. The computer itself does nothing; it's nothing but a few chips that does nothing, literally nothing, until a program tells it to do something: multiply this, move that to memory, load up that, subtract these.

Any program running on a computer is not the computer. The program is thus restricted to the computer's hardward, but not part of the hardware. The program can't ever exceed the computer's hardware while it's running on that computer; now download it into a bigger more powerful computer, and the program can suddenly excede its previous home's hardware; but not it's new home.

If however you want to talk about nutty computer science; you shouldn't bother with whether or not a hologram can be sentient; it's bothering with Berman & Braga's utter lack of understanding of a computer and memory usage:

In one episode the doctor feels all guilty because he had to choose between one person and another to save, and saved the one he liked most, had the most interacion with. If the doctor were sentient, he could simply order the computer to copy himself, and there were two. In one episode the doctor isn't present, gone with his mobile emitter, and Paris and Kim try to make another doctor so Paris doesn't have to do all the work. We also know the doctor is regularly backuped from the episode "Living Witness" (IIRC the title correctly). All they would have to do, is load up a backup, and there'd be another doctor, no need for creating a new one at all. In another episode some radiation messed with the holographic projectors, and they did everything to keep the holographic projectors running, because the radiation would also wipe the program from memory, and thus be completely gone. This of course is nonsense, a program is placed into memory from the "hard drive" - the storage space - and if the radiation would remove the program from there, ALL of the computer storage, also mundane things, would be wiped. They might lose anything that isn't written to storage yet; so the say the events the crew experienced in that program of the last two hours would be gone, but they could simply restart the program, jump to the latest save point, and continue from there: having to redo a few things, but that's it.

Now THOSE are nutty things; a program getting sentience isn't.

Computers don';t work that way. The differential engines we build run nothing like the way our brains operate.

http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/[url]

Our computers don't work that way, our engines run nothing like the way our brains operate; ST is 4 centuries in the future, their computers could run that way.

Baloney.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Don't confuse mathematical properties with sentience.

I don't, you seem to confuse sentience of a program 400 years in the future, with mathematical properites.

An opinion, but no proof.

To anyone with a brain, I don't need to prove it.

Baloney. U.S.S. Odyssey destroyed by a ramming Jem Heddar fighter; that an Earth Force HYPERION would send out a damage control party to repair by painting over the scorch marks where the Jem Heddar fighter bounced off before it exploded. The old U.S.S Enterpise(TOS) survived a close burst from a fusion bomb that detonated within a hundred meters of the hull. Balance of Terror

No, a Jem'Hadar ship going at almost the speed of light, would smash through the Hyperion's hull even easier, after which the Jem'Hadar's warp core would explode and destroy the hyperion just as it did the USS Odyssey.

3DMaster

January 12th, 2006, 05:26 AM

Those monks pray when they meditate? People give them stuff to do that? Sounds like religious labor and pay to me. QED barter.

No, nobody's there to seem them pray or meditate, they don't do that for money, the people don't get anything from their mediation. And they don't pray. Buddhism doesn't have gods, it's an Atheistic religion where you yourself can ascend through enlightenment and become as a god. The universe is just a universe, so you can't even argue that the people would like them to pray to get better fortune for themselves. The monks do NOTHING FOR the people, the people get NOTHING FROM the monks, but the monks get food and drink nonetheless.

Which is the next little problem with your ridiculous little ways to try and worm yourself out of your predicament: even if they did things in order to get stuff, they get food, NOT money. And we we were talking about them not using and getting money. You try to give them money, and they'll decline. Now you can go to the farmer down the road, use that very same money to buy food, and they'll take the food you now offer them, but NOT the money. They don't have money, don't use money, and will never take money.

TANSTAFL. They are paid for doing nothing and it is defintely not free. They cost somebody something. Conservation and Entropy principles remember?

No, they are not paid for doing nothing; there's no money, therefor no payment. They good food and stuff, but that to is free, a person who works, doesn't need to pay anyone anything either, because there'd be no money. Now this is not the way the Federation and not even Earth works, but it can work that way.

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/2001-Aug-17_CAF_One_Page_Introduction.pdf

Incidentally Mister Wong is a practicing engineer who is fully cognizant of these things. Dismiss his expertise? From the mistakes you made above? I think you should not do that.

A system to teach kids to see relations between seeming unconnected things, has SUCH a HUGE deal to do with an moneyless economic system. Yep, I see that right away. :rolleyes:

I have yet to make a mistake, and if Mister Wong has great expertise in teaching students how to see relations, he should stick to that, and not bother us with his ridiculous opinions.

Ameniar and Vendicar. A Taste of Armageddon The feds sure are a peaceful culture all right?

Ameniar and Vendicar were fighting a war for centuries, and captured the Federation ambassador, then demanded the entire Enterprise crew come down and commit suicide. The Federation did not go their with the intent to blow them to pieces then force them to give up freedoms and join the Federation, and didn't. They simply defended themselves and convinced them to give peace instead of war an option.

Ever figure out how Bajor wound up in the Fed column?

The Cardassians left, and the Bajoran provisional government requested Federation help.

The Federation wouldn't, because the lot of them are too primitive to be bothered with. Prime Directive... which is to leave them alone and do nothing, the exact OPOSITE of being imperialistic, but eh.

Right................That's why Spock is subverting Romulan youth, right? TNG;Unification

The Romulans are not a primitive pre-warp civilization. Spock is there AGAINST Federation wishes, in fact they sent people in after him to get him back. Spock is there all on his own, and has nothing to do with the Federation.

[quote]Oh, so now you see (at last) the real world stand-in for the ^Federation^ that was the point of the morality ST;TUC tale. The rest of the world doesn't mind the money we give them or the stuff we buy from them. Its the arrogant attempt, by us, to impose our vision on their reality; that they resent[/U].(I happen to think that in the case of butchers and mass murderers that it is necessary, but I'm not hypocritical to think that we will be loved for the doing.).

No. The American don't give them money at all, except the very rare occasion that there's a big disaster and some American feel guilty and dump some stuff in charity. Anything an American compny buys, is for far too low prices, while bleeding the workers dry on hunger wages. Hell, some textile companies in Africa get cheap labor from Asia, letting the Asians PAY them a thousand dollars for the priviledge of working for a hunger wage. A few years later when the Asians return, their contract is up, they have less money than they started out with. That's not giving them stuff, that's not being nice, that's not being moral: that's bleeding them dry, all but slavery.

As for currencyless, sweety, the Federation isn't currencyless; it has Federation credits. People buy stuff all the time. They own ships, and run transports. They are however moneyless. The difference between currency and money is simple:

You better not call me sweety, friend. We don't know each other well enough for such informality.

As for money? If you transfer it electronically or by paper chit or by an instrument of credit.................

Definitions of money on the Web:

the most common medium of exchange; functions as legal tender; "we tried to collect the money he owed us"
wealth reckoned in terms of money; "all his money is in real estate"
the official currency issued by a government or national bank; "he changed his money into francs"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Money is any marketable good or token used by a society as a store of value, a medium of exchange, or a unit of account. Money objects can meet some or all of these needs. Since the needs arise naturally, societies organically create a money object when none exists. In other cases, a central authority creates a money object; this is more frequently the case in modern societies with paper money.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Definitions of currency on the Web:

the metal or paper medium of exchange that is presently used
general acceptance or use; "the currency of ideas"
a current state of general acceptance and use
currentness: the property of belonging to the present time; "the currency of a slang term"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A currency is a unit of exchange, facilitating the transfer of goods and services. It is a form of money, where money is defined as a medium of exchange (rather than e.g. a store of value). A currency zone is a country or region in which a specific currency is the dominant medium of exchange. To facilitate trade between currency zones, there are exchange rates i.e. prices at which currencies (and the goods and services of individual currency zones) can be exchanged against each other. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

Exactly backwards as you define it. You really need to work on that.

No I don't, you did notice currency = exchange, in short nothing but a bartering tool, right? In Star Trek's future, the split between money and currency the way I look at them came into being; hence it being a moneyless society. No matter how much currency you own in the Federation, you will NEVER be able to buy yourself the president's seat, unlike in some countries in this world.

You have got to be kidding! :rotf:

Gambling, or risk entertainment, is a form of [U]naked capitalism where a service(the literal odds factored chance to obtain a profit by risking ^capital^(the bet) is the mechanism.

There is no measure for capital without a benchmark for time, labor, raw resource, and final product or service worth. A dress may be worth two cows but that dress is measured. The unit of exchange is the cow, or the hours you labor to obtain the dress, but in the end it is all the same- a transaction of worth for worth. There is currency involvged in every form of financial transaction and money is one form of it. Notice how that works?

