Reversing the Polarity of the Neutron Flow
Jeri Massi
nek...@aol.com (NekoLeo) wrote:
>I like to think that this is what the Doctor said whenever he was quite
>sure that a) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was
>doing, b) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was doing
>and everyone would still be staring at him blankly, or c) It would take
>too
>long, et cetera, and someone in the room _would_ know what he was
>doing, and start to raise indignant protests over safety, scientific
>plausibility
<SNIP>
ISTR in PARADISE OF DEATH, one of the audios done with Pertwee in the
early 90s, that there is a place where he says that the "reverse the
polarity" phrase is a sort of short hand way of saying that what he's
doing is effective, whether his companions understand it or not. I
gathered from this that he was admitting it was just double-talk (or
perhaps some sort of personal code of his) so that he would not have
to bother with a long discussion.
I think the explanation was a definite retcon of stories where the
directive was intended to sound very complex and technological. But
it didn't bother me.
--Jeri
alternative address: jmm4...@glaxo.com
Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction page!
Stories and images from the Third Doc's era:
Links to other DW fanfiction and archives.
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
KTPattersn
Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who fans.
How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
charged particles?
Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising them
on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
-Kevin
"When I was a baby, I kept a diary. I wrote, 'Day One. Why does everybody keep talking to me like I'm some kind of idiot?'" -Steven Wright
Jestingone
Kevin Patterson wrote:
>Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising
them
>on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
Yes. Kit Pedler was the show's scientific adviser during the late
Hartnell/early Troughton years (when Innes Lloyd was producer and Gerry
Davis was script editor). Pedler came up with the original idea that
became "The War Machines", and was also co-creator of the Cybermen.
Jeri Massi
ktpat...@aol.com (KTPattersn) wrote:
>Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
>neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who fans.
>How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
>charged particles?
>Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising them
>on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
>-Kevin
Neutrons do not have polarity, and as far as I can figure out, they do
not flow; anyway, not like electrons, which flow when ever there is a
potential difference. It sounds like meaningless technobabble.
Pertwee commented a couple times that the writers took their ideas
from genuine scientific concepts, but my guess is that they did not
have any physicists or engineers on the payroll to spot them. (I
heard that STAR TREK had a degreed physicist on permanent staff.) I
know that DW's depiction of nukes and radiation was flawed in the
Pertwee era. They completely discounted radioactivity in Claws of
Axos, which has part of a nuclear plant blowing up, and in Planet of
the Spiders they mishandled the way the radiation would have worked.
(If the Doctor had been that contaminated, nobody could have gone near
him without being radiated as well.) I've sort of assumed that they
understood the larger concepts but messed up the details a lot.
It's been mentioned before on the NG that the 8th Doctor could not
really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
compatible. If you took it on faith that he had been conceived of two
different species, then you'd have to conclude that his human DNA had
been entirely changed, and he ended up as completely timelord just the
same, because human DNA does not regenerate. But the half human idea
was a pretty crappy concept anyway.
--Jeri
Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel
Nathanael C. Nerode
On 21 Jun 1997, KTPattersn wrote:
> Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
> neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who fans.
> How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
> charged particles?
send them flowing right to left. This, technically, can be described as
"reversing the polarity of the neutron flow". I get so tired of this
complaint. Reversing the polarity of neutrons wouldn't make much sense,
but the "polarity of the flow" can be used to mean the "direction of the
flow", and so this isn't totally off-base.
> Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising them
> on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
Only during the Troughton period, AFAIK, when Kit Pedler was the
scientific advisor. Didn't seem to help much though.
--
Nathanael Nerode ner...@carleton.edu
"Never wear blue when the universe is made up entirely of CSO."
Jeri Massi
"Nathanael C. Nerode" <ner...@carleton.edu> wrote:
>On 21 Jun 1997, KTPattersn wrote:
>> Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
>> neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who fans.
>> How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
>> charged particles?
>Right. We start off with the neutrons flowing left to right. Then we
>send them flowing right to left. This, technically, can be described as
>"reversing the polarity of the neutron flow". I get so tired of this
>complaint. Reversing the polarity of neutrons wouldn't make much sense,
>but the "polarity of the flow" can be used to mean the "direction of the
>flow", and so this isn't totally off-base.
But neutrons don't flow. Or if they do, they take the rest of the
atom with them, unlike electrons, which break out of their orbits and
hop around from atom to atom, and thus form a flow. The flow of
electrons down a conductive material is electricity--well, voltage
really.
If neutrons were to break free--watch out! That happens in a nuclear
reaction. And even then, once out of the nucleus of the atom, they
would not flow but would start to decay. Neutrons are stable within a
nucleus but unstable outside of it. Free neutrons decay naturally
into a proton and electron, with a half-life of about 12 minutes.
So, as far as I understand, you could have atoms flowing, and that
would mean the sonic screwdriver you are holding is undergoing all
sorts of chemical changes. In that sense neutrons would be flowing
because they would be flowing within the atoms.
Or, you could go into the nucleus, see how the neutrons in each
nucleus are moving within that nucleus, and get them to move in
another direction, but because they are balanced with the protons, it
would not affect anything--anyway, I don't think so. WIthin the
nucleus I don't think the flow of neutrons is polarized, so I don't
think you could reverse the polarity there, either.
That's my two cents worth--but that physics class was a long time ago!
TardisTime
KtPattersn@aol asked:
>Ok, we all know how the doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
neutron >flow.....but I have a question for the technically-minded Who
fans. How can there >be a "polarity" in a neutron flow, since neutrons are
not charged particles?
Of course this is technobabble, but if it helps I may have an
explanation....
Consider electron "flow" in semiconductor materials. There is always an
opposite anc corresponding flow of "holes". That is, when an electron is
induced by a voltage to jump into the empty space in the next outer shell
of the atom next to it, it appears that the empty space (or hole) from
that just occupied atom has moved "backwards" into the electron giving
atom. Electron moves up, the hole that electron now occupies moves down.
So, depending on your frame of reference, electrons are moving or else
holes are moving.
Perhaps neutrons behave in the same way. Although they have no "polarity"
they may appear to move if you force yourself to consider the frame of
reference where the electron stands still and the neutron "moves". Then it
would appear that neutrons "flow".
About reversing the polarity.....I suppose if you reverse the polarity of
the power source, the neutrons would appear to "flow" the opposite way.
Or, this is all Gallifrian (or alien) physics way beyond earth science
comprehension. Maybe neutron flow is the key to all advanced physics.
Notice that the Doctor (usu. the 2nd) is always reversing the polarity of
the neutron flow on alien machines or machines built by future earthers.
(Fellow Whovians, I need help here with examples....)
Or, maybe the physics classes I took 20 years ago combined with 15 years
of watching Dr. Who have congealed into the mess you can read above.
NekoLeo
ktpat...@aol.com (KTPattersn) wrote:
>Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
>neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who
fans.
>How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
>charged particles?
>Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising
them
>on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
I like to think that this is what the Doctor said whenever he was quite
sure that a) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was
doing, b) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was doing
and everyone would still be staring at him blankly, or c) It would take
too
long, et cetera, and someone in the room _would_ know what he was
doing, and start to raise indignant protests over safety, scientific
plausibility
(see?), and the lack of job markets for those who understand such
things and would appriciate doing something with a lower mortality rate,
such as advising SF TV writers. Think of it as a code :)
--NekoLeo
/\/\
(*^*) )
/ \ ( Be nice to people. They outnumber
/l l l l\ ) you 5.5 billion to one.
m m nek...@aol.com
Andy Robert Steinberg
This is a classic DrWho line. Of course it's technobabble (but STNextGen gets the prize for
technobabble!) but only because we humans haven't mastered particle physics yet. All we can
do is smash particles together at high speed using cyclotrons i.e. The secret is to bang the
rocks together guys - HGuide. Nuclear energy, space travel, and PC's were all technobabble
less than 100 years ago. If Time Lords can travel through space and time easily, then I
don't have a problem with them controlling neutrons.
Dra...@theCIA.net
Mordred: My Mother will destroy you!
Brigadier: I'm getting tired of hearing about your Mother.
TardisTime wrote:
>
> KtPattersn@aol asked:
>
> >Ok, we all know how the doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
> neutron >flow.....but I have a question for the technically-minded Who
> fans. How can there >be a "polarity" in a neutron flow, since neutrons are
> not charged particles?
>
R.J. Smith
In article <19970621065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
KTPattersn <ktpat...@aol.com> wrote:
>Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
>How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
>charged particles?
A. There can't. It's nonsense, just like the idea of building an
interstitial transmitter (or whatever that silly thing was) out of
teacups.
Actually, Barry Letts tried to get around the problem in his novelisation
of The Ghosts of N-Space (actually, it might have been Paradise of Death
now that I come to think of it). He had the Doctor pointing out the
inaccuracy to the Brigadier - and then wibbling some nonsense about it
working because he believed it to work. Like the rest of the book, this
was a totally stupid thing to do and best forgotten by everyone involved
(if only!).
>Does anyone know if Doctor Who writers ever had semi-experts advising them
>on the technobabble like Star Trek writers do?
Erm, I think someone should give those so-called semi-experts the sack!
:-)
There was no "scientific advisor" to the show during the Pertwee Years
(Kit Pedler having left during the Troughton Years - when Gerry Davis did
IIRC). Which is a pity, because the technobabble is even less plausible
than Star Trek's :-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <5og598$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>It's been mentioned before on the NG
...by you, I believe :-)
that the 8th Doctor could not
>really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
>compatible.
Where in the series does it say this? Indeed, in Original Sin, the Doctor
is able to alter the DNA in his hand. And other NAs have been implying a
*very* strong link between humans and Gallifreyans, ever since Transit. So
I really don't think you can claim with any certainty that the two aren't
compatible.
Oh, and I'd like to know which medical college you attended, where they
teach the intricacies of interspecies DNA bonding! :-)
If you took it on faith that he had been conceived of two
>different species, then you'd have to conclude that his human DNA had
>been entirely changed, and he ended up as completely timelord just the
>same, because human DNA does not regenerate.
Maybe half-human, half-Time Lord DNA *does* regenerate. How do you know
the two can't be fused to make a new entity, half human, half Time Lord?
But the half human idea
>was a pretty crappy concept anyway.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, nowhere in the series is what you claim stated.
- Robert Smith?
David Matthewman
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5ogj31$p...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
> "Nathanael C. Nerode" <ner...@carleton.edu> wrote:
>
> But neutrons don't flow. Or if they do, they take the rest of the
> atom with them, unlike electrons, which break out of their orbits and
> hop around from atom to atom, and thus form a flow. The flow of
> electrons down a conductive material is electricity--well, voltage
> really.
So, your argument would appear to be: 'when electrons flow, it's
electricity. When Neutrons flow, it isn't. Therefore neutrons don't flow'.
Tell that to a crystallographer doing neutron diffraction.
Of course neutrons flow. They don't do it because someone's set up a large
potential difference, and they can be a bugger to detect when they're doing
it, but they flow all right. As they're not affected by magnetic or
electrical fields, the 'polarity' of such a flow is a little suspect, but
it would be perfectly possible that reversing the direction of flow of a
beam of neutrons would have a noticeable effect.
--
David Matthewman
jmm4...@glaxo.com
In article <01bc7fb0$4d39b350$b0b78fc2@davidmpc>,
"David Matthewman" <da...@xara.com> wrote:
> So, your argument would appear to be: 'when electrons flow, it's
> electricity. When Neutrons flow, it isn't. Therefore neutrons don't flow'.
No, my statement is, 'when electrons flow, it's electricity. But
neutrons do not flow because they cannot be separated out from a nucleus
without splitting into a proton and an electron."
If neutrons move around within the nucleus, the motion could be called
"flow" but the use of the word is entirely different from its use when
describing electron "flow," which does have polarity and an effective
direction. In other words, though neutrons may move and you can call it
"flow," they still possess no polarity, the flow is not polarized, and so
there is no such thing as reversing the polarity of the neutron flow.
Because the Doctor was always talking about something that was going on
in an electrical circuit (or within his sonic screwdriver) whenever he
used the phrase, it remains essentially meaningless. He was not engaging
in neutron diffraction at any time that he used the phrase but was
usually trying to power something down in an emergency situation, or--in
the instance of the sonic screwdriver--he was turning it into a magnet.
All those situations were relying on the idea of polarity and its effect
on magnetic and/or electrical fields. So the statements about reversing
the polarity of the neutron flow were meaningless.
--Jeri
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nathanael C. Nerode
> >> Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
> >> neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who fans.
> >> How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are not
> >> charged particles?
> >send them flowing right to left. This, technically, can be described as
> >"reversing the polarity of the neutron flow". I get so tired of this
> >complaint. Reversing the polarity of neutrons wouldn't make much sense,
> >but the "polarity of the flow" can be used to mean the "direction of the
> >flow", and so this isn't totally off-base.
>
> atom with them, unlike electrons, which break out of their orbits and
> hop around from atom to atom, and thus form a flow. The flow of
> electrons down a conductive material is electricity--well, voltage
> really.
>
> reaction. And even then, once out of the nucleus of the atom, they
> would not flow but would start to decay. Neutrons are stable within a
> nucleus but unstable outside of it. Free neutrons decay naturally
> into a proton and electron, with a half-life of about 12 minutes.
> That's my two cents worth--but that physics class was a long time ago!
>
> --Jeri
Ah, but that's assuming current technology. Perhaps the Doctor's
equipment actually does take neutrons out of the atom and send them in beams.
Whose direction can be reversed. Maintaining a stable neutron flow would
require prohibitive amounts of energy, but it *is* theoretically possible.
And why shouldn't Time Lord-level technology do something which requires
tons of energy and a lot of technology?