You seriously need this;

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html

As always;

You do know what the economic practice of "speculation" is right? Putting money on whether or not a stock will go down? That's gambling. The problem isn't that they gamble, the problem is that is gambling actually controls whether or not that stock will go down. If there's placed enough money by enough people on a stock going down, the stock will go down, even if the company itself is doing great, gets monster profits, selling everything perfectly, hardly any of their products are returned because they produce quality goods, is not in debt at all, nowhere close, has huge reserves of money; if only enough people speculate their stock will go down, the stock will go down, and with enough speculation could probably even bankrupt that company. In actual captilism, that's not possible. The stock and the viabily of a company is ONLY in the supply and demand: in short, how much products do they produse, and how much do they sell. Nobody would be able to gamble on stocks in the first place, and even if they could, it would never influence the stock the're gambling on. Since that is possible in our society, we don't live in a true capitalism.

Damocles

January 12th, 2006, 08:28 AM

No, nobody's there to seem them pray or meditate, they don't do that for money, the people don't get anything from their mediation. And they don't pray. Buddhism doesn't have gods, it's an Atheistic religion where you yourself can ascend through enlightenment and become as a god. The universe is just a universe, so you can't even argue that the people would like them to pray to get better fortune for themselves. The monks do NOTHING FOR the people, the people get NOTHING FROM the monks, but the monks get food and drink nonetheless.

The monks expend energy. People supply them the means ro do so. Work for which they are supplied the means by intelligence is ecommic activity. Economic activity in the form of barter is that the people supply them the means so they can meditate. Period. You raise the specious argumen about Buddhism being a religion. This is specious about religion in that you claim religion needs gods to be a religion.. Communism is a religion, as it is a system of belief based on pure belief without referrent to verifiable proof. So is Buddhidsm. Practise it and you practice a religion.

Which is the next little problem with your ridiculous little ways to try and worm yourself out of your predicament: even if they did things in order to get stuff, they get food, NOT money. And we we were talking about them not using and getting money. You try to give them money, and they'll decline. Now you can go to the farmer down the road, use that very same money to buy food, and they'll take the food you now offer them, but NOT the money. They don't have money, don't use money, and will never take money.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

The accepted medium of exchange is the currency of exchange. Failure two. Deal with it.

No, they are not paid for doing nothing; there's no money, therefor no payment. They good food and stuff, but that to is free, a person who works, doesn't need to pay anyone anything either, because there'd be no money. Now this is not the way the Federation and not even Earth works, but it can work that way.

It costs somebody something;TANSTAFL!

Food is payment, clothes is payment. Alms is payment. Payment is payment.

http://www.mtwthailand.org/Thailand%20Info/buddhism_photos.htm

OBSERVE:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

Chapter 1
LIFE IN A MONASTERY

A day in a temple begins early for monks and nuns. Long before daybreak, they attend morning ceremony and chant praises to the Buddha. The ceremonies lift one's spirit and bring about harmony. Although the Sangha lead simple lives, they have many responsibilities to fulfill. Everyone works diligently and is content with his or her duties.

During the day, some monks and nuns go about teaching in schools or speaking the Buddha's teachings. Others may revise and translate Buddhist Sutras and books, make Buddha images, take care of the temple and gardens, prepare for ceremonies, give advice to laypeople, and care for the elders and those who are sick. The day ends with a final evening ceremony.

In the daily life of work and religious practice, the monks and nuns conduct them-selves properly and are highly respected. By leading a pure, simple life, they gain extraorinary insight into the nature of things. Although their life is hard and rigorous, the results are worth it. It also keeps them healthy and energetic. The laity, who live in the temple or visits, follows the same schedule as the Sangha and works along with them.

A system to teach kids to see relations between seeming unconnected things, has SUCH a HUGE deal to do with an moneyless economic system. Yep, I see that right away. :rolleyes:

Like communism?

I have yet to make a mistake, and if Mister Wong has great expertise in teaching students how to see relations, he should stick to that, and not bother us with his ridiculous opinions.

Four you've made;
1. You make mistakes as to religion.(False identification of Buddhism.)
2. You make mistakes as to science.(You fail to understand causality)
3. You make very bad mistakes cioncerning economics.(You fail to properly understand the basis of economic activgity is trade-no matter how specious the exchange ratio values.)
4. You make general assertions without specific proof.

A system to teach kids to see relations between seeming unconnected things, has SUCH a HUGE deal to do with an moneyless economic system. Yep, I see that right away

You fail to supply specific(examples) refutation to that semantically meaningless assertion.

I do and I find his insights in the realm of the specific case of science fiction to be valid.

EXAMPLE:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Insurrection/

Ameniar and Vendicar were fighting a war for centuries, and captured the Federation ambassador, then demanded the entire Enterprise crew come down and commit suicide. The Federation did not go their with the intent to blow them to pieces then force them to give up freedoms and join the Federation, and didn't. They simply defended themselves and convinced them to give peace instead of war an option.

Baloney. The Feds entered alien space, uninvited(They were warned to stay away, remember?) The Feds went in and stuck their nose in where it wasn''t wanted. If that isan't imperialism, what is it? On top of that the Feds decided to impose their own values to suit themselves. That is they decided to use force to make the changes the Feds wanted.

The Cardassians left, and the Bajoran provisional government requested Federation help.

After a truce negotiated after a WAR.

[quote]The Federation wouldn't, because the lot of them are too primitive to be bothered with. Prime Directive... which is to leave them alone and do nothing, the exact OPOSITE of being imperialistic, but eh.

Right................That's why Spock is subverting Romulan youth, right? TNG;Unification

The Romulans are not a primitive pre-warp civilization. Spock is there AGAINST Federation wishes, in fact they sent people in after him to get him back. Spock is there all on his own, and has nothing to do with the Federation.

Picard left him there, (the wimp). Spock didn't get inside the Romulan Star Empire without help, so don't believe for a moment that he acted alone or without knowledge.

No. The American don't give them money at all, except the very rare occasion that there's a big disaster and some American feel guilty and dump some stuff in charity. Anything an American compny buys, is for far too low prices, while bleeding the workers dry on hunger wages. Hell, some textile companies in Africa get cheap labor from Asia, letting the Asians PAY them a thousand dollars for the priviledge of working for a hunger wage. A few years later when the Asians return, their contract is up, they have less money than they started out with. That's not giving them stuff, that's not being nice, that's not being moral: that's bleeding them dry, all but slavery.

That's capitalism without regulation. Like what you have in China. We have no right to dictate to foreigners what their markets will bear .(Hugo Chavez dictatorship in Venuzuela for exampe). Your atlempt to impose your socialist morality on a working economic ratio ignores the FACT that capitalism works best when both parties are moral, but doesn't require morality to work at all. On the other hand, socialism requires that property rights be trampled upon in order to pursue the myth of "equity". You want international equity in living standards? Organize collective bargaining. That is a capitalist solution. It works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damocles

January 12th, 2006, 09:28 AM

No I don't, you did notice currency = exchange, in short nothing but a bartering tool, right? In Star Trek's future, the split between money and currency the way I look at them came into being; hence it being a moneyless society. No matter how much currency you own in the Federation, you will NEVER be able to buy yourself the president's seat, unlike in some countries in this world.

Baloney. Example;InsurrectionImmortality is the currewncy of exchange in that case (or to be precisae the planet(call it a real estate transaction/bribe.)

http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin/Star_Trek_Insurrection.htm

Synopified for your benefit;

[url]http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/MOV/009/synopsis/89.html[url]

Captain Picard's effort to save Lt. Commander Data leads him to the Ba'ku planet, where the Federation and their Son'a allies are conducting a cultural survey. The Ba'ku seem at first to be a simple race of only six hundred people, living in one village on their isolated world. But when Picard meets a Ba'ku woman, Anij, he gradually learns that there is more to her people than meets the eye: She, like most of her fellow Ba'ku, is more than three hundred years old.
Picard also learns that the survey is only a cover — for a plot to kidnap the Ba'ku en masse and exile them from their world. Ru'afo, the Son'a leader, has discovered that the planet is bathed in metaphasic radiation that reverses aging. What the Ba'ku have, the Son'a — an aged, dying race — want desperately for themselves.

Picard confronts his superior officer, Admiral Dougherty with what he has learned ... only to find that Dougherty and the top leaders of the Federation are part of the scheme. After all, says the admiral, there are only six hundred Ba'ku. Why should they stand in the way of progress?

Captain Picard objects: If a planetful of people can be forcibly removed from their world, destroying their way of life, where does it end? There may be only six hundred Ba'ku, but how many would it take to become wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? But Admiral Dougherty will hear no protests: He gives Picard a direct order to withdraw and return to his previous mission.

For Jean-Luc Picard, it is the time of decision. If he obeys Dougherty's order, he would violate the principles of his Starfleet oath. Instead, he takes action. By the time he is done, Picard will have risked everything — and left behind his crew, his career and ship to help the Ba'ku. The battle for Paradise has just begun ...

You do know what the economic practice of "speculation" is right? Putting money on whether or not a stock will go down? That's gambling. The problem isn't that they gamble, the problem is that is gambling actually controls whether or not that stock will go down. If there's placed enough money by enough people on a stock going down, the stock will go down, even if the company itself is doing great, gets monster profits, selling everything perfectly, hardly any of their products are returned because they produce quality goods, is not in debt at all, nowhere close, has huge reserves of money; if only enough people speculate their stock will go down, the stock will go down, and with enough speculation could probably even bankrupt that company. In actual captilism, that's not possible. The stock and the viabily of a company is ONLY in the supply and demand: in short, how much products do they produse, and how much do they sell. Nobody would be able to gamble on stocks in the first place, and even if they could, it would never influence the stock the're gambling on. Since that is possible in our society, we don't live in a true capitalism.

Oh, you mean selling short?

You are going offtopic on a side issue;

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Specifically;

http://www.investorwords.com/4556/short_sale.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You do know that rigged speculation; or its general set collusive trading(known as insider trading) is ILLEGAL?

Captitalism like any Human activity has to be regulated to mitigate the evil
in men.

Which brings us back on topic; "Is the Federation a socialist dystopia?"

Prime Directive;

http://www.answers.com/topic/prime-directive

Why have that law, if the Feds don't violate it and need it as a speed brake?

Maybe you should reconsider your position?

Start here;

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/Freedom_101.html

As always

WarMachine

January 12th, 2006, 10:28 AM

Well, even though I think this should probably be moved to the other end of the forum with the rest of the "Other Sci-Fi" threads, I'll wade in here.

I used to like Trek. Primarily TOS, but the later ep's of DS9 were tolerable. I never had any use for TNG, and still don't: the plots were wooden and annoyingly incomplete, preachy, ultimately unfulfilling and shot through with plot holes big enough to fly a DS through.

In re this extention-of-thread:

The definition of money and currency is as a medium of exchange - sea shells can, and have, been used as currency in the past. Services are also currency. Now, in the example of Buddhists giving holy people food and shelter, they're either doing it out of their own kindness, or they're hoping for "good thoughts" from the holies -- either way, it's a poor example of a money/money-less economy.

Returning to the FedRats, the Prime Directive (PD) is a lame excuse for not getting involved in messy situations, and merely apes moral superiority. It's poorly thought out, and even more poorly executed, as it is repeatedly violated at will by whatever ship captain chooses to do so -- refer to ST:In and the whole idea of forcibly removing people from a planet with no representation on the FedCouncil.

The only evidence I've ever seen in the TNG-era for private citizens owning starships is in two ep's: "Angel 1", TNG-S1, and a later ep where Picard and Wesley are heading to a hospital so Picard can have his ticker overhauled. DS9/Cassidy Yates doesn't count: she doesn't pay her crew in FedCreds, and operates mostly outside Fed space. There is no evidence as to the exact ownership of her vessel.

Also - ominously - when she is caught running supplies to the Maquis, she isn't sent to prison: she's sent to a "reeducation facility"....HELLLLLOOOOOO, Gulag!

"Arbeit Mach Frei"! :/:

Also note that Fed civilians are tried by a military court for violation of -Federation-(NOT Starfleet) laws....Very creepy.(Ref: the DS9 ep where Bashir is revealed to have been genetically "enhanced" by his parents.)

In re Fed "money", there may have been cash in TOS, but by TNG, Picard can't even grasp the concept of a portfolio("The Neutral Zone", S1).

As for the US not giving cash handouts to 3rd world s***holes, you are flatly wrong: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/par05/USAID_PAR05_Financial.pdf And the morality of the US is fully open to question: We actively supported both the Shah of Iran and the Somoza dynasty of Nicuragua for c.40yrs - two groups reknowned for their sadism and brutality...by their allies.

Do we need to cover US support for Saddam?

As for the Bajorans asking for help, I think it was more a group of Bajorans asked for Federation help, and the Provisional Government went with it, because nobody else was willing to help.

The idea that you can't "buy" power in the Federation is just plain silly. Just because Trek episodes never show that kind of "politicking", saying that it therefore does not exist is ridiculous.

Finally, I would characterize your views on stocks and supply-and-demand as being in serious need of revision. Starting a business - be it a mom-n-pop grocery or a major-item manufacturer - requires money. The vast majority of people simply do not have the capital funds necessary to do it, and banks are notoriously tight when it come to loans(i.e., you literally have to not need the money in order to borrow it).

This is where investment enters the picture. You encourage people to loan you money to get started by promising them a cut of your profits("dividends"). In order to make a legal contract, so that they can sue you if you try to cheat them, you issue "instruments"(called 'stocks') that detail exactly how much the investor is owed. Those stocks are negotiable, and may be traded at any time; erstrictive stocks(that cannot be sold) have little value, and are not typically used.

"Capitalism", as a political theory, has nothing to do with the process. What you are describing is an unrealistically-utopian environment that makes no sense outside of the context of Marxism.....And even within Marxism, it doesn't work, because there is no remunerative incentive: working your butt off for the "common good" or the "advancement of science" or "personal fulfillment" is extremely adolescent, and never survives its first brush with some lazy slob who gets precisely the same 'incentives' you do, while doing barely a tenth of the work.

And Starfleet is not an example, because you can be thrown out, which is typical of any military formation -- even though Starfleet is not supposed to be military...the "Great Bird" tried mightily to "make it so"(sorry), and nearly succeeded in TNG.

Which is why DS9 is a far better show.

---------

In the interests of trying to bring this back to BSG: What is the Colonial economy like, and how is it organized? Does it survive in some form in the RTFF? Or was it completely changed by the Great Destruction?

Damocles

January 12th, 2006, 10:46 AM

CBSG-There is gambling and cubits are exchanged.

As always;

3DMaster

January 12th, 2006, 10:56 AM

The monks expend energy. People supply them the means ro do so. Work for which they are supplied the means by intelligence is ecommic activity. Economic activity in the form of barter is that the people supply them the means so they can meditate. Period. You raise the specious argumen about Buddhism being a religion. This is specious about religion in that you claim religion needs gods to be a religion.. Communism is a religion, as it is a system of belief based on pure belief without referrent to verifiable proof. So is Buddhidsm. Practise it and you practice a religion.

Ah, I hereby quit debating you, because you just proven you're not debating, you just wish to twist and turn to make it look like you know stuff and you're right, anyone with a brain though, pierces the veil with simple ease, realizing you're just full of bullfelgercarb. Once more, you've twisted your little argument toward "econimic activity", see "there's econimic activity therefor I'm right." Sadly, my original claim about monks had nothing to do with wether or not there's economic activity, it was that they are one set of people today that don't use money, don't need money, don't want money. Money. It's a cold hard fact, that there are monks that do not have money, and never will have money. The fact that you've been trying to twist it now suddenly into "there's economic activity" means you've no interest in actually debating a point, you just twist and turn and scream and yell to make it look like you're right, even if you're spouting has nothing to do with the point being debated.

You're little bullfelgercarb about me saying it's not religion, adds to that even more so. I never said it wasn't a religion, I said it was a religion in which they could never give anything to the people for the food they give to the monks purely out of charity. Twist and turn, twist and turn. Mattering to the point? Not one little bit.

Goodbye.

spcglider

January 12th, 2006, 11:02 AM

I've always thought that the Galactica had two different types of shielding.

I always thought that the Galactica had two kinds of sheilding too...

1) the kind that deflects stuff that the author doesn't want to hit the battlestar in his script

and

2) the kind that is conveniently forgotten about when some damage needs to be done to the battlestar in order to make the script exciting.

If there was ever a fallible scientist, it must be a television writer. :rotf:

-Gordon

Damocles

January 12th, 2006, 11:29 AM

Ah, I hereby quit debating you, because you just proven you're not debating, you just wish to twist and turn to make it look like you know stuff and you're right, anyone with a brain though, pierces the veil with simple ease, realizing you're just full of bullfelgercarb. Once more, you've twisted your little argument toward "econimic activity", see "there's econimic activity therefor I'm right." Sadly, my original claim about monks had nothing to do with wether or not there's economic activity, it was that they are one set of people today that don't use money, don't need money, don't want money. Money. It's a cold hard fact, that there are monks that do not have money, and never will have money. The fact that you've been trying to twist it now suddenly into "there's economic activity" means you've no interest in actually debating a point, you just twist and turn and scream and yell to make it look like you're right, even if you're spouting has nothing to do with the point being debated.