It's certainly not science, but I think it's perfectly responsible
science *fiction*. There's been much stupider technobabble in DW; I wish
I could remember some of it.
R.J. Smith
In article <19970622060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
NekoLeo <nek...@aol.com> wrote:
[Reverse the polarity of the Neutron Flow]
>I like to think that this is what the Doctor said whenever he was quite
>sure that a) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was
>doing, b) It would take too long to explain _exactly_ what he was doing
>and everyone would still be staring at him blankly, or c) It would take
>too long, et cetera,
...or d) he had absolutely no idea what he was doing, was hoping
desperately against hope that his fiddling would accomplish something
constructive and muttered any old vaguely scientific explanation, knowing
that the only person within earshot had failed O-level science.
(When he does it in The Five Doctors, of course, his other incarnations
don't want to give the game away, so they keep quiet as well)
- Robert Smith?
Carl Muckenhoupt
How many times did Pertwee r the p of the nf, anyway? I know it's been
done many times since, but the phrase seems to be particularly
associated with the third incarnation. I dimly remember watching for
the phrase when NJN cycled through his part of the series many years
ago, and only noticing it once. Did it slip past me many times, or is it
like "Elementary, my dear Watson" - a phrase seldom, if ever, used
outside of fannish minds?
--
Carl Muckenhoupt ca...@earthweb.com
EarthWeb http://www.earthweb.com/
Jeri Massi
>...by you, I believe :-)
>that the 8th Doctor could not
>>really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
>>compatible.
Believe me, I would like to take the credit, but I actually read it
here from somebody else. It's true, of course. The problem with your
idea is that DNA can be one thing or it can be something else
entirely. Human DNA does NOT regenerate, so either the timelord DNA
took over and he is all timelord, or else a new entity was created and
he is neither timelord nor human, but that is impossible as well,
because he could only be made of what was present in the totality of
the DNA. So the more similar the DNA of humans and timelords are, the
less likely it would be that a new distinct entity could be formed.
It's like saying if you crossed oranges and tangelos you could come up
with apples.
I work at Glaxo-Wellcome in Research IR, with people who do genetic
research. They're with me on this. It's a crock. Conception does not
occur across species. Gunea pigs and rabbits do not have babies, and
dogs and cats do not mate with each other. A creature with two
hearts, a low body temp, a different respiration system, and the
ability to spontaneously recover from death could not produce
offspring with a human.
Jeri Massi
How about half human?
The problem is that in most cases when the Doctor talks about
reversing the polarity of the neutron flow, he is talking about
something that humans in this century have built. In AUTONS it was
the radio telescope. In TIME MONSTER it was the TOMTIT machine. Of
course, in FRONTIER IN SPACE it was the sonic screwdriver, but that
was to magnetize it, so that assumes a polarity or polarizing effect
of neutrons, but it just ain't there in neutrons.
But yes, as far as stupider techno babble, "Living metal" comes to
mind, as well as the virus developed to kill living metal.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5onalo$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I work at Glaxo-Wellcome in Research IR, with people who do genetic
>research. They're with me on this. It's a crock. Conception does not
>occur across species. Gunea pigs and rabbits do not have babies, and
>dogs and cats do not mate with each other. A creature with two
>hearts, a low body temp, a different respiration system, and the
>ability to spontaneously recover from death could not produce
>offspring with a human.
Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
David Matthewman
jmm4...@glaxo.com wrote in article <8670956...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bc7fb0$4d39b350$b0b78fc2@davidmpc>,
> "David Matthewman" <da...@xara.com> wrote:
>
> No, my statement is, 'when electrons flow, it's electricity. But
> neutrons do not flow because they cannot be separated out from a nucleus
> without splitting into a proton and an electron."
Yes, they can. And you can have a beam of neutrons. I've used one.
> If neutrons move around within the nucleus, the motion could be called
> "flow" but the use of the word is entirely different from its use when
> describing electron "flow," which does have polarity and an effective
> direction. In other words, though neutrons may move and you can call it
> "flow," they still possess no polarity, the flow is not polarized, and so
> there is no such thing as reversing the polarity of the neutron flow.
Neutrons do not have a polarity, but their flow can. Flow is a vector - it
has a direction. This direction can be measures relative to (say) a
surrounding electrical field, and can therefore be said to have a polarity.
If there were
also protons traveling in this field, the polarity of the neutron flow
could be highly significant.
> Because the Doctor was always talking about something that was going on
> in an electrical circuit (or within his sonic screwdriver) whenever he
> used the phrase, it remains essentially meaningless.
In the first place, just because 'reversing the polarity of the neutron
flow' was used in inappropriate places within Dr Who doesn't make the
phrase itself meaningless. In the second place, the Doctor tended to use it
in situations where I have frankly no idea of the technology involved. How
do you know he doesn't have a neutron flow within his sonic screwdriver?
> He was not engaging
> in neutron diffraction at any time that he used the phrase but was
> usually trying to power something down in an emergency situation, or--in
> the instance of the sonic screwdriver--he was turning it into a magnet.
> All those situations were relying on the idea of polarity and its effect
> on magnetic and/or electrical fields. So the statements about reversing
> the polarity of the neutron flow were meaningless.
No, all these ideas were reliant on the viewer accepting a technobabble
answer to what the Doctor was doing. In no case that I can think of do we
know, scientifically, what the Doctor's actually doing. So 'reversing the
polarity of the neutron flow' - a technically possible operation with
unspecified results - is as good an explanation as any. 'Reversing the
charge on the neutrons' would be more suspect, since neutrons by their very
nature are uncharged.
I'm not saying that the writers knew any of this, of course. ;-)
--
David Matthewman
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5onalo$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>I work at Glaxo-Wellcome in Research IR, with people who do genetic
>>research. They're with me on this. It's a crock. Conception does not
>>occur across species. Gunea pigs and rabbits do not have babies, and
>>dogs and cats do not mate with each other. A creature with two
>>hearts, a low body temp, a different respiration system, and the
>>ability to spontaneously recover from death could not produce
>>offspring with a human.
>Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
>is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
Crappy, silly, sentimental, crock, that's what.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5og598$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>It's been mentioned before on the NG that the 8th Doctor could not
>really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
>compatible
*gets out the SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY stamp again, but decides
that point's been made enough times by now*
Jeri Massi
"David Matthewman" <da...@xara.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, my statement is, 'when electrons flow, it's electricity. But
>> neutrons do not flow because they cannot be separated out from a nucleus
>> without splitting into a proton and an electron."
>Yes, they can. And you can have a beam of neutrons. I've used one.
Okay, granted they can. They have a half life of 12 minutes, so it
can be done. Of clurse, it requires a nuclear reactor or an
accelerator. Again, these were not present when he was working on the
earth technology and used the phrase. Did he have a nuclear reactor
in a sonic screwdriver? I don't think so. The hting was supposed to
be sonic, not nuclear. But even if he did, reversing the flow would
not turn it into a magnet, because changing the polarity of a flow or
of a neutron does not magnetize anything.
Also, because a neutron dispersion beam has to come from a nuclear
source, you couldn't reverse the polarity of the flow. What are you
going to do, suck the particles back into the reactor--or back into
the atoms? You can only meaningfully talk about reversing polarity in
something if it operates as a circuit (that is, it goes from pole to
pole), and neutron flow in a spectroscopic beam is not operating in a
circuit. It's dispersing in a wave
>Neutrons do not have a polarity, but their flow can. Flow is a vector - it
>has a direction. This direction can be measures relative to (say) a
>surrounding electrical field, and can therefore be said to have a polarity.
So what you are saying is that because the neutrons are moving, you
could arbitrarily find a pole and then say that the opposite direction
is the reverse or opposite pole. The problem is, since neutrons are
used in crystallography and spectroscopy (sp?), the only thing that
would happen if you did all this is that you would not "see" what you
were originally targetting and would end up measuring the atomic
structure of whatever happens to be opposite to it. It has nothing to
do with power transfer or magnetism.
>In the first place, just because 'reversing the polarity of the neutron
>flow' was used in inappropriate places within Dr Who doesn't make the
>phrase itself meaningless.
The phrase was entirely meaningless in its context. It had nothing to
do with what was happening in the story. Much as I like Dr.
Who--especially Pertwee, it was just technobabble.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5op02t$j...@camel4.mindspring.com>,>>In article <5onalo$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>I work at Glaxo-Wellcome in Research IR, with people who do genetic
>>>research. They're with me on this. It's a crock. Conception does not
>>>occur across species. Gunea pigs and rabbits do not have babies, and
>>>dogs and cats do not mate with each other. A creature with two
>>>hearts, a low body temp, a different respiration system, and the
>>>ability to spontaneously recover from death could not produce
>>>offspring with a human.
>>Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
>>is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
>Crappy, silly, sentimental, crock, that's what.
Oh -- so you admit that the fact that it's impossible isn't what's
important... it's the fact that, gosh darn it, you just don't *like* the
idea of the Doctor being half human. And so you'll beat that idea with
whatever stick is handy -- including sticks that could be used just as
validly on ideas you *do* like.
I think it's a shame you have to resort to "justifying" your dislike with
double standards.
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5og598$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>It's been mentioned before on the NG that the 8th Doctor could not
>>really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
>>compatible
>*gets out the SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY stamp again, but decides
>that point's been made enough times by now*
>Regards,
>Jon Blum
Pulls out electric fan to blow away smoke and mirrors strategies
again. If Human DNA is changed from what it is, it is no longer Human
DNA. No matter how advanced the technology, it could not change the
properties of human DNA and yet keep it human.
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>>Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
>>>is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
>>Crappy, silly, sentimental, crock, that's what.
>Oh -- so you admit that the fact that it's impossible isn't what's
>important... it's the fact that, gosh darn it, you just don't *like* the
>idea of the Doctor being half human. And so you'll beat that idea with
>whatever stick is handy -- including sticks that could be used just as
>validly on ideas you *do* like.
>I think it's a shame you have to resort to "justifying" your dislike with
>double standards.
>Regards,
>Jon Blum
No, it's crappy science AND a crappy plot device. Two, I never
thought that finding validity in a story was a moral choice. I don't
think I am employing a double standard, but if I am, may this be my
worse shame! Three, you have no idea what motives I have or do not
have, but I guess you can keep guessing. I've had to explain this to
you before Jon, so this time I will say it slowly: I - Do - Not -
Answer- To - You. I - Do - Not - Have - To - Justify - Myself - To -
You." I can't help it if you get your feelings hurt every time I
point out how stupid the half human idea is.
--Jeri
Aidan Alexander Folkes
Nathanael C. Nerode (ner...@carleton.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: It's certainly not science, but I think it's perfectly responsible
: I could remember some of it.
Time Travel, Faster than Light travel, Transdimensional engineering.
Parallel universes.
--
Aidan Folkes go Bye Bye!
Have a jelly baby any jelly baby. If your Marcus its
bound to be a black one.
Mike Ramsay
Nathanael C. Nerode wrote in article ...
>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Jeri Massi wrote:
>> "Nathanael C. Nerode" <ner...@carleton.edu> wrote:
>> >On 21 Jun 1997, KTPattersn wrote:
>> >> Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of
the
>> >> neutron flow, but . . . I have a question for technically-minded Who
fans.
>> >> How can there be a "polarity" in a neutron flow since neutrons are
not
>> >> charged particles?
In case this is of any help, during a Physics degree I once attended a
lecture where a professor Bruce Forsyth (honestly!) referred to "Reversing
the polarisation of the neutron beam" after a friend and I had spent a
weekend watching Doctor Who videos and wondered why we burst out laughing.
Seriously, although neutrons do not have charge, they do have spin, and can
therefore be spin-polarised, hence the prof's quote!
Mike.
Jeri Massi
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>Those are story-teller's criteria, and given how much nonsense we swallow
>with our daily "Doctor Who", that's a more honest way of assessing the
>question than the "It's bad science!" method.
>(My own feeling is that the half-human thing would have been developed
>further in a TV series, which is why it was only mentioned in the TVM -
>and that it *could* be used to tell powerful new stories, instead of Trek
>cliches.)
>Disliking the film, or the half-human thing, is perfectly respectable.
>Claiming that science is on your side - when you don't know what
>Gallifreyan science, or even 21st Century Earth science, can do - is
>unconvincing, unless you're prepared to admit that much of "Doctor Who"
>is pseudoscientific nonsense. In which case, one more bit of nonsense
>hardly matters. :-)
The one thing I do know is that something cannot be half human, no
matter how technologically advanced Gallifrey's sciences are. Half
human as expressed in the TV movie indicated characteristics in the
DNA of both humans and timelords--for example, a human retinal pattern
Plot-wise, the entire concept, if based on genetic engineering, is
still flawed because it opens the enormous question that if this were
not a conception from the passion of his parents (as it obviously
could not be), then what was going on? Why was somebody experimenting
with this, and how did the retinal eye pattern survive through seven
regenerations?
Along the storyline it stinks because it contradicts what came before,
and it is so hackneyed and sentimental. We've had enough of it with
Spock and Qwai Chang Cane.
There is a lot of pseudo science and nonsense in Dr. Who. Some of it
the reader can swallow or accept as a premise to get the story going.
I take the regeneration simply as a device that kept the serial going;
it had a use and could not be dispensed with. But the polarity of the
neutron flow also makes me wince, and I'm pretty sure most of the
writers in the 90s would not put it in. And the half human thing
makes me wince. Recognizing that there is contrivance in Dr. Who
because at times there had to be still has nothing to do with new
contrivances that are useless and distracting. Readers are more
sophisticated now than they were in the 70's, and I think it is a big
mistake to fall back on cliches and contrivances--especially when they
are not necessary.
You said you could think of a half dozen ways, given sufficient
technology, that a person could be half human. So tell me, as a
person with a degree in genetics, how a person could be half human and
half some other species with a different cardiac system, respiratory
system, and life span. Because I guarantee you, the people doing
genetic research at Glaxo-Wellcome assured me it could not happen. It
has nothing to do with technology but with what DNA is.
Jeri Massi
af6...@irix.bris.ac.uk (Aidan Alexander Folkes) wrote:
>Nathanael C. Nerode (ner...@carleton.edu) wrote:
>[snip]
>: It's certainly not science, but I think it's perfectly responsible
>: science *fiction*. There's been much stupider technobabble in DW; I wish
>: I could remember some of it.
>Time Travel, Faster than Light travel, Transdimensional engineering.
>Parallel universes.
Faster than light travel raises an interesting point. If something
traveled faster than light, we could never observe it, and its
properties would defy the rules that we understand of matter. So
could something travel faster than light but have properties all its
own?
The rest I agree with, except I don't even know what Transdimensional
engineering is. It's a reference I've missed.
BFElliott
Well, if as I fear it was a human/Dalek hybrid, the humans DNA could
have been mutated by Dalek DNA, this time creating a species that is
apparently not as deadly. (At least we thought that until "Trial of A Time
Lord" where it turned out that they tried to eliminate humanity. Which,
given their genetic makeup could have been catastrophic. I hate temporal
paradoxes.)
BFE
"But I know that out of that great evil, must come something...good."
http://www.jnpcs.com/hhahn/Murder_Ink/index.htm
http://www.jnpcs.com/hhahn/Brass_Turkey/Index.htm
Jonathan Blum
In article <5opaqm$b...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>*gets out the SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY stamp again, but decides
>>that point's been made enough times by now*
>Pulls out electric fan to blow away smoke and mirrors strategies
>again. If Human DNA is changed from what it is, it is no longer Human
>DNA. No matter how advanced the technology, it could not change the
>properties of human DNA and yet keep it human.
*watches as Jeri's own argument blows away in the gust from the fan* :-)
The Doctor doesn't say his DNA is recognizably human. Just that he's
half-human on his mother's side. His mother's DNA could have been sliced,
diced, reprocessed, rearranged, folded into neat little origami shapes,
and generally processed into something which is compatible with Time Lords
-- but that wouldn't change the fact that it came from a human source, and
can contain recognizably human characteristics which are clearly different
from a Time Lord.
As I said, Sufficiently Advanced Technology. (Not even that Sufficiently
Advanced, in fact -- they've already transplanted genes across species and
genus lines, in the case of those famous glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants.)
If you can buy the Krynoid, which takes a full-blooded human and
rearranges them on a sub-cellular level into a walking vegetable, then
this should be a piece of cake.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5opb2e$b...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
>>important... it's the fact that, gosh darn it, you just don't *like* the
>>idea of the Doctor being half human. And so you'll beat that idea with
>>whatever stick is handy -- including sticks that could be used just as
>>validly on ideas you *do* like.
>>I think it's a shame you have to resort to "justifying" your dislike with
>>double standards.
>No, it's crappy science AND a crappy plot device.
As I said -- given that you've already accepted regeneration, what makes
the science of half-human-ness any more ridiculous, or the potential for
it being used as a bad plot device any worse? You've already accepted a
plot device which can have your hero survive *death*, after all -- talk
about blowing reality out of the water!
>Two, I never
>thought that finding validity in a story was a moral choice.
What's this about moral choices? All you're doing is attacking a story
element you don't like, while excusing the exact same flaws in a story
element you do like.
>I've had to explain this to
>you before Jon, so this time I will say it slowly: I - Do - Not -
>Answer- To - You. I - Do - Not - Have - To - Justify - Myself - To -
>You."
Of course you don't. But if you keep posting the same things over and
over again, and people keep pointing out the same inconsistencies in what
you say over and over again, and you never address them... well then
you'll look really really silly, won't you?
If you just said you didn't like the half-human thing, then that's your
own taste -- there's nothing anyone can argue with, really. (Though it
does get kind of boring after the eight hundredth repetition.) But when
you start insisting that there's something objectively bad about it, then
you're getting into the realm of "facts", and those are always open to
challenge...
Darcel
In article <5ogj31$p...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
says...
> But neutrons don't flow. Or if they do, they take the rest of the
> atom with them, unlike electrons, which break out of their orbits and
> hop around from atom to atom, and thus form a flow. The flow of
> electrons down a conductive material is electricity--well, voltage
> really.
potential to cause current to flow is voltage measured in Volts. I can
have a tremendous voltage built across a spark gap but no current flow
until the potential is sufficiently large enough to cause the electrons
[current] to "jump" the gap. You see the same thing on a much larger
scale when you see lightning.>
[snipped]
Cheers -
Brig
Darcel
In article <5opjjc$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
says...
>
>
> You said you could think of a half dozen ways, given sufficient
> technology, that a person could be half human. So tell me, as a
The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
Evolution does not mean that the next species branch will forsake all
traits of the parent. If something works well - like the visual system -
it won't change. A mutation can not afford to be weaker than the parent
nor can it afford to be too efficient. Being to efficient can be just as
dangerous as being less efficient. There would be nothing to stop humans
from evolving to have two hearts and still retain their current retina
system.
Who can say today what sort of engineering may exist 3000 years from now?
If any scientist told you "It is impossible for all time" they are either
very conceited, very foolish or both. If they said "It is impossible by
today's knowledge" then that is correct.
The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
Cheers -
Brig
Eva W Jacobus
Jonathan Blum wrote:
> Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
> is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
Ah, Jon, look at it as a lizard re-growing a tail on a larger scale. :-)
Actually, aside from McCoy, the Docs never actually die... they get
thiiiiiiis close, and then regenerate. It's entirely possible it's like
an adrenal secretion, and one could have a regeneration kick in without
real need for it.
So only McCoy's ever "spontaneously recovered from death", and if one
wishes, that can be put down to more of Jacobs' great research into the
show. In general, Timelords regenerate to repair physical trauma.
Otherwise the Master's "die, Doctor, die" line would mean nothing.
Death is final for a Timelord; regeneration must take place before that.
Making them... lizards?
--Eva
Kate Orman
>>>>Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
>>>>is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
>
>>>Crappy, silly, sentimental, crock, that's what.
>
>>Oh -- so you admit that the fact that it's impossible isn't what's
>>important... it's the fact that, gosh darn it, you just don't *like* the
>>idea of the Doctor being half human. And so you'll beat that idea with
>>whatever stick is handy -- including sticks that could be used just as
>>validly on ideas you *do* like.
>
>>I think it's a shame you have to resort to "justifying" your dislike with
>>double standards.
>No, it's crappy science AND a crappy plot device. Two, I never
>thought that finding validity in a story was a moral choice. I don't
>think I am employing a double standard, but if I am, may this be my
>worse shame! Three, you have no idea what motives I have or do not
>have, but I guess you can keep guessing. I've had to explain this to
>you before Jon, so this time I will say it slowly: I - Do - Not -
>Answer- To - You. I - Do - Not - Have - To - Justify - Myself - To -
>You." I can't help it if you get your feelings hurt every time I
>point out how stupid the half human idea is.
If you don't have to answer to Jon, then don't.
But if you'd like to defend your position - that the half-human thing is a
poor plot device - then talk about it *as* a plot device, not as a
scientific impossibility.
Because, by the same standards you're using, regeneration is also "crappy
science". I mean, what species can completely remake its body like that,
in a few seconds? Why isn't each new Doctor just rejuvenated? Why is the
age of the newly regenerated Doctor different each time - how could a
newborn Doctor have wrinkles, or white hair? How can the Doctor's accent
change - that's not genetic!
Now, regeneration is a very clever, show-saving plot device - so we don't
worry about the fact that it's total pseudoscientific nonsense. :-) That's
a double standard - good/liked ideas don't have to make scientific sense,
while bad/disliked ideas can be freely attacked as a "crock".
But on the other hand:
I'm an SF writer *and* I have a degree in genetics - and I can think of
half a dozen ways regeneration *or* a half-human Doctor could be possible,
given sufficiently advanced technology.
That means that instead of insisting that Gallifrey may only use
technology explicable in 1990s science, I'm free to imagine whatever I
please - within some scientific boundaries, of course, but they're very
broad. There are more, and more interesting, stories I can tell, because
I'm not assuming that the Time lords use clumsy tools like restriction
enzymes and alpha radiation and boiling water to work their genetics.
It's only a small step from modern genetic engineering to imagining
very complex, high-tech, powerful genetic engineering - the kind that
might make regeneration, or a half-human Doctor, possible.
Now, it's entirely possible to back up a claim that the half-human thing
is a bad plot *device*. It's used off-handledly in the film - it hardly
seems relevant. And it could lead to crummy cliches. (In fact, it's so
easy to back up this claim that it's surprising anyone has to resort to
squealing about it.)
Those are story-teller's criteria, and given how much nonsense we swallow
with our daily "Doctor Who", that's a more honest way of assessing the
question than the "It's bad science!" method.
(My own feeling is that the half-human thing would have been developed
further in a TV series, which is why it was only mentioned in the TVM -
and that it *could* be used to tell powerful new stories, instead of Trek
cliches.)
Disliking the film, or the half-human thing, is perfectly respectable.
Claiming that science is on your side - when you don't know what
Gallifreyan science, or even 21st Century Earth science, can do - is
unconvincing, unless you're prepared to admit that much of "Doctor Who"
is pseudoscientific nonsense. In which case, one more bit of nonsense
hardly matters. :-)
--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman
David Golding
In article <5ok5sk$c...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, R.J. Smith wrote:
>Actually, Barry Letts tried to get around the problem in his novelisation
>of The Ghosts of N-Space (actually, it might have been Paradise of Death
>now that I come to think of it). He had the Doctor pointing out the
>inaccuracy to the Brigadier - and then wibbling some nonsense about it
>working because he believed it to work. Like the rest of the book, this
>was a totally stupid thing to do and best forgotten by everyone involved
>(if only!).
This is actually a major theme of the NA/MA. It pops up in 'Time's
Crucible', 'Warhead', 'Christmas on a Rational Planet' and 'So Vile a
Sin' most notably. It's also played around with a bit in a lot of the
more 'pop' science fiction I've read in the last five years based on a
dubious understanding of quantum physics. Paul Cornell put some
pseudo-science into the mouth of Ruath in 'Goth Opera'; due to looks of
incomprehension from the vampires she ammended her explanation to
"magic".
"We are an unscientific people." :)
higs, Dave
--
david by default, jade by choice akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
a dog person with cat tendencies
David Golding
In article <MPG.e1a3ae19...@news.flash.net>, Darcel wrote:
>The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
>mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
>Evolution does not mean that the next species branch will forsake all
>traits of the parent. If something works well - like the visual system -
>it won't change.
Not true. The visual system may change to something rather inappropriate
for the environment. However other changes may take place in this branch
of the species that allow them to survive in the environment when the
others die. Evolution will not one day reach some point where a perfect
life form pops out.
>The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
>that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
Based on what? Morphology? That's a very poor basis for an estimate of
DNA commonality.
Alex
>I work at Glaxo-Wellcome in Research IR, with people who do genetic
>research. They're with me on this. It's a crock. Conception does not
>occur across species. Gunea pigs and rabbits do not have babies, and
>dogs and cats do not mate with each other. A creature with two
>hearts, a low body temp, a different respiration system, and the
>ability to spontaneously recover from death could not produce
>offspring with a human.
>
Humans, admittedly not very viable ones, have been born with two hearts.
The pattern is not so different. It's not so much a matter of genetic
possibility as developmental embryology.
I just had a rant about DNA on another thread so I'll stop that here.
Has anyone considered chimera?
This is a recognised mixing, but not fusion, of two bodies. It's most
often induced in mice cos mice get all the dirty jobs. You can get a
white mouse with brown paws and the different parts have different DNA.
It's done with plants too; and across species. You get trees of one type
with flowers that belong to another.
I'm rabbiting on now, but I think it's worth a speculate or two.
Alex
--------------------------
What are you assuming now?
Paul Rhodes
jer...@pipeline.com (Jeri Massi) wrote:
>Did he have a nuclear reactor
>in a sonic screwdriver? I don't think so. The hting was supposed to
>be sonic, not nuclear.
The thing was sonic. I don't recall it ever being stated that it was
not nuclear (or indeed that it was).
Paul
David Matthewman
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5op0nv$v...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
> "David Matthewman" <da...@xara.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No, my statement is, 'when electrons flow, it's electricity. But
> >> neutrons do not flow because they cannot be separated out from a
nucleus
> >> without splitting into a proton and an electron."
>
> >Yes, they can. And you can have a beam of neutrons. I've used one.
>
> Okay, granted they can. They have a half life of 12 minutes, so it
> can be done. Of clurse, it requires a nuclear reactor or an
> accelerator. Again, these were not present when he was working on the
> earth technology and used the phrase. Did he have a nuclear reactor
> in a sonic screwdriver? I don't think so. The hting was supposed to
> be sonic, not nuclear. But even if he did, reversing the flow would
> not turn it into a magnet, because changing the polarity of a flow or
> of a neutron does not magnetize anything.
So it's a 'sonic' screwdriver. Does this mean that it can't be powered by
anything but sound? Do we, in fact, have any idea how it works, or whether
or not it contains neutrons? Is it current Earth technology? I don't think
so.
> Also, because a neutron dispersion beam has to come from a nuclear
> source, you couldn't reverse the polarity of the flow. What are you
> going to do, suck the particles back into the reactor--or back into
> the atoms?
That's how we generate neutron beams today, yes. But who's to say how it
*could* be done, given the right technology? A couple of posts ago you were
telling me that neutrons couldn't be separated out from the nucleus - which
indeed wasn't possible a few decades ago. Just because we can't do it now
doesn't mean it can't be done.