You're little bullfelgercarb about me saying it's not religion, adds to that even more so. I never said it wasn't a religion, I said it was a religion in which they could never give anything to the people for the food they give to the monks purely out of charity. Twist and turn, twist and turn. Mattering to the point? Not one little bit.

Goodbye.

Your faulty reasoning is in print and is sufficient unto my purpose to prove my case as to your errors.. Your abandonment of the field, amounts to a concession. Depart in peace.

spcglider

January 12th, 2006, 11:58 AM

Okay, without getting too far into it, how in hades did this conversation go from "sheilds on colonial craft" to "religion, monks and communism"???

I understand somebody must have been trying to draw a parallel there, but honestly... I don't get the connection.

Guess that's what I get for missing the party, huh? LOL

-Gordon

spcglider

January 12th, 2006, 12:13 PM

Wow... been here. Read this.

NOW I know how it got so convoluted.

Shoulda' kept my nose outta THIS room.

-Gordon (Exit... stage LEFT!)

Dawg

January 12th, 2006, 01:30 PM

Yeah, well, if I'd been paying attention a discussion about shields on Galactica would not have devolved into a contentious discourse about Bhuddist economics.

We do discourage such a radical departure in subject matter (although we certainly recognize that conversations take off on tangents on occassion).

I expect the conversation will continue, regarding defensive shields. And just about shields.

Colonial shields, mind you. And mind the contentiousness.

Just so we're clear on that.

;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Westy

January 12th, 2006, 03:12 PM

I'm not THAT old, but yes I enjoyed Captain Proton(Captain Video?) whenever he appeared;

http://uk.geocities.com/chakoteya/S5/513.htm

The key, Westy, is that this episode was a FANTASY; and so it was written. You could laugh at it, because it was a comedy. Never mind the complete nonsense about holographic aliens or the bogus science;

No, I didn't mean the episode itself was old (or you for that matter) I meant the holodeck was portraying an old OLD kind of scifi show (like the original Flash Gordon or original Buck Rogers from the old B&W TV days).

Yeah, it was fantasy, and pretty good too...and I get you on the bad science stuff...IMO it's inexcusable, but most people don't understand the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy...those 2 things are both called SciFi and that's that....it's too bad too.

Damocles

January 12th, 2006, 05:23 PM

No, I didn't mean the episode itself was old (or you for that matter) I meant the holodeck was portraying an old OLD kind of scifi show (like the original Flash Gordon or original Buck Rogers from the old B&W TV days).

Yeah, it was fantasy, and pretty good too...and I get you on the bad science stuff...IMO it's inexcusable, but most people don't understand the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy...those 2 things are both called SciFi and that's that....it's too bad too.

Westy I was making a JOKE at my expense. I understood perfectly what you meant. When I referred to Captain Video Iwas actually referring to this guy, who I used to watch as a kid in Kansas,

http://www.slick-net.com/space/video/index.phtml

Maybe I am that old! :rotf:

Do you remember Commando Cody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Cody

Incidentally on a subject tangent.

Do you realize that the old Alligator would dissociate itself, if it approached c?

In other words, in the light of a previous curious assertion that integrated matter can travel at the speed of light(It can't, the ramdom kinetic energy manifested as the leakage of such extreme acceleration would cause one of two conditions-expansion of the object into an induced gamma event state or its collapse into an apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV) at what (delta vee) does the 'gator's electric armor fail? It has to fail at a velocity far short of light.

I would be interested if one of the physcists out there would supply a speculation.

My own guess is that 20%-30% c is about the upper practical delta vee bound before you have to resort to wormhole inflation to cross space in an artifact and that any armor(electric or otherwise) would succumb to particle sleeting from vacuum energy at 40% of c.

As always;

Senmut

January 12th, 2006, 11:35 PM

Ummmmmm..yes. Battlestars have deflection shields/systems.
Now, back to our original topic....

spcglider

January 13th, 2006, 10:50 AM

Incidentally on a subject tangent.

Do you realize that the old Alligator would dissociate itself, if it approached c?

In other words, in the light of a previous curious assertion that integrated matter can travel at the speed of light(It can't, the ramdom kinetic energy manifested as the leakage of such extreme acceleration would cause one of two conditions-expansion of the object into an induced gamma event state or its collapse into an apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV) at what (delta vee) does the 'gator's electric armor fail? It has to fail at a velocity far short of light.

I don't know one-thousandth of what you obviously know about physics, but your question assumes that the energy used to power the sheilds is electricity.

The human brain runs on electricity too. And they've told us over and over that the folks on the Galactica are human. That doesn't bode well under your view.

So you'd need to come up with a sheild that was not powered by electricity. That would seem the only conclusion. Something that would create an impenetrable magical bubble to isolate the ship and it's contents from the ravages of hard-science. What is this ethereal force? I dunno. But when all other conclusions fail, we are forced to examine the impossible. Like searching for your lost car keys in the refrigerator/freezer.

Of course, there's a pretty typical impression that all sheilds are the same... as proposed in the Star Trek universe. The sheilds that deflect photon torps are the same sheilds that guard the ship from radiation, etc.

But might not be true for the Galactica. The sheilds that protect the ship from "laser blasts" (not actually "l.a.s.e.r. blasts" as evidenced by the effect we see on-screen) may not be the same system that guards the ship from becoming an indistinct energy wad or expanding to fill all of reality nearing the speed of light.

But we're talking about a race of entities that can travel interstellar distances with a matter-powered pusher engine. Long life spans, impossibly fast rockets or improperly named worm-hole technology? I guess it's a matter of interpretation.

Its all so inter-related that when you prick the bubble of fantasy in relation to one area of "show science" the whole thing collapses.

You can either assume that the entire property is fantasy, or you can assume that the characters involved know WAY more than we do and have some sort of answer to those problems. The translation comes to us as "hyperdrive" or "laser blast" or "turbos" but cannot be strictly defined as such because we know the terms to be incompatible with what we see on-screen.

It seems to me that if we let the terminology drive the discussion, then we must concede that the show is complete fantasy. And I know that's exactly NOT where you wanted to go with this whole thread... sorry.

-Gordon

Damocles

January 13th, 2006, 12:03 PM

I don't know one-thousandth of what you obviously know about physics, but your question assumes that the energy used to power the sheilds is electricity.

<snip>

It seems to me that if we let the terminology drive the discussion, then we must concede that the show is complete fantasy. And I know that's exactly NOT where you wanted to go with this whole thread... sorry.

-Gordon

Greetiins G. :salute:

I actually agree witrh you up to a point.

There are two ways to approach the question of analysis; when you take up science fiction as a hobby.

The first is to regard all the fantasy claims as "real" and go with the flow.

This allows you to gloss over actual contradictions and science errors and premise continuity errors in what you read and see.

But that so LIMITS you.

You are reduced to grousing about the quality of the writing or the bad acting.

Approach two is to look at the fantastic and ask how could it be?

So; if you try to explain the technology and the results,. and you look at the SFX results as well, you have more to grouse about, besides the bad story and lousy acting. Optimistically you might be inspired to actually design and build that superconducting armor.

This is why the CBSG holds up remarkably well. Earlier in this forum it was commented that the writers made up shields to act as a plot device they needed to advance the story.

Trouble is, if you use the same SFX over and over again, you have to write the story to match the effect.

Delightful.

That allows me to speculate as to the nature of Alligator armor.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question610.htm

Two thin copper threaded superconducting laminated ceramic plates with a space void between them and and the pair hooked up to a very POWERFUL capacitor will stop a tank's main gun round. That's real. So when I saw the SFX photo earlier in this thread that showed the electric splash across the armor; that I recognized as what you should see if you saw a really powerful particle beam or bolt hit such a plate(advanced version).

You don't necessarily get that with other SF.

CBSG for all of the gaffes, is remarkably consistent with a lot of what it tries to present as compared to what is the best understood science of our day.

Example;

http://forums.colonialfleets.com/showthread.php?t=12061

CBSG Vipers that use modified LINACs to fire particle bolts; make a lot more sense than some stupid construct that shoots 12.7 mm machine gun bullets.

That and the optimism is what I like about the series.

As always;

spcglider

January 13th, 2006, 12:59 PM

Greetiins G. :salute:

I actually agree witrh you up to a point.

Good! I like agreeing! ;)

There are two ways to approach the question of analysis when you take up science fiction as a hobby.

The first is to regard all the fantasty claims as "real" and go with the flow.

This allows you to gloss over actual contradictions and science errors and premise continuity errors in what you read and see.