> You can only meaningfully talk about reversing polarity in
> something if it operates as a circuit (that is, it goes from pole to
> pole), and neutron flow in a spectroscopic beam is not operating in a
> circuit. It's dispersing in a wave
If something is operating in a circuit it's going round in circles, not
from pole to pole. If I turn a magnet through 180 degrees, I've reversed
the polarity of the magnetic field around that magnet. It's not immediately
clear to me what the 'circuit' there is.
> >Neutrons do not have a polarity, but their flow can. Flow is a vector -
it
> >has a direction. This direction can be measures relative to (say) a
> >surrounding electrical field, and can therefore be said to have a
polarity.
>
> So what you are saying is that because the neutrons are moving, you
> could arbitrarily find a pole and then say that the opposite direction
> is the reverse or opposite pole. The problem is, since neutrons are
> used in crystallography and spectroscopy (sp?), the only thing that
> would happen if you did all this is that you would not "see" what you
> were originally targetting and would end up measuring the atomic
> structure of whatever happens to be opposite to it. It has nothing to
> do with power transfer or magnetism.
Just because Earth technology only uses neutrons in this way doesn't meant
that's the only way they could be used. I offered up neutron diffraction as
a practical application of a neutron flow, because you originally said that
there was no such thing as a neutron flow.
Now you seem to be saying that there *is* such a thing as a neutron flow.
And it can be said to have a polarity. And, if you reversed this polarity,
something would happen (you wouldn't get neutron diffraction through your
specimen, if you were doing neutron diffraction).
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if the Doctor
could reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, this would have a
measurable effect.
> >In the first place, just because 'reversing the polarity of the neutron
> >flow' was used in inappropriate places within Dr Who doesn't make the
> >phrase itself meaningless.
>
> The phrase was entirely meaningless in its context. It had nothing to
> do with what was happening in the story. Much as I like Dr.
> Who--especially Pertwee, it was just technobabble.
Well, I more or less agree here. But you snipped that bit of my post... ;-)
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>If you just said you didn't like the half-human thing, then that's your
>own taste -- there's nothing anyone can argue with, really. (Though it
>does get kind of boring after the eight hundredth repetition.) But when
>you start insisting that there's something objectively bad about it, then
>you're getting into the realm of "facts", and those are always open to
>challenge...
Well there is something bad about it. It couldn't happen. Again, the
fact that other unworkable scientific ideas have been presented in Dr.
Who doesn't make the half human idea any less bad. I have to concede
to those ideas that were necessary to keep the show going (like
regeneration, although as Eva pointed out, up to a certain point in
the series I thought it was his way of recovering from a fatal wound
rather than a way to come back from the dead.) But I don't think I'm
using a double standard--I cringe on the reversing of the polarity of
the neutron flow just like I cringe on the half human thing. I cringe
*more* on the half human thing because aside from being impossible, it
was such a throwback to 70s television situations.
I'm sorry you felt it necessary to switch from a discussion of the
topic to an attack on me and the standards I employ. But it still
does not matter. The concept is silly, and it is sentimental and
distracting as well. Who or what I am does not change that.
Now that is my opinion. I have no intention to word it to conciliate
you. You can continue to attack my person if you like by accusing me
of a double standard or telling me I'll look silly, but it still
doesn't matter. The concept of being half human is impossible.
Jeri Massi
bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
>mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
<SNIP>
But with the Doctor they are talking about one generation, and
evolution is not advanced (or caused at all) when creatures from two
different species mate (because they can't produce offspring). I
can't figure out your argument.
>The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
>that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
I don't know--two hearts would make them *very* different from us.
And it seems that there are other significant differences as well.
But taking your point, a chimpanzee is still a chimpanzee, and in
spite of being within 1% (if that is accurate), a chimpanzee still
cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
species and we are another.
Jeri Massi
Alex <Al...@chaos-cottage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Humans, admittedly not very viable ones, have been born with two hearts.
>The pattern is not so different. It's not so much a matter of genetic
>possibility as developmental embryology.
The pattern is entirely different, and the lack of viability proves
it. They cannot survive with two hearts because the rest of their
cardiac, circulatory system, and respiration is designed for one
heart. That's my point. Just because a single characteristic can be
achieved (as a defect), the two different systems of two different
species cannot be reconciled. Genetic engineering has nothing to do
with it. It's a question of what DNA is.
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5opaqm$b...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>>*gets out the SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY stamp again, but decides
>>>that point's been made enough times by now*
>The Doctor doesn't say his DNA is recognizably human.
The Master says it. The retinal eye pattern.
This is my point, and this is what the people at Glaxo were saying.
He could not be called half human. He is either human or he is not.
If his DNA is not recognizably human, then he is not human, even if
human components went into his genetic engineering. I guess it's like
what the guy said about chimpanzees being only 1% different than
humans in their DNA. But they are still chimpanzees. Or like a virus
when it takes over a human cell and appropriates bits of DNA coding
for itself in order to reproduce. The virus cell is not half human.
It's still a virus.
>If you can buy the Krynoid, which takes a full-blooded human and
>rearranges them on a sub-cellular level into a walking vegetable, then
>this should be a piece of cake.
Well, I never said that I did buy the Krynoid, or that my rejection of
(and annoyance with) the half human thing means that I accept
wholesale every other piece of science nonsense in DW.
Jeri Massi
bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
Argh! Okay, I knew this would come up. But current is actually the
*rate* of flow, right? (sort of like speed). And Voltage is also
called emf (electro-motive force) so it is the "pressure" that
intitiates the flow. You cannot have current at all unless there is a
potential.
(Scratches head) Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? The point
is, neutrons don't work this way.
Jeri Massi
"David Matthewman" <da...@xara.com> wrote:
>So it's a 'sonic' screwdriver. Does this mean that it can't be powered by
>anything but sound? Do we, in fact, have any idea how it works, or whether
>or not it contains neutrons? Is it current Earth technology? I don't think
>so.
But no matter how it is powered, reversing a flow of neutrons would
not magnetize it.
>Just because Earth technology only uses neutrons in this way doesn't meant
>that's the only way they could be used. I offered up neutron diffraction as
>a practical application of a neutron flow, because you originally said that
>there was no such thing as a neutron flow.
This is the same argument that's come up in this thread about DNA.
Neutrons, because they have no charge, cannot be used for the delivery
of power, and certainly could not have been used for the delivery of
power in the stories where the Doctor indicates that they were. It
doesn't matter what the technology is. Neutrons just can't do that.
Well, not by flowing. Separating them into smaller particles would
give you quite a jolt, I'm sure.
I was mistaken about the neutrons not being able to be pulled out of a
nucleus because I was not thinking about a nuclear reactor or
accelerator (because I *was* thinking about them in terms of what was
going on in the stories--power circuits). But again, when you talk
about a flow of neutrons, you are talking about something that is
completely different from the flow of electrons, and yet in the
stories, the Doctor's phrase is indicating something that has to do
with electrical flow.
BTW, a circuit *is* considered polarized.
Brad Filippone
KTPattersn (ktpat...@aol.com) wrote:
: Okay, we all know how the Doctor is always reversing the polarity of the
: neutron flow,
Actually, he only did it once. In The Sea Devils.
Jonathan Blum
In article <33AFEB6B...@mit.edu>,
Eva W Jacobus <ejac...@mit.edu> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>> Given that a creature with the ability to spontaneously recover from death
>> is a crock to begin with, what's one more crock between friends?
>Ah, Jon, look at it as a lizard re-growing a tail on a larger scale. :-)
>
>Actually, aside from McCoy, the Docs never actually die... they get
>thiiiiiiis close, and then regenerate.
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the little scenes where Doctors 1-6 each whimper
plaintively "I'm not dead yet", then start singing "I FEEL HAPPY!" just
before their next incarnation bonks them over the head and takes over.
:-)
In all the previous cases, the Doctors could either have just died at that
moment, or still been alive -- and whether they're coming back to life or
instantaneously healing fatal injuries in seconds just before death, it's
still got nothing to do with the way "real" biology works.
The fact remains that regeneration has always been presented as a
handwave, with no sensible scientific explanation presented (unless you
count "being exposed to a singularity" as one) -- and that the damage you
could do with such a plot device is much greater than a half-human
backstory could. The first time we saw such a "renewal", it might have
just come into play when someone from the Doctor's race died of old age;
the second, it could be triggered artificially; but by the third time,
it's clear that the Doctor can survive practically anything that could
kill him -- and that makes it a lot harder to pull off effective
melodrama.
I think in general, they've managed to use regeneration effectively
despite the potential pitfalls -- and I wish people would give the
half-human idea the same chance.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5oqsdo$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>The Doctor doesn't say his DNA is recognizably human.
>The Master says it. The retinal eye pattern.
No, the Master says "That's the retinal structure of the human eye."
That's like him looking at one of those gene-transplanted tobacco plants
-- which we already have in 1997 -- and saying "That's the luminescent
compound of a firefly."
The Master never mentions DNA.
>This is my point, and this is what the people at Glaxo were saying.
>He could not be called half human. He is either human or he is not.
So what would you call someone who is the product of two strands of DNA --
one from a human, one from a Gallifreyan -- which have both been tweaked
somewhat out of their normal sequences, so that they no longer fit the
precise form for "human" or "Gallifreyan" (while still containing much of
the same information), so that they can combine successfully?
Me, I'd call it half-human half-Gallifreyan, but then I'm not a
geneticist.
But then again, neither is the Master.
[snip]
>>If you can buy the Krynoid, which takes a full-blooded human and
>>rearranges them on a sub-cellular level into a walking vegetable, then
>>this should be a piece of cake.
>Well, I never said that I did buy the Krynoid, or that my rejection of
>(and annoyance with) the half human thing means that I accept
>wholesale every other piece of science nonsense in DW.
Yet while I've seen you post time and again about how the idea of someone
being half-human is scientific garbage, I have yet to see you post once
about the equally garbage science behind the Krynoid, or regeneration, or
the Androgum inheritance, or any of the other times Doctor Who waves its
hands vaguely in the direction of genetics.
That, in a nutshell, is the double standard.
Saulchurch
All right, just one more time: As a general rule, canon=what I like, not
canon=what I don't like.
In the case of the "Is the Doctor really half human" question, my
intuitive answer is no-I don't like the idea any more than (some of) you
do-yet at the same time I can see how it could be made to fit established
Who history, for example it makes a dandy explaination for why
regeneration always seems a riskier proposition for the Doctor than for
the other (no pun intended) presumably "full" Time Lords/Ladies (Borusa,
Romana).
This thread seems to me to be an example of how you can pull up facts
(from Who or reality) to support any argument you wish. There are
probably arguments that could be made to support scientifically the idea
that he could be half human, but if you're not looking to support that,
you're not going to find them.
Anyway-enough of my 2 bits worth.
--Saulchurch
"Okay, (The TARDIS Lock)'s a 21-tumbler system which melts if you find the wrong hole. It's attuned to the metabolisms of it's crew and will open for nobody else. Or it takes a simple key which fits every other TARDIS on Gallifrey."-DWM
Jeri Massi
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>In article <5oqr7v$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>I'm sorry you felt it necessary to switch from a discussion of the
>>topic to an attack on me and the standards I employ. But it still
>>does not matter. The concept is silly, and it is sentimental and
>>distracting as well. Who or what I am does not change that.
>Point of order. When Jon says you use a double standard, he's attacking
>your argument, not your person. That's why he uses examples from your
>argument - not from your personal life, or something - to back up his
>claim, as I did.
>"Morality" has nothing to do with it; the logic, precision, and accuracy
>of your arguments does.
>[snip]
Pardon me, I stand corrected. "Double standard" seems to be a moral
judgement to me, but I take your point. It doesn't have to be. All
the same, as I've explained, I cringe on both the reversed polarity of
neutron flows and half humans (also, though not previously mentioned,
whatever that thing was that was made out of teacups, spoons, and used
tea leaves to detect the Master's TARDIS, also "living metal," also a
few other things that I can't recall at the moment.)
The thing with the neutron flow is a god out of the box device. It
frustrates me storywise because I'm set for a scientific explanation
and then there is none. But it's an episode by episode thing. It does
NOT show up in lots of episodes. The half human thing grates on my
nerves because it's a hackneyed and sentimental device (as well as
impossible) that didn't even keep the story stitched together. And it
keeps hanging on. At least the series "outgrew" reversing the
polarity of the neutron flow.
There are inconsistencies and impossibilities in the premise of the
show as it was set up that the viewer had to accept just to get going
(like time travel), But these were interesting concepts in and of
themselves (time travel). And there were inconsistencies necessary
just to keep the series going (like regeneration to replace Hartnell
with Troughton). These contribute to my distaste of stuff that's
nonsense that is *not* necessary to keep the series going, especially
stuff that's been used before and is not interesting. *And* is
impossible.
I'm sure that even now as we speak, Kate, you are organizing a couple
ideas on how technology could create/engineer a half human creature.
I look forward to seeing it, because I don't think it's possible, and
it has nothing to do with technology. And my researcher at Glaxo
Wellcome is telling me I'm right.
--Jeri
Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel
Jeri Massi
al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:
Brad! He did it in AUTONS (well, that was just "reverse the polarity"
and he did it in TIME MONSTER, and he did it in FRONTIER IN SPACE (in
the sonic screwdriver to magnetize it).
--Jeri.
Ken Mann
1. I believe that someone has already mentioned spin, so yes neutrons
can have polarity.
2. It would seem possible that as DNA encodes information that
information could be encoded in a different chemistry, just as the code
can be written in letters instead of DNA. An alien biochemistry could
therefore be mapped into DNA code, and vice versa. Alien hybrids could
therefore be produced, but only by a system which interpreted the
meaning of the genes, rather than relying on chemistry to do the job for
you. I believe John M Ford came up with something like this in a Star
Trek spin-off novel to try to give a convincing explanation to paper
over the Star Trek script writers ignorance of genetics. Doesn't stop
the half-human stuff being a bad idea, but sufficiently energetic hand-
waving can work wonders.
3. Parallel worlds are a scientifically respectable idea.
4. It is possible to come up with a technobabble explanation as to why a
sculpture made out of a wine bottle, corks, forks, and tea-cups would
interfere with the workings of a time machine. It involves the
statistical distribution of parallel worlds in the multiverse.
5. I once had responsibility for some equipment which had a setting
labelled "polarity". I never had to reverse it though, which was most
disappointing.
--
Ken Mann
Still taking the tablets.
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>No, the Master says "That's the retinal structure of the human eye."
>That's like him looking at one of those gene-transplanted tobacco plants
>-- which we already have in 1997 -- and saying "That's the luminescent
>compound of a firefly."
But the tobbaco plants are still tobacco plants. They are not half
firefly.
>So what would you call someone who is the product of two strands of DNA --
>one from a human, one from a Gallifreyan -- which have both been tweaked
>somewhat out of their normal sequences, so that they no longer fit the
>precise form for "human" or "Gallifreyan" (while still containing much of
>the same information), so that they can combine successfully?
>Me, I'd call it half-human half-Gallifreyan, but then I'm not a
>geneticist.
So I'd gather, but the person could not be a product of two strands of
DNA, one human and one timelord. That's the impossibility. The two
strands are not compatible. A timelord has two hearts, a different
respiration system, and a different circulatory system. That DNA is
not going to combine with DNA for a creature with such vast
differences in metabolism and structure, not any more than the mating
of a human with chimpanzee would produce offspring. And the physical
differences between humans and timelords are much wider than the
physical differences between humans and chimpanzees.
>Yet while I've seen you post time and again about how the idea of someone
>being half-human is scientific garbage, I have yet to see you post once
>about the equally garbage science behind the Krynoid, or regeneration, or
>the Androgum inheritance, or any of the other times Doctor Who waves its
>hands vaguely in the direction of genetics.
>That, in a nutshell, is the double standard.
Jon, what I choose to post about is only what I choose to post about.
What I think about these ideas as I run across them is in my mind, and
you can't know it. I'm sorry--you are not the posting sheriff of the
newsgroup, assigned to note and report on people who post more heavily
on certain things than on others. Well, maybe you are, but it doesn't
affect me.
If it pleases you or assauges your feelings to note I have a double
standard, you can certainly do it. It does not at all detract from my
point that the half human thing is tripe, which it is. It's still
tripe, no matter what standards I employ. But I hated the androgum
story so much that I never noticed anything in there about genetics.
It was so wretchedly boring and repetitive I started house cleaning,
as I recall, and only stopped to watch the scenes with Patrick
Troughton. There is such a thing as giving up on a story before you
even find all its absurdities, you know.
But finding and being repulsed by the half human thing does not create
any obligation in me to find every other scientific blooper in DW.
It's enough to know that that one stinks. I haven't even *seen* all
the stories in Dr. Who--just all the Pertwees. If the one with the
Krynoid is the one I think it is--with Tom Baker and the big house and
the mulchig machine that nearly everybody got thrown in to, that was
sort of like the androgum story. I was stupefied before I got to any
explanations.
--Jeri
Jonathan Blum
In article <5orv3a$v...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>No, the Master says "That's the retinal structure of the human eye."
>>That's like him looking at one of those gene-transplanted tobacco plants
>>-- which we already have in 1997 -- and saying "That's the luminescent
>>compound of a firefly."
>But the tobbaco plants are still tobacco plants. They are not half
>firefly.
Nevertheless, they are genetically part-firefly. Would your objections to
those scenes in the movie have gone away if the Master had said "The
Doctor is genetically part-human" rather than "The Doctor is half human"?
Or if the Doctor had said "I'm genetically part-human on my mother's
side"?
Somehow I doubt it -- because, as I've said, it's the *idea* of the Doctor
having human ancestry which you loathe, and you're just seizing on a
"scientific" reason to bash it.
>>So what would you call someone who is the product of two strands of DNA --
>>one from a human, one from a Gallifreyan -- which have both been tweaked
>>somewhat out of their normal sequences, so that they no longer fit the
>>precise form for "human" or "Gallifreyan" (while still containing much of
>>the same information), so that they can combine successfully?
>>Me, I'd call it half-human half-Gallifreyan, but then I'm not a
>>geneticist.
>So I'd gather, but the person could not be a product of two strands of
>DNA, one human and one timelord. That's the impossibility. The two
>strands are not compatible.
Read my question again, this time paying special attention to the bit that
says "which have both been tweaked somewhat out of their normal
sequences... so that they can combine successfully," and then try
answering it again.
Yes, such tweaking (the creation of a new carrier to allow you to combine
incompatible genetic material on such a scale) is beyond the realm of
current human technology. But it's not theoretically impossible -- and
I'll be glad to point you to folks from the Hughes Institute who'll back
that up.
[snip]
>If it pleases you or assauges your feelings to note I have a double
>standard, you can certainly do it. It does not at all detract from my
>point that the half human thing is tripe, which it is.
Actually, it does detract from it -- since it's now been shown that the
standard you're citing to prove it's "tripe", scientific impossibility,
would also cause much more accepted ideas (like regeneration) to fall into
the "tripe" category. So if you don't think these other things are tripe,
then it suggests there's something wrong with judging just on that
standard.
Again, if you'd just say you don't like the Doctor being half-human,
there's nothing wrong with that. Pointing out that it's not necessary?
That's a fair cop. That it could potentially be used in really cliched
ways, a la Spock? Yep. But focusing on scientific impossibility is a
seriously flawed argument -- and bringing the matter up over and over
again without adding anything new gets really boring too.
[snip]
Darcel
In article <5oqsmb$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
says...
> bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>
> >In article <5ogj31$p...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
> >says...
> >> But neutrons don't flow. Or if they do, they take the rest of the
> >> atom with them, unlike electrons, which break out of their orbits and
> >> hop around from atom to atom, and thus form a flow. The flow of
> >> electrons down a conductive material is electricity--well, voltage
> >> really.
> >Actually, the flow of the electrons is current measured in Amps. The
> >potential to cause current to flow is voltage measured in Volts. I can
> >have a tremendous voltage built across a spark gap but no current flow
> >until the potential is sufficiently large enough to cause the electrons
> >[current] to "jump" the gap. You see the same thing on a much larger
> >scale when you see lightning.>
> Argh! Okay, I knew this would come up. But current is actually the
> *rate* of flow, right? (sort of like speed). And Voltage is also
> called emf (electro-motive force) so it is the "pressure" that
> intitiates the flow. You cannot have current at all unless there is a
> potential.
>
voltage. I have a MS in electrical engineering CS and I tell you this is
not true. Voltage is the potential difference between the positive and
negative charges that result in electron flow. You are correct that
electron flow cannot occur with out voltage but electron flow is current
not voltage. Any electrician will tell you that "Voltage can't kill you
- it's the current that does the job."
> (Scratches head) Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? The point
> is, neutrons don't work this way.
>
was talking metaphorically.
Cheers -
Brig
Darcel
[This followup was posted to rec.arts.drwho and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]
In article <slrn45r1bj2...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>,
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au says...
> In article <MPG.e1a3ae19...@news.flash.net>, Darcel wrote:
>
> >The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
> >mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
> >Evolution does not mean that the next species branch will forsake all
> >traits of the parent. If something works well - like the visual system -
> >it won't change.
>
> Not true. The visual system may change to something rather inappropriate
> for the environment. However other changes may take place in this branch
> of the species that allow them to survive in the environment when the
> others die. Evolution will not one day reach some point where a perfect
> life form pops out.
>
True. But if the mutation affects the retina system making it less
efficient it would be very hard for the species to survive long enough to
adapt. There are plenty of competitor species out there waiting for a
chance to nudge another aside and into extinction. However, I agree that
it is not impossible - just highly improbable.
I also never said that evolution would produce the perfect life form.
This would be quite foolish since neither I, nor anyone else, knows what
the perfect life form might be - if there is such a thing. What I did
say was that successful species survive by being efficient at finding
food and not becoming food for someone else (well, maybe not in those
words). The name of the game is survival and any mutation that hinders
survival spells extinction.
> >The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
> >that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
>
> Based on what? Morphology? That's a very poor basis for an estimate of
> DNA commonality.
>
Well - based on the theory that the human race was fostered by the TLs to
begin with. And that TLs and humans are both humanoid while a chimp is a
primate.
Cheers -
Brig
Darcel
In article <5oqri6$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
says...
> bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>
> >The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
> >mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
>
> But with the Doctor they are talking about one generation, and
> evolution is not advanced (or caused at all) when creatures from two
> different species mate (because they can't produce offspring). I
> can't figure out your argument.
>
had believed that the Doctor if half human had always been so.
And I do not recall anyone (Master or Doctor) ever saying the Doctor was
the result of a sexual liaison between a TL and a human. "On my mother's
side" could mean anything - a human female's DNA spliced with a male
TL's.
> >The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
> >that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
>
> I don't know--two hearts would make them *very* different from us.
> And it seems that there are other significant differences as well.
> But taking your point, a chimpanzee is still a chimpanzee, and in
> spite of being within 1% (if that is accurate), a chimpanzee still
> cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
> species and we are another.
>
>
Well I agree that he'd be a TL but that doesn't mean he would have some
human characteristics. So little is really known - genetics at this
level is a very new science. 2000 years ago the idea of DNA would have
seemed preposterous.
Cheers -
Brig
Kate Orman
In article <5opjjc$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
[Lots snipped. Back up to the last article for my full tirade. :-)]
>>Those are story-teller's criteria, and given how much nonsense we swallow
>>with our daily "Doctor Who", that's a more honest way of assessing the
>>question than the "It's bad science!" method.
>
>>(My own feeling is that the half-human thing would have been developed
>>further in a TV series, which is why it was only mentioned in the TVM -
>>and that it *could* be used to tell powerful new stories, instead of Trek
>>cliches.)
>
>>Disliking the film, or the half-human thing, is perfectly respectable.
>>Claiming that science is on your side - when you don't know what
>>Gallifreyan science, or even 21st Century Earth science, can do - is
>>unconvincing, unless you're prepared to admit that much of "Doctor Who"
>>is pseudoscientific nonsense. In which case, one more bit of nonsense
>>hardly matters. :-)
>
>The one thing I do know is that something cannot be half human, no
>matter how technologically advanced Gallifrey's sciences are. Half
>human as expressed in the TV movie indicated characteristics in the
>DNA of both humans and timelords--for example, a human retinal pattern
In fact, we know nearly *nothing* about what it means for the Doctor to be
half-human. Wisely, the TVM steered clear of the details - when "The
X-Files" is vague about genetics, it gets it right, but when it goes into
detail, it messes up. :-)
We certainly weren't told enough for you to conclude that it's a genetic
impossibility. Sure, the Master says, "See that? That's the retinal
structure of the human eye". But if I looked at a mule, and said, "See
that? That's the ear structure of a donkey", would you still argue it was
a genetic impossibility?
Have you read "The Also People"? There's a fascinating sequence in which
we see a powerful alien biology at work, translating and editing human
DNA, selecting the best genes and throwing out unwanted characteristics.
In principle, that's no different to what a genetic engineer can do in the
lab - but imagine if that lab was on a fabulously advanced computer, or
was even the body of an organism with powerful genetic engineering
capabilities of its own!
Because we don't know exactly what it mean for the Doctor to be
half-human, we can't claim it's impossible. For instance, what if his
mother was human, but his Time Lord genes dominate - so his human
heritage only shows up in subtle ways, as in the retina? What if humans
and Time Lords are actually closely related, so you'd only notice human
characteristics on close examination?
As you can see, with a little imagination, it's no more impossible than
anything done in a genetics lab today. And that's because, sensibly, they
didn't botch it up by trying to give a wonky scientific explanation. It's
a mystery.
>Plot-wise, the entire concept, if based on genetic engineering, is
>still flawed because it opens the enormous question that if this were
>not a conception from the passion of his parents (as it obviously
>could not be), then what was going on? Why was somebody experimenting
>with this, and how did the retinal eye pattern survive through seven
>regenerations?
What if it *was* the result of his parents having sex? What if his
father's sperm carry genetic tools to help incorporate the human DNA, or
his mother took a special drug, or some nanites, to help the process?
This is SF - we can imagine all kinds of technological advances and
possibilities.
It's those "Why?"s which provide future story opportunities. As I said,
it was probably being set up to be explored in a (hypothetical) series -
they didn't want to give away too much at the beginning.
>Along the storyline it stinks because it contradicts what came before,
>and it is so hackneyed and sentimental. We've had enough of it with
>Spock and Qwai Chang Cane.
It never had a chance to *be* hackneyed and sentimental. It could
certainly be used that way - endless quests for the Doctor's parents, blah
blah blah. But it wasn't used that way in the TVM - it was barely touched
on.
An interesting fact from "The Nth Doctor" is that Spock *was* the
inspiration for the Doctor's half-humanity - but not in the way you'd
expect. Instead of having him long for Earth or feel torn between two
planets (feeling like a mule? :-), the writers had in mind Spock's
strained relationship with his father. Interesting story material, that.
>There is a lot of pseudo science and nonsense in Dr. Who. Some of it
>the reader can swallow or accept as a premise to get the story going.