But that so LIMITS you.

You are reduced to grousing about the quality of the writing or the bad acting.

But that's kind-of what I was pointing out. You either have to accept the reality as the creator portrays it or you don't. If the creators/writers of the show didn't mean l.a.s.e.r. when they said it, then what does "laser" mean in this context? Obviously the things we see on the show are not l.a.s.e.r.s because they act completely unlike l.a.s.e.r.s. which are a very specific device with very specific parameters. So when they say "lightspeed" on the show, how are they using the term? If they are not actually referring to making their space vessel actually move at the speed of light, then the term is completely up for independent iterpretation.

And so we have the term "sheilding" or "sheilds". I think I've seen a minimum of three different interpretations of that term here in this thread alone. Soem of them within the same argumentative passage. Okay, maybe i'm exaggerating, but you get my point.

When a character on the show says, "raise sheilds"... it is incumbent upon us as viewers to accept that they posses some sort of device that they call "sheilds" and that they are being used. Quiet frankly, I can't quote a passage from the show that would indicate that type of thing other than "positive sheilds... now". Wtching the episode, it becomes evident that when Commander Adama says this, he is refering to the heavy blast doors that lower over the "front windows" of the Galactica. Other than that, I'm at a loss.

Approach two is to look at the fantastic and ask how could it be?

You choose the path less travelled. Mainly because too many questions breed too many MORE questions. When you start applying real-world solutions to perceived show-problems, you invariably end up far afeild of anyting even remotely resembling the show you started with. That's not a bad thing, but it challenges the basic premise of the audience/storyteller dynamic. And alot of fans aren't prepared for that. All they want is the chocolate cake... they don't care how it got baked, how the ingredients interacted with each other to form the cake, or what the thoughts of the baker who made the cake were as he folded in the eggs.

So; if you try to explain the technology and the results,. and you look at the SFX results as well, youi have more to grouse about, besides the bad story and lousy acting. Optimistically you might be inspired to actually design and build that superconducting armor.

Ahhh... you like this particular tack mainly for the grouse...er... conversational opportunities it provides? Thats cool. No argument there. I like deep discussion as well, but since I have an admittedly short supply of "quantum-smarts", I tend to stay within the societal, artistic and practical-effects arena of discourse. Therefore I tend to find solutions within those feilds. You could tell me that the Galatica has sheilds simply because of the reverse polarity of the neutron flow evident in the flux capacitor and (if I wasn't familiar with BTTF and Dr.Who) I'd have to buy it on a scientific level simply because I don't know the difference.

This is why the CBSG holds up remarkably well. Earlier in this forum it was commented that the writers made up shields to act as a plot device they needed to advance the story.

Trouble is if you use the same SFX over and over again, you have to write the story to match the effect.

Delightful.

You don't necessarily get that with other SF.

CBSG for all of the gaffes, is remarkably consistent with a lot of what it tries to present as compared to what is the best understood science of our day.

That could, in fact, be the primary reason for the consistency you mention. If they had to keep using the same effects over and over, why not use the same explainations over and over? Built-in consistency! ;)

That allows me to speculate as to the nature of Alligator armor.

You're allowed to speculate without that too!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question610.htm

Two thin copper threaded superconducting laminated ceramic plates with a space void between them and and the pair hooked up to a very POWERFUL capacitor will stop a tank's main gun round. That's real. So when I saw the SFX photo earlier in this thread that showed the electric splash across the armor that I recognized as what you should see if you saw a really particle beam or bolt hit such a plate(advanced version).

I'll hand ya... that's pretty cool. And a perfectly valid example of the thoertical possibilities of how the Galactica's defense "sheilds" might function. I think that stuff is really groovy. And sadly, real science is often MUCH more entertaining than the stuff on TV we call "sci-fi".

Example;

http://forums.colonialfleets.com/showthread.php?t=12061

CBSG Vipers that use modified LINACs to fire particle bolts; make a lot more sense than some stupid construct that shoots 12.7 mm machine gun bullets.

But for some reason, they call 'em lasers. Particle bolts=lasers? You can see where the confusion comes in for all of the lay-fans. So when somebody asks, "Does the Galactica have sheilds?" its a much larger can of verbal worms than the casual questioner would understand. Especially from the angle by which you approach the problem.

That and the optimism is what I like about the series.

As always;

Yeah, there's not alot you can say about a bunch of peole who live on the run in an autocratic theocracy under matrial law who manage to stay that happy, is there?

:salute:

-Gordon

Damocles

January 13th, 2006, 01:56 PM

Good! I like agreeing! ;)

So do I.

what does "laser" mean in this context?

Possibility?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9503004

Maybe.

Obviously the things we see on the show are not l.a.s.e.r.s because they act completely unlike l.a.s.e.r.s. which are a very specific device with very specific parameters.

Agreed, but you can have coherent matter cannons that work on laser principles.

So when they say "lightspeed" on the show, how are they using the term? If they are not actually referring to making their space vessel actually move at the speed of light, then the term is completely up for independent interpretation.

They may refer to lightspeed as we refer to the Mach number.

And so we have the term "shielding" or "shields". I think I've seen a minimum of three different interpretations of that term here in this thread alone. Some of them within the same argumentative passage. Okay, maybe i'm exaggerating, but you get my point.

Each interpetation depends on viewpoint. A MASER scanner or a magnetic field or induced gravitation that diverts the incoming particle beam is entirely possible; and those are ^my^ interpretations.

When a character on the show says, "raise shields"... it is incumbent upon us as viewers to accept that they possess some sort of device that they call "shields" and that they are being used. Quite frankly, I can't quote a passage from the show that would indicate that type of thing other than "positive shields... now". Wtching the episode, it becomes evident that when Commander Adama says this, he is refering to the heavy blast doors that lower over the "front windows" of the Galactica. Other than that, I'm at a loss.

There are three types of charge in a particle beam; positive, neutra,l and negative. To diverge that beam, electromagnetically, you match the diverter charge in the plate to the incoming fire. I would prefer the term "Positive divert" to the term "positive shield"; but how many people would get the connection? "Positive shield" is an acceptable substitute to "positive divert" charge for that superconducting armor in that context.

You choose the path less travelled. Mainly because too many questions breed too many MORE questions. When you start applying real-world solutions to perceived show-problems, you invariably end up far afeild of anyting even remotely resembling the show you started with.

If you stay on the safe road in the woods, you'll never see this;

http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/pics/Yellow_bellied_Sapsucker.jpg

That's not a bad thing, but it challenges the basic premise of the audience/storyteller dynamic. And alot of fans aren't prepared for that. All they want is the chocolate cake... they don't care how it got baked, how the ingredients interacted with each other to form the cake, or what the thoughts of the baker who made the cake were as he folded in the eggs.

And that is perfectly okay. I tend to adopt that atitude when I watch the West Wing.

Ahhh... you like this particular tack mainly for the grouse...er... conversational opportunities it provides? Thats cool. No argument there. I like deep discussion as well, but since I have an admittedly short supply of "quantum-smarts", I tend to stay within the societal, artistic and practical-effects arena of discourse. Therefore I tend to find solutions within those fields. You could tell me that the Galatica has shields simply because of the reverse polarity of the neutron flow evident in the flux capacitor and (if I wasn't familiar with BTTF and Dr.Who) I'd have to buy it on a scientific level simply because I don't know the difference.

And that is why the lazy writers can get away with being lazy. It is as if somebody from France were to try to write a drama about the advertising industry in NYC. He/she brings a French mindset to the work; which would instantly ring false to an American-especially a New Yorker. So if I hear a false clink I complain. I suppose if I knew more about politics I would have more to say about the West Wing.

Consistency;

That could, in fact, be the primary reason for the consistency you mention. If they had to keep using the same effects over and over, why not use the same explainations over and over? Built-in consistency! ;)

That is not a bad thing. You don't have the photon torpedo paradox until you get into post TOS era;

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies5c.htm#torpedoes

Even if you like post TOS you notice and comment!

You're allowed to speculate without that too!

About anything and everything? I agree! Example; an actor could certainly look at Dirk Benedict's performance and educate me as to how he improves over the run of the series by showing me the specific techniques.

About electric armor.

I'll hand ya... that's pretty cool. And a perfectly valid example of the theortical possibilities of how the Galactica's defense "shields" might function. I think that stuff is really groovy. And sadly, real science is often MUCH more entertaining than the stuff on TV we call "sci-fi".

Science could be fun, if it wasn't made so mysterious and scary when we teach it or present it to the average person.

Lasers again;

But for some reason, they call 'em lasers. Particle bolts=lasers? You can see where the confusion comes in for all of the lay-fans. So when somebody asks, "Does the Galactica have shields?" its a much larger can of verbal worms than the casual questioner would understand. Especially from the angle by which you approach the problem.