>I take the regeneration simply as a device that kept the serial going;
>it had a use and could not be dispensed with. But the polarity of the
>neutron flow also makes me wince, and I'm pretty sure most of the
>writers in the 90s would not put it in. And the half human thing
>makes me wince. Recognizing that there is contrivance in Dr. Who
>because at times there had to be still has nothing to do with new
>contrivances that are useless and distracting. Readers are more
>sophisticated now than they were in the 70's, and I think it is a big
>mistake to fall back on cliches and contrivances--especially when they
>are not necessary.
As I said, whether the half-human thing really is a contrivance or a
cliche would depend on how it was eventually used. As it was, we never
got a series to explore it - and we won't be touching on it in the BBC
Books. As an idea, it's sadly dead in the water.
>You said you could think of a half dozen ways, given sufficient
>technology, that a person could be half human. So tell me, as a
>person with a degree in genetics, how a person could be half human and
>half some other species with a different cardiac system, respiratory
>system, and life span. Because I guarantee you, the people doing
>genetic research at Glaxo-Wellcome assured me it could not happen. It
>has nothing to do with technology but with what DNA is.
Did you mention to those researchers that you were talking about an
unimaginably advanced species? See above for a few ideas which, given the
technology, might make a half-human Doctor plausible.
btw, *I* have a respiratory bypass system. It's called myoglobin. It's
nowhere near as efficient as the Doctor's, but it does stop my muscles
running out of oxygen when I'm out of breath. And until we know how
regeneration works, there's not much point in debating whether it's a
scientific impossibility. :-)
And that's true for the half-human thing - we have to drop our
assumptions, because we don't *know* what the genetics are. And that means
we *can't* insist it's impossible - we simply don't know. That leaves us
free to imagine.
Kate Orman
In article <5oqri6$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
[snip]
>>The DNA of a chimpanzee is only 1% different from a human. I suspect
>>that a TL's DNA would be much closer than that.
>
>I don't know--two hearts would make them *very* different from us.
It's surprising how a small genetic difference can produce such different
creatures, which is think is the reason to mention the chimp. After all,
Jon and I are virtually genetically identical - but I've got entire
*organs* that he doesn't. :-) (And that's likely to be the result of a
single gene difference!)
Let's play with the idea that humans and Time Lords are related. It would
not only explain the half-human thing, but also why the Doctor looks so
similar to us - there are important differences, but he can easily pass
for human. (Could a chimp?) That ability to hide amongst humans would make
Earth an attractive refuge for a renegade... as for the second heart,
could it be a result of the first regeneration? A result of a few extra
genes, as in human sexual dimorphism? Or something like Larry Niven's Pak,
who start human and grow a second heart when they mature into "aliens"?
What's the relationship between Time Lords and humans - are we their
descendants? Their ancestors? Some kind of off-shoot, or experiment?
As you can see, all sorts of possibilities open up when you start to mess
around with the half-human thing. With a bit of imagination, it need not
be limited to the obvious cliches.
>And it seems that there are other significant differences as well.
>But taking your point, a chimpanzee is still a chimpanzee, and in
>spite of being within 1% (if that is accurate), a chimpanzee still
>cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
>species and we are another.
This is circular, in a way - the *definition* of a species is a group
which can produce fertile, healthy offspring under natural conditions.
You'll notice the definition doesn't say anything about *un*natural
conditions, like the involvement of mind-bogglingly advanced technology.
:-)
Kate Orman
In article <5oqr7v$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm sorry you felt it necessary to switch from a discussion of the
>topic to an attack on me and the standards I employ. But it still
>does not matter. The concept is silly, and it is sentimental and
>distracting as well. Who or what I am does not change that.
Point of order. When Jon says you use a double standard, he's attacking
your argument, not your person. That's why he uses examples from your
argument - not from your personal life, or something - to back up his
claim, as I did.
"Morality" has nothing to do with it; the logic, precision, and accuracy
of your arguments does.
[snip]
--
Kate Orman
In article <5oqrsr$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Alex <Al...@chaos-cottage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Humans, admittedly not very viable ones, have been born with two hearts.
>>The pattern is not so different. It's not so much a matter of genetic
>>possibility as developmental embryology.
>
>The pattern is entirely different, and the lack of viability proves
>it. They cannot survive with two hearts because the rest of their
>cardiac, circulatory system, and respiration is designed for one
>heart. That's my point. Just because a single characteristic can be
>achieved (as a defect), the two different systems of two different
>species cannot be reconciled. Genetic engineering has nothing to do
>with it. It's a question of what DNA is.
Well, no. The chemical nature of DNA, and developmental embryology, are
two very different things. "What DNA is" has nothing whatsoever to do with
the argument, unless you're trying to say that a half-human Doctor would
have to have hybridised strands of human and Gallifreyan DNA, which is
nonsense.
And is the "pattern" "entirely different"? That dead embryo is clearly
human - not "entirely different". But something went wrong - and it
might not have been something genetic.
Think of DNA as the magnetic medium on your hard drive. When you run a
program, you don't think in terms of tiny bits of magnetised metal, but
in terms of programs - the instructions which tell your computer what to do.
Now, a lot can go wrong. Your hard drive could be physically corrupted -
the equivalent of damage to the DNA. The instructions could be scrambled
by a bug or a virus - missing parts of genes, whole missing genes, genes
which code for the wrong proteins. Or there could be a completely extrnal
problem, like a power surge - just as radiation and drugs can mess up an
embryo's development.
Now, let's say that extra heart is the equivalent of a whole extra part of
your program. But in a human embryo, it's a mistake - caused by a bit of
damaged DNA, a scrambled instruction, or something outside the embryo
itself. The embryo can't cope with this extra organ, and it dies.
But what if you changed the program? What if you altered the embryo's
genes so that it *could* handle the extra organ - built in those extra
systems? Even with today's genetics, that's *theoretically* possible, even
if it's a long way off.
So the mistake which kills the embryo could become a deliberate change -
given sufficiently advanced technology. The dead two-hearted embryo is no
proof that you couldn't *create* a two-hearted, half-human Doctor.
It's also no proof that humans and Time Lords couldn't share some kind of
common ancestry. People are being born today who lack some of the useless
toe joints we still have. Maybe, in some distant past, we lost our extra
heart - or the at least the genes which made it possible. Maybe the
Doctor's mother still had those genes, quietly dormant, and they were
simply reactivated in her son, thank to Daddy's DNA.
Of course, all of this is speculation. But it's all based on science. And
that's what SF is all about.
Kate Orman
In article <5oqsdo$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
>>The Doctor doesn't say his DNA is recognizably human.
>
>The Master says it. The retinal eye pattern.
I'm sorry to keep hammering this point, but the Master - and the TVM -
never refer to genes or DNA. All the Master says is, "That's the retinal
structure of the human eye. The Doctor is half-human."
Grace looks at the Doctor's blood and says, "It's not blood." We dont'
know exactly what she was seeing, but if his blood isn't recognisably
human, why should his DNA be?
The problem here is the assumption that the Doctor is (a) totally
unrelated to humans, and therefore genetically incompatible with them, and
(b) that he's the result of a simple cross, no high technology involved at
any stage.
Cling to those assumptions, and a half-human Doctor is impossible.
Recognise that they *are* assumptions, and that they could be wrong, and a
world of possibilities - and possible stories - opens up.
>This is my point, and this is what the people at Glaxo were saying.
>He could not be called half human. He is either human or he is not.
Then a mule is either a horse, or a donkey.
[snip]
Kate Orman
In article <5opaqm$b...@camel3.mindspring.com>,>>In article <5og598$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>It's been mentioned before on the NG that the 8th Doctor could not
>>>really be half human and half non-human, as the DNA would not be
>>>compatible
>
>>*gets out the SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY stamp again, but decides
>>that point's been made enough times by now*
>Pulls out electric fan to blow away smoke and mirrors strategies
>again. If Human DNA is changed from what it is, it is no longer Human
>DNA. No matter how advanced the technology, it could not change the
>properties of human DNA and yet keep it human.
I find this line of argument hard to understand.
When you say "changed from what it is", when you say "properties", what
do you mean? The TVM and the show don't mention DNA or genes. And the TVM
doesn't say that the Doctor is human, or that he has human DNA.
Is the horse DNA in a mule's cells no longer horse DNA? If so, which
"properties" have changed?
Alex
In article <5orube$k...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi
<jer...@pipeline.com> said
>I look forward to seeing it, because I don't think it's possible, and
>it has nothing to do with technology. And my researcher at Glaxo
>Wellcome is telling me I'm right.
>
>--Jeri
For pity's sake, that's arguing by authority; a technique most usualy
employed by religious fundementalists.
"A scientist has said......" Take you pick. Somewhere somewhen a
scientist has said any thing you can think of.
What are this researchers arguments to back up your case?
Alex
--------------------------
What are you assuming now?
It's been a hard week. It's 2:45 in the morning. I'm still writing reports for
the external modorater (Actually I'm skiveing 10 minutes off) and tomorrow will
be hell so I feel bitchy.
Jeri Massi
bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>In article <5oqri6$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
>says...
>> bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>>
>> >The pattern of DNA is fixed. However, mutations do occur. These
>> >mutations in conjunction with natural selection lead to evolution.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> But with the Doctor they are talking about one generation, and
>> evolution is not advanced (or caused at all) when creatures from two
>> different species mate (because they can't produce offspring). I
>> can't figure out your argument.
>>
>I don't understand where you came up with the "one generation" theory.
The Doctor's so-called "half human" attribute is not the result of
many generations of development of characteristics but the result of a
single mating--whether sexually or artificially. He did not evolve
into a half human or partially human creature. I'm saying that as far
as I can see it is apples and oranges reasoning. Cross breeding
between disparate species does not have a lot to do with evolution.
Two different arguments.
>Well I agree that he'd be a TL but that doesn't mean he would have some
>human characteristics. So little is really known - genetics at this
>level is a very new science. 2000 years ago the idea of DNA would have
>seemed preposterous.
So are you saying that because we don't know it's okay to assume it
could work? But we do know--we know that it wouldn't work. Timelords
and humans obviously have common characteristics (two hands, two feet)
but also many widely disparate characteristics--too disparate for the
DNA to be similar enough to combine. The entire circulatory system of
a TL must be diferent from that of humans, and respiration is
different too. So there would be differences even down to cellular
levels in the methods by which oxygen would be transferred, waste
transported, etc.
Jeri Massi
Alex <Al...@chaos-cottage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5orube$k...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi
><jer...@pipeline.com> said
>>I look forward to seeing it, because I don't think it's possible, and
>>it has nothing to do with technology. And my researcher at Glaxo
>>Wellcome is telling me I'm right.
>>
>>--Jeri
>For pity's sake, that's arguing by authority; a technique most usualy
>employed by religious fundementalists.
>"A scientist has said......" Take you pick. Somewhere somewhen a
>scientist has said any thing you can think of.
>What are this researchers arguments to back up your case?
They're listed above (well, and below, too). I'm waiting for the
counter argument. But somewhere in the thread it was indicated that
since I'm not a geneticist, I cannot make the claim, so I am keeping
up with a geneticist on it. But my own point is simple. Human DNA is
human DNA--or it is not. There is no such thing as a creature that
could be parented by the characeristics of a TL combined with the
characteristics of a human and be "half human."
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5orv3a$v...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>>No, the Master says "That's the retinal structure of the human eye."
>>>That's like him looking at one of those gene-transplanted tobacco plants
>>>-- which we already have in 1997 -- and saying "That's the luminescent
>>>compound of a firefly."
>>But the tobbaco plants are still tobacco plants. They are not half
>>firefly.
>Nevertheless, they are genetically part-firefly. Would your objections to
>those scenes in the movie have gone away if the Master had said "The
>Doctor is genetically part-human" rather than "The Doctor is half human"?
>Or if the Doctor had said "I'm genetically part-human on my mother's
>side"?
>Somehow I doubt it -- because, as I've said, it's the *idea* of the Doctor
>having human ancestry which you loathe, and you're just seizing on a
>"scientific" reason to bash it.
Oh, there you go, playing mind reader again. I think that any pointer
to human ancestry raises the question that it's contradictory to the
previous storyline, but also that there's no reason for it. Why would
a better adapted race try to graft in human genes? The illogic of it
does bother me.
But again, the tobacco plants are not reckoned as having firefly
parents. They are tobacco plants, and a gene has been engineered into
them. They are not half firefly, and nobody talks about a firefly
parent of the tobacco plants, but rather a single firefly
characeristic.
>>>So what would you call someone who is the product of two strands of DNA --
>>>one from a human, one from a Gallifreyan -- which have both been tweaked
>>>somewhat out of their normal sequences, so that they no longer fit the
>>>precise form for "human" or "Gallifreyan" (while still containing much of
>>>the same information), so that they can combine successfully?
>>>Me, I'd call it half-human half-Gallifreyan, but then I'm not a
>>>geneticist.
>>So I'd gather, but the person could not be a product of two strands of
>>DNA, one human and one timelord. That's the impossibility. The two
>>strands are not compatible.
>Read my question again, this time paying special attention to the bit that
>says "which have both been tweaked somewhat out of their normal
>sequences... so that they can combine successfully," and then try
>answering it again.
A tweak would not do it. The two systems are entirely different. A
cardio-vascular system cannot be half human and half TL. It has to be
all one or all the other. And if the cardio-vascular system goes one
way, then the respiratory system would have to go that way to, and
things like cell wall strength would also have to go that way.
Tweaking will not do it. Maybe somebody could take all available
characeristics and completely structure something else, but that would
be an entirely new design.
>>If it pleases you or assauges your feelings to note I have a double
>>standard, you can certainly do it. It does not at all detract from my
>>point that the half human thing is tripe, which it is.
>Actually, it does detract from it -- since it's now been shown that the
>standard you're citing to prove it's "tripe", scientific impossibility,
>would also cause much more accepted ideas (like regeneration) to fall into
>the "tripe" category. So if you don't think these other things are tripe,
>then it suggests there's something wrong with judging just on that
>standard.