Lasers use photons. Photons are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

particles. Lasers are, in effect, coherent particle beams. Just a SPECIFIC type of partricle beam. A short burst of laser light is an interval. You could call that a bolt.

About happy-go-lucky Colonials

Yeah, there's not alot you can say about a bunch of people who live on the run in an autocratic theocracy under martial law who manage to stay that happy, is there?

Nope. But then if Iwas either on a Calvinist packed emigrant ship headed for the Massachussetts Bay Colony; or in a CoJCotLDS wagon train headed for Utah: I might find myself in a sort of authoritarian theocratic regime during the journey? Wouldn't stop me from hoping for a bright future at the end of the trip....

As always; :salute:

spcglider

January 13th, 2006, 02:46 PM

So do I.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9503004

Agreed, but you ncan have coherent matter cannons that work on laser principles.

They may refer to lightspeed as we refer to the Mach number.

Each interpetation depends on viewpoint. A MASER scanner or a magnetic field or induced gravitation that diverts the incoming particle beam is entirely possible and those are ^my^ interpretations.

But maybe not somebody else's. Especially not a staff writer whos usually cranking out scripts for Rockford Files or Police Woman! :)

There are three types of charge in a particle beam. Positive, neutral and negative. To diverge that beam electromagnetically you match the diverter charge in the plate to the incoming fire. I would prefer the term "Positive diverte" to the term positive shield" but how many mpeople would get the connection? Positive shield is an acceptable substitute to a diverter charge for that superconducxting armor.

Flux capacitor recharge with onepointtwentyonegigawatts??? Like I said before...and I'm not afraid to admit it... you're talking so far above my head that I'm afraid I'll get the bends on the way up.

But seriously, I do appreciate that you're able to apply these theoretical principles to our favorite show. Don't be discouraged that I'm blissfully ignorant.

If you stay on the safe road in the woods, you'll never see this;

http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/pics/Yellow_bellied_Sapsucker.jpg

Actually I don't need to leave my neighborhood. The wife is a curator at the natural history Museum around the corner. Yeah, I know... I gotta go out to see a LIVE one of those. I get your point. But to extend the analogy, what if I have no interest in seeing one of those?

JEEZ! And i was wondering how the earlier discussion got around to monks??? What a hypocrite I turned out to be! :P:

And that is why the lazy writers can get away with being lazy. It is as if somebody from France were to try to write a drama about the advertising industry in NYC. He/she brings a French mindset to the work which would instantly ring false to an American-especially a New Yorker.

I think you're placing far too much expectation upon those poor, harried 1970's television writers. Would you expect a quantum physics professor to know how to write an exciting television screenplay?

But I understand your point to a degree. Its like that new show "Surface". A few weeks back I had to turn the show off and swear to never watch it again when the protagonist and her boyfreind built a pseudo-submersible/bathysphere out of a steel drum, welded some non-rated portholes they stole from some poor sucker's boat onto it and proceeded to gaff themselves into falling what appeared to be hundreds of feet underwater when the support cable broke unexplicably. They survived, of course. They survived the harrowing experience that happened over a time span of less than a minute on-screen.

Anybody who has even a small amount of understanding about diving or being underwater knows that when anything happens that dramatically and that fast and that deep underwater, its usually something fatal.

But this screenwriter decided that the water wasn't going to impede him from writing something REALLY exciting. Even though in reality he would have been killing his protagonists. So, we do have something in common ! :salute:

About anything and everything? I agree! An actor could certainly look at Dirk Benedict's performance and educate me as to how he improves over the run of the series.

Hmmm... you're assuming he DID improve... :lol:

Lasers use photons. Photons are particles. Lasers are, in effect, coherent particle beams. Just a SPECIFIC type of partricle beam.

Did they finally settle the "particle versus wave" argument? Shows you how far behind I am....

Nope. But then if Iwas either on an emigrant ship rounding the Straits of Magellan, heading for California; or in a wagon train headed for Oregon: I might find myself in a sort of authoritarian regime during the trip? Wouldn't stop me from hoping for a bright future at the end of the trip....

As always; :salute:

Like I always say, there's nothing wrong with following the sheep...as long as you know where that head sheep is going!

But that's the big trouble with giving over your rights even for a short journey... they're that much harder to reclaim when the journey ends.

I often wonder why I was (and am) so attracted to galactica in the first place. These people STARTED the journey under a theocracy. I'm really not hep to that. Even a benevolent theocracy. Its just my personal belief that theocracy is a poor form of government. Of course, I didn't have that thought back in 1979 when I was 12 years old. I just saw cool uniforms and space ships. And sexy Jane Seymour!

But that's a different subject...

-Gordon

Damocles

January 13th, 2006, 03:44 PM

But maybe not somebody else's. Especially not a staff writer whos usually cranking out scripts for Rockford Files or Police Woman! :)

But that is why you research your subject before you prepare the script as a commercial writer. A good TV series has a series bible which covers the premise, continuity issues, and character parameters. The commercial writer who submits an original script to a production; will often have that bible plonked in front of him as a guide, after he sells the original script; along with the marked up original script chock full of story editor notes to which he'd better pay attention during his rewrite.

Flux capacitor recharge with onepointtwentyonegigawatts??? Like I said before...and I'm not afraid to admit it... you're talking so far above my head that I'm afraid I'll get the bends on the way up.

If the captain was setting "Condition 1 air intercept", he would have his quartermaster chief say "General Quarters. Battlestations; Air" It could be said; surface, or submarine depending on the medium in which the threat target operated " He wouldn't say something like "turn on the shield generators". That is like telling the guy on the missiles to point them at the approaching aircraft. The guy on the missiles knows his job. All the captain is supposed to do; is handle the gross details; like pointing the entire ship's minimum aspect on to the threat axis,-not the specifics of each evolution as to how to employ each system. There is a battle DRILL for that. Let the technobabble fall into the realm of bad SF writing. "Fire one!" does just as well if you write a script portraying John Paul Jones or Commander Kane, when you give the badguys the works.

But seriously, I do appreciate that you're able to apply these theoretical principles to our favorite show. Don't be discouraged that I'm blissfully ignorant.

If you don't mind how obtuse I am to the inner workings of the White House and how Jeff Bartlet managed to screw this one up, then I won't mind if you enjoy the latest Cylon light show. ;)

Actually I don't need to leave my neighborhood. The wife is a curator at the natural history Museum around the corner. Yeah, I know... I gotta go out to see a LIVE one of those. I get your point. But to extend the analogy, what if I have no interest in seeing one of those?

JEEZ! And I was wondering how the earlier discussion got around to monks??? What a hypocrite I turned out to be! :P:

I know. I need to watch that. :LOL:

This would be a better example in light of our discussion;

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bemorton/Neuroscience/Neurophilosophy/Singularity.jpg

I think you're placing far too much expectation upon those poor, harried 1970's television writers. Would you expect a quantum physics professor to know how to write an exciting television screenplay?

Yes. Greg Benford.

But I understand your point to a degree. Its like that new show "Surface". A few weeks back I had to turn the show off and swear to never watch it again when the protagonist and her boyfreind built a pseudo-submersible/bathysphere out of a steel drum, welded some non-rated portholes they stole from some poor sucker's boat onto it and proceeded to gaff themselves into falling what appeared to be hundreds of feet underwater when the support cable broke unexplicably. They survived, of course. They survived the harrowing experience that happened over a time span of less than a minute on-screen.

Anybody who has even a small amount of understanding about diving or being underwater knows that when anything happens that dramatically and that fast and that deep underwater, its usually something fatal.

But this screenwriter decided that the water wasn't going to impede him from writing something REALLY exciting. Even though in reality he would have been killing his protagonists. So, we do have something in common ! :salute:

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Bingo!

Hmmm... you're assuming he DID improve... :lol:

Shows you what I know about acting? Actually I thought he hammed less and acted more as the series went forward.

Did they finally settle the "particle versus wave" argument? Shows you how far behind I am....

Back in 1927. A photon is a massless particle(quanta) that carries a field effect over the interval(acts like a wave)

Like I always say, there's nothing wrong with following the sheep...as long as you know where that head sheep is going!

I never thought of myself as a sheep.

http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/pics/lemmings.gif

But that's the big trouble with giving over your rights even for a short journey... they're that much harder to reclaim when the journey ends.

I'm not to crazy about the situazione politica corrente either.

I often wonder why I was (and am) so attracted to galactica in the first place. These people STARTED the journey under a theocracy. I'm really not hep to that. Even a benevolent theocracy. Its just my personal belief that theocracy is a poor form of government. Of course, I didn't have that thought back in 1979 when I was 12 years old. I just saw cool uniforms and space ships. And sexy Jane Seymour!