>Again, if you'd just say you don't like the Doctor being half-human,
>there's nothing wrong with that. Pointing out that it's not necessary?
>That's a fair cop. That it could potentially be used in really cliched
>ways, a la Spock? Yep. But focusing on scientific impossibility is a
>seriously flawed argument -
No it's not Jon, because it still remains true--regardless of my
standard, which is off the point anyway. He could not be a
combination of two such different species.
And as far as I can see, I've acknowledged and offered a pretty long
defense of the chief scientific nonsense of the era that I keep up
with--the polarity of the neutron flow. Efforts to make me
responsible to point out all scientific flaws in the rest of DW--when
I don't even like the other Doctors (except for a new fondness for
Troughton)--to somehow justify my right to point out this particular
flaw, are meaningless. It's a flaw, and I'm pointing it out.
Jeri Massi
Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@earthweb.com> wrote:
>How many times did Pertwee r the p of the nf, anyway? I know it's been
>done many times since, but the phrase seems to be particularly
>associated with the third incarnation. I dimly remember watching for
>the phrase when NJN cycled through his part of the series many years
>ago, and only noticing it once. Did it slip past me many times, or is it
>like "Elementary, my dear Watson" - a phrase seldom, if ever, used
>outside of fannish minds?
He says "Reverse the Polarity" in TERROR OF THE AUTONS.
Brad F. mentioned that the entire phrase ("Reverse the polarity of the
neutron flow") shows up in SEA DEVILS
I noted it in TIME MONSTER, when the TOMTIT machine is running amok.
The Doctor yells the directive to the woman scientist, and she seems
to know what he means, because she pulls out a component of the
machine, reverses it, and reinstalls it.
He says it again in FRONTIER IN SPACE when he turns the sonic
screwdriver into a magnet. There may be more, but those are the ones
I can recall in context.
I think somebody mentioned early in the thread that Troughton said it.
But maybe the person meant Pertwee.
Jeri Massi
bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>In article <5oqsmb$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jer...@pipeline.com
>says...
>> bda...@flash.net (Darcel) wrote:
>>
>If you read above you will see that you stated that electron flow is
>voltage. I have a MS in electrical engineering CS and I tell you this is
>not true. Voltage is the potential difference between the positive and
>negative charges that result in electron flow. You are correct that
>electron flow cannot occur with out voltage but electron flow is current
>not voltage. Any electrician will tell you that "Voltage can't kill you
>- it's the current that does the job."
>
>> (Scratches head) Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? The point
>> is, neutrons don't work this way.
>>
>Correct even though neutrons can flow. Anyway, I always felt the Doctor
>was talking metaphorically.
>Cheers -
>Brig
Okay, here goes. I have a two year degree in EET. There came a point
in the course work when we just jumped from saying E (for emf) and
then started calling it V (voltage). But our teacher definitely
warned us (since we would be the people handling the electrical
equipment) NOT to adhere to the adage that voltage won't kill you;
current will, because voltage had to be there for current to be there,
and that very high voltage with very low current would indeed kill a
person. This was proved out when a painter at Vogel Nuclear plant
stood up between two discharge spheres and caused an arc. No current
flowed until he made himself the other end of the potential difference
for a discharge to ground. He was killed. And on t he other end of
the question, people who work from a floating ground can mess with
live wires. Though the current may be high enough to kill, the
floating ground prevents the discharge. Not that *I'm* going to try
it. I turn stuff of at the breaker box.
This is purely asking for clarification. I think the Doctor was
talking in the 70's, when anything was possible as long as it sounded
sufficiently complex.
William Thompson
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5oso5m$a...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
> Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@earthweb.com> wrote:
>
> >How many times did Pertwee r the p of the nf, anyway? I know it's been
> >done many times since, but the phrase seems to be particularly
> >associated with the third incarnation. I dimly remember watching for
> >the phrase when NJN cycled through his part of the series many years
> >ago, and only noticing it once. Did it slip past me many times, or is it
> >like "Elementary, my dear Watson" - a phrase seldom, if ever, used
> >outside of fannish minds?
>
> He says "Reverse the Polarity" in TERROR OF THE AUTONS.
> Brad F. mentioned that the entire phrase ("Reverse the polarity of the
> neutron flow") shows up in SEA DEVILS
> I noted it in TIME MONSTER, when the TOMTIT machine is running amok.
> The Doctor yells the directive to the woman scientist, and she seems
> to know what he means, because she pulls out a component of the
> machine, reverses it, and reinstalls it.
> He says it again in FRONTIER IN SPACE when he turns the sonic
> screwdriver into a magnet. There may be more, but those are the ones
> I can recall in context.
Pertwee used the phrase in the Five Doctors. I think it was put in for
nostalgic value.
--
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/7628/index.html
____ * /) /) ___ /) Bill (William A) Thompson
( / ) // // () / // wat...@mail.gmi.net
/--< / (/ (/ ____/_(/_ _______ _ _____
_/___)_/\_/\_/\_) (___/ / /_(_) / ) )/_)_/)_(_) / )__)
"Goodbye! It's good isn't it. Hmm?" /) No unsolicited
Tom Baker - 30 Years in the TARDIS (/commercial email!
NekoLeo
Aiden Alexander Folkes wrote:
>Nathanael C. Nerode (ner...@carleton.edu) wrote:
>[snip]
>: It's certainly not science, but I think it's perfectly responsible
>: science *fiction*. There's been much stupider technobabble in DW; I
wish
>: I could remember some of it.
>Time Travel, Faster than Light travel, Transdimensional engineering.
>Parallel universes.
No, no, no, NO! These are classic Science Fiction standards!
(read- cliches) Where would the show be without these? Esp.
time travel (yikes).
Doctor: Hm, there is so much evil and wrongdoing in the universe.
{glances at the nonfunctional Time Rotor}
Doctor: Oh well.
--NekoLeo
/\/\
(*^*) )
/ \ ( Be nice to people. They outnumber
/l l l l\ ) you 5.5 billion to one.
m m nek...@aol.com
Keith Topping
Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@earthweb.com> writes
>How many times did Pertwee r the p of the nf, anyway?
--
Keith Topping
David Golding
In article <5osntl$a...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi wrote:
>previous storyline, but also that there's no reason for it. Why would
>a better adapted race try to graft in human genes?
Better adapted to *what*, pray tell? Go on, pull out the one about the
perfect being...
higs, Dave
--
david by default, jade by choice akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
a dog person with cat tendencies
David Golding
In article <5oqri6$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi wrote:
>I don't know--two hearts would make them *very* different from us.
My house is very different to the house next door. Yet they're both
built with the same materials. I wouldn't go quoting morphology if I
were you.
>cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
>species and we are another.
And some species can interbreed.
David Golding
In article <5orube$k...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi wrote:
>The thing with the neutron flow is a god out of the box device. It
>frustrates me storywise because I'm set for a scientific explanation
>and then there is none. But it's an episode by episode thing. It does
>NOT show up in lots of episodes. The half human thing grates on my
>nerves because it's a hackneyed and sentimental device (as well as
>impossible) that didn't even keep the story stitched together. And it
>polarity of the neutron flow.
That's right. I hate the episode after episode drudgery of wading
through half-human this and half-human that. (Wot, there was only one
movie, whaddyataaaaalkingabout?)
>themselves (time travel). And there were inconsistencies necessary
>just to keep the series going (like regeneration to replace Hartnell
>with Troughton).
What pisses me off is that "The One Where The Doc Says He Cannot
Regenerate And That He's Never Heard Of Anything So Preposterous Hmmm
Hmmm Yes Hmmmm" is a classic, a true classic, and never deserved to have
its memory desecrated by the grubby little paws of Kit Pedler and Gerry
Davis.
David Golding
In article <MPG.e1b6636c...@news.flash.net>, Darcel wrote:
>True. But if the mutation affects the retina system making it less
>efficient it would be very hard for the species to survive long enough to
>adapt.
Efficiency compared to what? Human eyes have been deemed to be not very
efficient, yet we survive.
>There are plenty of competitor species out there waiting for a
>chance to nudge another aside and into extinction. However, I agree that
>it is not impossible - just highly improbable.
I don't think so. It is highly improbable that a mutant would survive
to breed if its ancestor's eye sight were the only thing keeping them
alive and it hadn't come up with anything else. But it is not improbable
for "useless" or "bad" things to come out of the evolutionary process.
>I also never said that evolution would produce the perfect life form.
Yah, sorry. But some of your statements often stem from such a concept.
Apologies.
>This would be quite foolish since neither I, nor anyone else, knows what
>the perfect life form might be - if there is such a thing.
It seems dubious. Any life form "perfectly adapted" to its *own*
environment would find short shrift in another.
[re: DNA commonality]
>Well - based on the theory that the human race was fostered by the TLs to
>begin with. And that TLs and humans are both humanoid while a chimp is a
>primate.
The theory that the human race was fostered by TLs is just that - a
theory. (And one I've never heard, actually.) And humanoid means two
arms, two legs, and a head - just like a chimp, yeah? Morphology means
little. There are species with whom the two genders look nothing alike.
There are other species whom are also genetically close to humans but
aren't even mammals.
Jeri Massi
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>>cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
>>species and we are another.
>And some species can interbreed.
Not species that are that different. The two very different
metabolisms do not match. Horses and donkeys--who are very, very
similar--come to mind. But there's no mismatch in how their bodies
work, though the offspring is always sterile. A horse and a donkey
can interbreed, but a horse and a cow cannot.
Jeri Massi
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>What pisses me off is that "The One Where The Doc Says He Cannot
>Regenerate And That He's Never Heard Of Anything So Preposterous Hmmm
>Hmmm Yes Hmmmm" is a classic, a true classic, and never deserved to have
>its memory desecrated by the grubby little paws of Kit Pedler and Gerry
>Davis.
>higs, Dave
>--
>david by default, jade by choice akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
> a dog person with cat tendencies
See, Dave? That's the benefit of sticking with the Pertwee era! No,
just kidding. I got called on my statement about the half human
thing, but you're right, of course. It was one bad idea. I am hoping
that the series will not be based on it from this point forward, but
from what I understand the BBC are just staying away from it--neither
saying yes nor no.
Jeri Massi
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>In article <5osntl$a...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi wrote:
>>previous storyline, but also that there's no reason for it. Why would
>>a better adapted race try to graft in human genes?
>Better adapted to *what*, pray tell? Go on, pull out the one about the
>perfect being...
>higs, Dave
>--
>david by default, jade by choice akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
> a dog person with cat tendencies
Whoa! I'm not the one who started that perfect being stuff! It's
just harder to kill timelords than humans, and they have a higher
intellect. Even if we looked at it coldly and said, "Well, 'better
adapted' is certainly an arbitrary statement," THEY certainly seem to
think they are better adapted. I still can't figure out why they
would graft in human genes.
Jeri Massi
Keith Topping <ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>--
>Keith Topping
Also in TIME MONSTER and in FRONTIER IN SPACE, Keith. (Hi Keith!
Hope you are doing well! I know you don't like Pertwee, but I still
want to read your book, but I can't find it!)
btre...@banmail.ml.com
Kate Orman wrote:
> It's surprising how a small genetic difference can produce such
> different
> creatures, which is think is the reason to mention the chimp. After
> all,
> Jon and I are virtually genetically identical - but I've got entire
> *organs* that he doesn't. :-) (And that's likely to be the result of a
>
> single gene difference!)
>
> Let's play with the idea that humans and Time Lords are related. It
> would
> not only explain the half-human thing, but also why the Doctor looks
> so
> similar to us - there are important differences, but he can easily
> pass
> for human. (Could a chimp?) That ability to hide amongst humans would
> make
> Earth an attractive refuge for a renegade... as for the second heart,
> could it be a result of the first regeneration? A result of a few
> extra
> genes, as in human sexual dimorphism? Or something like Larry Niven's
> Pak,
> who start human and grow a second heart when they mature into
> "aliens"?
> What's the relationship between Time Lords and humans - are we their
> descendants? Their ancestors? Some kind of off-shoot, or experiment?
I can't believe that nobody has even considered the possibility that
Earth IS Gallifrey. The reasons that the two species are so closely
related is that they ARE the same species. It is possible in the
Whoniverse that humans will discover the principles of time travel and
change their own DNA to promote such survival techniques as
regeneration, becoming a radically different species. Also, for
self-protection, they will move Earth back in time and space and rename
it to Gallifrey. It would explain the Time Lords' (and the Doctor's)
obsession with Earth.
Just my two cents.
--Brad
Jonathan Blum
In article <5othaf$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Whoa! I'm not the one who started that perfect being stuff! It's
>just harder to kill timelords than humans, and they have a higher
>intellect. Even if we looked at it coldly and said, "Well, 'better
>adapted' is certainly an arbitrary statement," THEY certainly seem to
>think they are better adapted. I still can't figure out why they
>would graft in human genes.
Because when the mommy human and the daddy Time Lord love each other very
much, they want a baby?
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Gerard Sweeney
>
> Well, I never said that I did buy the Krynoid, or that my rejection of
> (and annoyance with) the half human thing means that I accept
> wholesale every other piece of science nonsense in DW.
We can't really say that a lot of it is nonsense.. Remember when these
stories were written! The things we know nowadays were as good as Sci Fi
back then, so authors were able to take a few liberties (ahem) with
science...
It's the same with 2000AD, or even (probably) the NAs set in the earth's
future. We will no doubt look back and think "Oh, look what was
predicted in this Doctor Who book called xxxxxx, didn't the author get
THAT wrong!"