But that's a different subject...

:D

For a different time.

Spater! :salute:

spcglider

January 16th, 2006, 11:22 AM

But that is why you research your subject before you prepare the script as a commercial writer. A good TV series has a series bible which covers the premise, continuity issues, and character parameters. The commercial writer who submits an original script to a production; will often have that bible plonked in front of him as a guide, after he sells the original script; along with the marked up original script chock full of story editor notes to which he'd better pay attention during his rewrite.

How much do you think a screenwriter in 1979 got paid? And have you ever READ the so-called "Galactica series Bible"? Jinkies, its no wonder that they couldn't keep their time-units straight. Much less the usage of terms like "galaxy" and "asteroid" and "planet". That thing is basically useless. You can blame Larson for that, I guess.

If the captain was setting "Condition 1 air intercept", he would have his quartermaster chief say "General Quarters. Battlestations; Air" It could be said; surface, or submarine depending on the medium in which the threat target operated " He wouldn't say something like "turn on the shield generators". That is like telling the guy on the missiles to point them at the approaching aircraft. The guy on the missiles knows his job. All the captain is supposed to do; is handle the gross details; like pointing the entire ship's minimum aspect on to the threat axis,-not the specifics of each evolution as to how to employ each system. There is a battle DRILL for that. Let the technobabble fall into the realm of bad SF writing. "Fire one!" does just as well if you write a script portraying John Paul Jones or Commander Kane, when you give the badguys the works.

Now that's just part of the great tradition of media sci-fi. That sort of yakkety-yak startedwith the first sound sci-fi movie. Its part of the genre. I'll be the first to admit it's not "accurate", but it comes down to us from the elders.

This would be a better example in light of our discussion;

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bemorton/Neuroscience/Neurophilosophy/Singularity.jpg

Hey.... where you get the nifty picture of all reality? That's the model I cleave to.

Yes. Greg Benford.

Well where the heck was HE when they were doing Galactica? And he may be a physics professor, but even HE can't write EVERY tv script in Hollywood. He can't even advise on all of them. Unless he knows somethign that I don't...

Wait a minute! He DOES know LOTS of things I don't! LOL!

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Bingo!

Excellent. I figured that's get a laugh! I haven't lost it, folks! No autographs, please! I'll be here all week! Be sure to tip the wait staff!

Back in 1927. A photon is a massless particle(quanta) that carries a field effect over the interval(acts like a wave)

Hmm... still doesn't sound like they made up their minds to me!

I'm not to crazy about the situazione politica corrente either.

Most reasonable people aren't. :salute:

-Gordon :viper: :muffit: :viper:

Westy

January 16th, 2006, 12:17 PM

Do you realize that the old Alligator would dissociate itself, if it approached c?

In other words, in the light of a previous curious assertion that integrated matter can travel at the speed of light(It can't, the ramdom kinetic energy manifested as the leakage of such extreme acceleration would cause one of two conditions-expansion of the object into an induced gamma event state or its collapse into an apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV) at what (delta vee) does the 'gator's electric armor fail? It has to fail at a velocity far short of light.

I would be interested if one of the physcists out there would supply a speculation.

My own guess is that 20%-30% c is about the upper practical delta vee bound before you have to resort to wormhole inflation to cross space in an artifact and that any armor(electric or otherwise) would succumb to particle sleeting from vacuum energy at 40% of c.

As always;

This makes no sense. Delta V is acceleration, but "20%-30% of c" is velocity...2 different things. At relativistic velocities, vector lengths contract only to outside observers, not the one doing the moving, because the one doing the moving is stationary to himself. At no "delta v" would the electric armor fail...a better question is how much acceleration can the Galactica withstand. Structurally that is. I have no idea what you mean by a "gamma event state", and if you think an "apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV" means that the Galactica would spontaneously collapse, that's an immature understanding of realtivity theory. As for worm holes, that's just beyond the pale and I won't even go there.

Damocles

January 16th, 2006, 12:45 PM

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it MUST be a duck... unless you're in a television sci-fi show and then it's probably just your infinite improbability drive acting up.

Or it could be Sinclair's duck......

http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-14406

http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Pictures/Misc/starship.gif

Back on topic;

About continuity bibles and how TV series either thrive or fall on the basis of the premise treatments.

My only comment ion CBSG bible is that it was THIN.

You don't need to be a physicist to get the physics correct. In the case of the Alligator you hire a visualist like this guy

http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio/index.html

And in technology treatments/consultations you hire Jerry Pournelle(or me, I work hard, and I'm not expensive.)

And you as a creator concentrate on your backstory and character treatments.

Its what Roddenberry did in ST/TOS, before he went off in the head, and allowed his dystopian lameness to creep into his ST/TNG vision. It made kirk possible and gave us a coherent vision.

The series treatment for ST/TOS was THICK.

The treatment that JMS prepared for the B-5verse was index carded and cross referenced for almost five years before he prepared the story pitch for Paramount (which rejected it.)

So I regard the series treatment as the key to the series success.

Frank

Damocles

January 16th, 2006, 02:41 PM

This makes no sense. Delta V is acceleration, but "20%-30% of c" is velocity...2 different things. At relativistic velocities, vector lengths contract only to outside observers, not the one doing the moving, because the one doing the moving is stationary to himself. At no "delta v" would the electric armor fail...a better question is how much acceleration can the Galactica withstand. Structurally that is. I have no idea what you mean by a "gamma event state", and if you think an "apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV" means that the Galactica would spontaneously collapse, that's an immature understanding of realtivity theory. As for worm holes, that's just beyond the pale and I won't even go there.

Not so. For one thing; you feel acceleration inside the acceleration frame. Try throwing yourself sideways inside a free falling elevator ride. That nausea is your inner ear telling you that inertia is operating.

Delta vee is change of velocity over time; even if the delta vee at both ends of the interval is=0.

I know that lengths change to the external observer viewpoint. Shall we reread what I wrote?

In other words, in the light of a previous curious assertion that integrated matter can travel at the speed of light(It can't, the ramdom kinetic energy manifested as the leakage of such extreme acceleration would cause one of two conditions-

To get to .9c you have to accelerate continuously. At that relativistic velocity, LIGHT, ITSELF, acts as a drag medium throiugh which your mass passes, Westy. That drag is more than sufficient to SLOW you massively.

expansion of the object into an induced gamma event state or its collapse into an apparent hypermass from the external observer's POV) at what (delta vee) does the 'gator's electric armor fail? It has to fail at a velocity far short of light.

The (end)velocity is the end value of the delta vee, not independent of the delta vee; but one component, the other which is the (beginning)velocity, and the delta being the change rate over the interval.

If I accelerate a kilogram of matter to .99+c?
^Rest^ mass(kg) 1
Relativistic mass (kg) 1.225E+6
Time dilation factor 0.000001
Newtonian KE (J)(kg·m/s) 4.500E+16
Relativistic KE (J) 1.102E+23
Newtonian momentum(kg·m/s) 3.000E+8
Relativistic momentum(kg·m/s) 3.674E+14

Now translate 1% of that energy you need to accelerate that mass to HEAT.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node70.html

And you get matter converted into gamma radiation or a hypermass

from the external observer's POV.

There is no internal observer in the referent frame at those velocities, and that acceleration; as he is DEAD.

My own guess is that/[quote]

which is where I begin my best guess at to the upper limit of failure,

[QUOTE] 20%-30% c is about the upper practical delta vee bound

Which means I was using a delta vee bound , not a velocity limiter; when I suggested the failure limit for structural heatloading, and materials sheer for an artifact.

before you have to resort to wormhole inflation to cross space in an artifact, and that any armor(electric or otherwise) would succumb to particle sleeting from vacuum energy at 40% of c.

Combine the inertias, Westy. The impacts from photons, alone, produce HEAT-never mind the dust and one or two hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter that you hit at those velocities(which produce parasitic drag at relativistic velocities.). At some point the armor fails. You can't dissipate the heat fast enough to prevent materials kinetic sheer/melt. Plus you cannot prevent the behavior of such particles from resembling cosmic rays to the observer inside the referent frame: which at those relative combined velocities, when you add the potential energies translates into random kinetic energy in the collision events. That melts you and turns you into plasma. I don't care if you are inside that event frame STANDING STILL inside the Alligator's hull as the Alligator melts around you. Incidentally, you are way past feeling the sunburn from that lethal dose of insleeting radiation.