Gerard.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5otu7l$a...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>Well, no - technobabble has always popped up from time to time in "Doctor
>Who". The "neutron flow" line appeared again in "The Five Doctors", an
>amusing and harmless reference. (I know that the Third Doctor only used
>the line once, but does it appear in other stories?)
Yep -- in "Castrovalva", when the Doctor has regressed to his third
persona, and in "Mawdryn Undead", played almost perfectly straight.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5otgsh$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>>>cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
>>>species and we are another.
>>And some species can interbreed.
>Not species that are that different.
That's not what you said. And even assuming that that was what you meant,
it doesn't change the fact that genes can be mix-and-matched across
species lines -- even across *kingdom* lines. Because, when you get down
to it, they're all just collections of atoms -- and you'd think that a
race with the technology to rearrange a star on an atomic level could
rearrange the atoms which make up DNA molecules any way they bloody well
please.
No one has said -- least of all the telemovie -- that a cross between
between Time Lords and humans has to occur _naturally_.
Laurence Price
TO: ca...@earthweb.com
* In a message originally to All, Carl Muckenhoupt said:
> From: Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@earthweb.com> Subject: Re: Reversing
> the Polarity of the Neutron Flow Organization: EarthWeb
> How many times did Pertwee r the p of the nf, anyway?
He reversed it only once during his "normal" time as Doctor, in _The Sea
Devils_ to escape from the Sea Devils' base (conveniently blowing it up in
the process). However, he did it in _The Five Doctors_ to release the
forcefield holding the TARDIS and also in _The Paradise of Death_ while he
was fiddling with a Parakon gun (although he suggests that it's shorthand for
saying "Go away, you won't understand what I'm doing, but it's going to work
anyway").
Laurentius Martinus Praemius
--
Fidonet: Laurence Price 2:254/269
Internet: laurenc...@bsm-bbs.demon.co.uk
Standard disclaimer : The views of this user are strictly their own.
Don't delay, call today - Boiled Sweets Music BBS +44 (0)171 686 0135/6
Saulchurch
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote,
in article <5orbg9$2...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>:
[Lots snipped]
>What if it (The half human thing) *was* the result of his parents having
sex? What >if his
>father's sperm carry genetic tools to help incorporate the human DNA, or
>his mother took a special drug, or some nanites, to help the process?
>This is SF - we can imagine all kinds of technological advances and
>possibilities.
This does fit right in place with the line in Delta And The Bannermen
about "Love has never been known for it's rationality." The Doctor could
be talking about his own parents, as I'm sure I'm not the 1st to point
out. As I've said elsewhere, I don't like the half human thing, but cruk
if I don't keep thinking of ways to make it fit!
Completely off topic, I saw the film "My Best Friend's Wedding" yesterday
and really liked and recommend it...
--Saulchurch
"Okay, (The TARDIS Lock)'s a 21-tumbler system which melts if you find the wrong hole. It's attuned to the metabolisms of it's crew and will open for nobody else. Or it takes a simple key which fits every other TARDIS on Gallifrey."-DWM
Keith Topping
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> writes
the neutron flow" - the only time that phrase was used in the Pertwee
era was in The Sea Devils, and then they threw it into The Five Doctors
for a laugh!
>Hi Keith! Hope you are doing well!
Hi Jeri! I've got a *Massive* dose of 'flu, but aside from that...
really lousy, actually!
>I know you don't like Pertwee
I don't like *Pertwee's Doctor* - that's an important qualification. As
for the man himself, he was all right.
>but I still want to read your book, but I can't find it!
It'll arrive in America eventually, in the meantime, check out people
like Ambrosia and Bookpages who can order it for you - I'm sure their
representatives (eager for a Hot Sale) will be happy to come steaming in
at this point and do a sales pitch... Andrew - we're all waiting...
--
Keith Topping
Saulchurch
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote,
in article <5orcef$2...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>:
>I missed the little scenes where Doctors 1-6 each whimper
>plaintively "I'm not dead yet", then start singing "I FEEL HAPPY!" just
>before their next incarnation bonks them over the head and takes over.
:-)
Open letter to convention organizers: Please....I beg of you...have Colin
Baker and Sylvester McCoy at a con and ask them to do this....
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5otgsh$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>>>>cannot successfully produce offspring with a human. It is still one
>>>>species and we are another.
>>>And some species can interbreed.
>>Not species that are that different.
>That's not what you said. And even assuming that that was what you meant,
>it doesn't change the fact that genes can be mix-and-matched across
>species lines -- even across *kingdom* lines. Because, when you get down
>to it, they're all just collections of atoms -- and you'd think that a
>race with the technology to rearrange a star on an atomic level could
>rearrange the atoms which make up DNA molecules any way they bloody well
>please.
But not to successfully create an intact system. Even as close as
horses and donkeys are--the mules are sterile. You'd have to have
either the timelord metabolism or the human metabolism. They are too
different from each other to match up. What matches up a horse and a
donkey is that the DNA is so similar, yet even a few changes result in
a flaw. The mules' reproductive system cannot function as either
parent's system. TL and human DNA are way, far apart, and there
cannot be a halfway point in things like cardio vascular systems. The
creature is either two hearted, and then it has an entire two hearted
based system, or one-hearted, and then it has an entire one hearted
system. You cannot mate a one-hearted creature with a two-hearted
creature and come up with a 1.5 hearted creature. The DNA just will
not match. That offspring must be either all timelord pattern in its
metabolism or all human.
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <5othaf$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>Whoa! I'm not the one who started that perfect being stuff! It's
>>just harder to kill timelords than humans, and they have a higher
>>intellect. Even if we looked at it coldly and said, "Well, 'better
>>adapted' is certainly an arbitrary statement," THEY certainly seem to
>>think they are better adapted. I still can't figure out why they
>>would graft in human genes.
>Because when the mommy human and the daddy Time Lord love each other very
>much, they want a baby?
So in a fit of passion they run right to the lab, don the white gowns
and get out the canulas? My, I should have thought of that!
Jeri Massi
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Golding) wrote:
>What pisses me off is that "The One Where The Doc Says He Cannot
>Regenerate And That He's Never Heard Of Anything So Preposterous Hmmm
>Hmmm Yes Hmmmm" is a classic, a true classic, and never deserved to have
>its memory desecrated by the grubby little paws of Kit Pedler and Gerry
>Davis.
>higs, Dave
>--
>david by default, jade by choice akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
> a dog person with cat tendencies
Well, the one I really hate is where he looks at Jo and says, "Dammit,
Jo, I'm a Doctor, not a timelord." And then he stops and says, "Oh
wait a moment . . . "
ANOTHER IDEA UNSUCCESSFULLY BORROWED FROM STAR TREK!
Alex
In article <5osoju$f...@camel4.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi
<jer...@pipeline.com> said
>Okay, here goes. I have a two year degree in EET. There came a point
>in the course work when we just jumped from saying E (for emf) and
>then started calling it V (voltage).
Call it what you like; that's just terminology. When working with
powercircuits I would say voltage and when working with elecrostatics I
would call it potential. I might call it potential difference. Normally
I'd be thinking of a scalar field in space and use the term potential.
The vector field of potential difference can be derived from this.
>But our teacher definitely
>warned us (since we would be the people handling the electrical
>equipment) NOT to adhere to the adage that voltage won't kill you;
>current will, because voltage had to be there for current to be there,
Strictly potential difference and current are proportional fields; the
constant of proportionality being the local conductance. They exist
together; they don't cause each other.
>and that very high voltage with very low current would indeed kill a
>person. This was proved out when a painter at Vogel Nuclear plant
>stood up between two discharge spheres and caused an arc. No current
>flowed until he made himself the other end of the potential difference
>for a discharge to ground. He was killed.
He was killed when he put a volume of low conductance, himself, in a
volume which had had high conductance thus changing the ratio of current
to potential fom low to high and letting a large current pass.
You can kill you self with a high voltage low current (static shock)
which does'nt burn tissue but does muck up your nerve impulses. And you
can take quite a large current over the skin with high frequency surface
effects.
>And on t he other end of
>the question, people who work from a floating ground can mess with
>live wires. Though the current may be high enough to kill, the
>floating ground prevents the discharge.
If you make your self part of the current path floating ground won't
help you. It only works becaise you allow *all* your body to float too.
No potential difference, no current.
Allow one hand to be at the potential of one part of the circuit and the
other to touch a different potential and you've got a path through your
heart so bye bye. If the current is high enugh to kill it will.
>Not that *I'm* going to try
>it. I turn stuff of at the breaker box.
Sounds like a good idea
>
Alex
--------------------------
What are you assuming now?
Jonathan Blum
In article <5ouisi$4...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>In article <5othaf$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>Whoa! I'm not the one who started that perfect being stuff! It's
>>>just harder to kill timelords than humans, and they have a higher
>>>intellect. Even if we looked at it coldly and said, "Well, 'better
>>>adapted' is certainly an arbitrary statement," THEY certainly seem to
>>>think they are better adapted. I still can't figure out why they
>>>would graft in human genes.
>>Because when the mommy human and the daddy Time Lord love each other very
>>much, they want a baby?
>So in a fit of passion they run right to the lab, don the white gowns
>and get out the canulas? My, I should have thought of that!
As someone whose (adoptive) parents went through clinical efforts almost
as complex to try to have a kid, I can definitely believe this. :-)
Rebecca Dowgiert
On 27 Jun 1997, Kate Orman wrote:
> We don't *know* what the genetics differences - or similarities - are
> between humans and Time Lords. For all we know, only a few genes are
> needed to give the Time Lords their additional heart.
Right! Scientists studying developmental defects have found that it
doesn't take *much* for organs to end up malformed, missing, or in the
wrong place... Or rather, what little we know about development shows us
how *little* we know! :-) Meaning, it might not take much genetic
alteration to really change things around. Whether the resulting
phenotype (the physical result in the organiam) would be viable or not is
another matter....
--Becky Dowgiert
cha...@usa.pipeline.com
btre...@banmail.ml.com wrote:
>I can't believe that nobody has even considered the possibility that
>Earth IS Gallifrey. The reasons that the two species are so closely
>related is that they ARE the same species. It is possible in the
>Whoniverse that humans will discover the principles of time travel and
>change their own DNA to promote such survival techniques as
>regeneration, becoming a radically different species. Also, for
>self-protection, they will move Earth back in time and space and rename
>it to Gallifrey. It would explain the Time Lords' (and the Doctor's)
>obsession with Earth.
Interesting theory...but what of the Ravalox Interlude? And what of
the Doctor's exile? It seems at some point you end up duplicating the
planet in the same universe... I think a better theory might involve
Earth being "colonized" by Gallifreyans during the Old Time, and hence
it's special interest to the Time Lords later on. Maybe the entire
"Chariots of the Gods" idea could be reworked as "TARDISes of the
Gods".
They colonize Earth in ancient times, setting up a base in Sumeria.
Later they begin a operation in southern Africa where they mine gold
for a war with the Cybermen. The gold is shipped up the Nile to Giza
where it is blasted off to Gallifrey. The pyramids are built as
landing beacons for the ships, they shine quite brightly in the
Egyptian sun when covered in the white polished limestone. They
genetically enhance the native primates in Africa to become a slave
class for the mining operation, and the Gallifreyans on the planet
eventually mate with them, producing a hybrid race that is
reproductively viable. As the fertile crescent and the Nile valley
become populated with this new species, Homo Sapien, the Cyber-war
ends, and the Gallifreyans go home to let Earth evolve by it's own
course. (well, with the help of Eldrad, Scaroth, and the Fendhal.)
Am I lifting too much from Zecharia Stitchin?
Anywho,
Lance Hall
_________________________________________________________________________
"What I'm saying here, in case you're a yotz who needs things codified simply
and directly, is that Doctor Who is the apex, the pinnacle, the tops,
the Louvre museum, the Colosseum, and other et cetera."
---Harlan Ellison
_________________________________________________________________________
Darcel
In article <slrn45r4472...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>,
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au says...
>
> Efficiency compared to what? Human eyes have been deemed to be not very
> efficient, yet we survive.
>
The spectrum of light which can be seen by a human is a narrow band but
that does not make it inefficient. It wasn't necessary to see infra red
our ultra violet in the earthly environment to survive.
> I don't think so. It is highly improbable that a mutant would survive
> to breed if its ancestor's eye sight were the only thing keeping them
> alive and it hadn't come up with anything else. But it is not improbable
> for "useless" or "bad" things to come out of the evolutionary process.
>
A mutation is simply that. If a bird is hatched without wings it is at a
big disadvantage. It also doesn't mean that something else mutated to
compensate. That is not how genetic mutation and natural selection work.
The bird without wings will most likely not get a chance to propagate
because itt will either starve or become someone else's food.
> >I also never said that evolution would produce the perfect life form.
>
> Yah, sorry. But some of your statements often stem from such a concept.
> Apologies.
>
No. What I said was that if the mutation aids in survival then the new
traits will be passed on to offspring. That's not perfect it is natural
selection - survival of the strongest.
> >This would be quite foolish since neither I, nor anyone else, knows what
> >the perfect life form might be - if there is such a thing.
>
> It seems dubious. Any life form "perfectly adapted" to its *own*
> environment would find short shrift in another.
>
Give me your definition of "perfectly adapted" - I don't think it can
equate to the "perfect life form".
>
> The theory that the human race was fostered by TLs is just that - a
> theory. (And one I've never heard, actually.) And humanoid means two
> arms, two legs, and a head - just like a chimp, yeah? Morphology means
> little. There are species with whom the two genders look nothing alike.
> There are other species whom are also genetically close to humans but
> aren't even mammals.
>
The theory surfaces in radw from time to time. A small change in the DNA
can give you a human. Change it by 1% and you could get a chimp. Change
it even more subtly and you may get a TL or change the TL DNA slightly
and you might get a human.
Cheers -
Brig