As far as what the external observer sees as the Alligator zips pass?

http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap5.htm

Over the years I've come across several widely used definitions for mass. The more modern and most elegant and useful general relativistic definition I have come across for the mass of a particle given the above relations is the positive root for m in the equation

m2c2 º |gmnpmpn|.

(5.1.3a).

Here it is the basically the length of the momentum four-vector. In a later section we will restore the definition of mass as inertia ( The m in the four-vector equation for massive particles, Fl = mAl, four-vector force equals mass times four-vector acceleration, is the same m as the invariant defined above. ) . Generally the definition of mass will be local rest frame relativistic energy which is the same as equation 5.1.3a and is the definition that we will use throughout the rest of this sight where ever the letter m or the word mass is used unqualified. Under this definition, mass is an invariant. It does not change with speed, nor with location in a gravity field!

Equation 5.1.3a is called the mass-shell condition.

In the presence of a vector potential the mass can be equivalently related to the momentum four-vector of the second kind

m2c2 = gmn[Pm - (q/c)fm][Pn - (q/c)fn].

(5.1.3b).

In general relativity since gmn often varies throughout a system of particles it isn't always useful to define a system mass. Instead it is useful to define a local proper frame mass density r0 and a local proper frame total of masses density rTot in the following ways. (Note-As discussed in 3.1 the system mass is not equal to the "total" of masses) The zero subscript on the first represents that it is the density of the mass(as defined above) according to an observer in a local frame moving with that bit of mass. We note "moving with" because this is a density and density would change with Lorenz contraction. This is the r0 that goes into the energy tensor of mass.

That is true, though, for the observer inside the frame. Outside the frame, the mass tends to increase as the object approaches the speed of light. A MASS never can be accelerated to the velocity of a massless photon at the speed of c in a vacuum; since that is when it's apparent inertia approaches the value of infinity. Inertia is a property of mass that is directly proportional to acceleration and GRAVITY. All of these effects are REAL AND MEASURED from the external observer POV. Figure out what happens to that proton accelerated in a LINAC to 99,5 %c? The gravitational attraction of that proton is almost 10 times greater than if it was at supposed ^rest^ to the external observer. That is measured and experimentally confirmed. So what happens to that mass as it approaches apparent infinite mass? To the external observer, it creates a hypermass and an event horizon-in effect it dissappears from our universe, and leaves behind a gravitational effect to mark its passing.

Note that I address this all from the viewpoint of the EXTERNAL observer, Westy?

As I pointed out, above, from the viewpoint of the internal observer, these observations are not relevant, since by the time the relativistic effects manifest itself to the universe at large, as you see it, you are long since dead?

http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/[/ur]

[URL]http://members.tripod.com/~IgorIvanov/physics/

As you will discover, Westy, I do know about which I write.

That is physics, and that endeth today's lesson. :D

As always,

spcglider

January 16th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Damocles

January 17th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Wait a minute, there's something I can't understand.

If a photon is massless, then how can it create drag? You say that light itself crates drag at the speeds you're talking about.

Just a question. You'll have an answer I won't understand. :)

-Gordon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Unlike most particles, photons have no detectable intrinsic mass, or "rest mass" (as opposed to relativistic mass). Photons are always moving, and photons in a vacuum always move at the vacuum speed of light with respect to all observers, even when those observers are themselves moving. Although they lack mass, photons have both energy and momentum proportional to their frequency (or inversely proportional to their wavelength). This momentum can be transferred when a photon collides with matter. The force due to a large number of photons falling on a surface is known as radiation pressure, which may be used for propulsion with a solar sail.

That is a form of particle/wave fluid dynamics. If you have light pressure you also have light DRAG.

Note that momentum transfer is independent of rest mass proportionality but to this moment is observed to be dependent on additive particle frequencies in the collision?

As always,

spcglider

January 17th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Oh.

-the clueless Gordon ;)

KARTHAGER

February 7th, 2006, 02:15 AM

the armor are shield enough

Damocles

February 7th, 2006, 12:33 PM

the armor are shield enough

I'm curious.

How is the armor enough?

As always; :salute:

spcglider

February 7th, 2006, 12:38 PM

Becaue it's MAAAAAAAAAGIC. (sparkle sparkle!!!)

-Gordon

Damocles

February 7th, 2006, 01:16 PM

Becaue it's MAAAAAAAAAGIC. (sparkle sparkle!!!)

-Gordon

Handwaving;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
Handwavium;
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1526512
Unobtainium;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
Impossibilium;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_element

I was just interested to see if I could learn something, I didn't know. :D

Believe me, there is so much I DON'T know, and I'm eager to learn! :LOL:

As always; :salute: :salute:

spcglider

February 7th, 2006, 02:04 PM

I was just interested to see if I could learn something, I didn't know. :D

Believe me, there is so much I DON'T know, and I'm eager to learn! :LOL:

Dude, I'm glad your ego is healthy enough to admit how much you don't know! :)

But the impossible is the very root of science fiction. Thus "fiction". A craft similar to Captain Nemo's Nautilus was considered an impossibility at the time... especially the phantasmagorical energy core used to power it. Now we can look at that and go, "Oh... it was nuclear power." Or something similar. But to anyone reading at the time, it was pure magic. The science hadn't even been discovered to imagine an explaination. It was just some wonderous unexplained thing. We just had to trust that Nemo had it under control.

We're talking about a society that's managed to somehow harness interstallar (nay, interGALACTIC) travel in spacecraft powered by some sort of chemical fuel.

Its highly possible that what we see in the show only appears to be what we think it is. The science behind what we see may be so enormously beyond what we actually can understand with the current state of science here that it appears impossible. Doesn't mean that it is.

What if the armor IS enough? What if the exterior of Colonial military ships is clad in a specific material... perhaps composed of chemicals that we do not know... that can actually act to repulse cylon energy weapons fire. Maybe not completely (as we know the ships DO suffer damage when they are hit), but maybe enough.

Look at all the handwavium going on in Anime. Giant robots? Made of CHOGOKIN , an impossible alloy that makes giant robots possible. Generally accepted all over Japanese fandom. It makes the genre possible.

I know, I know Damocles, you LIKE the real-world explainations. But it all feeds on itself... fantasy/reality.

-G

Damocles

February 7th, 2006, 02:41 PM

Dude, I'm glad your ego is healthy enough to admit how much you don't know! :)

Trust me, I got a dose of humble CG pie recently. What I don't know I could put into a thimble with enough room left over for the Pachyderm.

But the impossible is the very root of science fiction. Thus "fiction". A craft similar to Captain Nemo's Nautilus was considered an impossibility at the time... especially the phantasmagorical energy core used to power it. Now we can look at that and go, "Oh... it was nuclear power." Or something similar. But to anyone reading at the time, it was pure magic. The science hadn't even been discovered to imagine an explaination. It was just some wonderous unexplained thing. We just had to trust that Nemo had it under control.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsubmarine5.htm

Verne knew about electricity and there were primitive magnetic motors. He trusted that the brightboys would figure it out in a hundred years or so. And I won't belabor Ben Franklin and paratroopers? Today's actually possible impossible things(negative energy/negative matter) is actually four decades behind the tylium curve, so I argue that the Alligator is rooted in the fantastic and not the fantastical. This is why I think the CBSG is good science fiction.That electric armor is great!

We're talking about a society that's managed to somehow harness interstallar (nay, interGALACTIC) travel in spacecraft powered by some sort of chemical fuel.

Fantastic isn't it? That you can use negative matter to modulate gravity?

Its highly possible that what we see in the show only appears to be what we think it is. The science behind what we see may be so enormously beyond what we actually can understand with the current state of science here that it appears impossible. Doesn't mean that it is.

You are so RIGHT. Gravity is still considered in Newtonian terms and is so taught in school down to the present. How many of us have come to understand that gravitational influence is a property of how the graviton(gravity's boson) shapes space? And we aren't even sure that we have that part right!

What if the armor IS enough? What if the exterior of Colonial military ships is clad in a specific material... perhaps composed of chemicals that we do not know... that can actually act to repulse cylon energy weapons fire. Maybe not completely (as we know the ships DO suffer damage when they are hit), but maybe enough.

Could be. Materials properties limits and QED says no, but it could be.

Look at all the handwavium going on in Anime. Giant robots? Made of CHOGOKIN , an impossible alloy that makes giant robots possible. Generally accepted all over Japanese fandom. It makes the genre possible.

Carbon nanotubes?

http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/ntproperties/

I know, I know Damocles, you LIKE the real-world explainations. But it all feeds on itself... fantasy/reality.

Stargate is fantastic and great. I have written about how you might build one.

Lord of the Rings is fantasy but is legendary. I don't anticipate me forging the One Ring, though I know a few nuts who would like to try......... :D

As always; :D