Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Man of the People"
Timothy W. Lynch
offering, "Man of the People". Those not wishing to be exposed to spoiler
elements prematurely are advised to keep clear.
Ecch.
Well, I'll say this for it. It wasn't as bad as it looked. Of course, very
little *could* have been as bad as this looked from the preview--and this was
still pretty godawful. More after this synopsis from your local station:
After the ship he originally traveled on is damaged in an attack, the
respected Lumerian ambassador Ramid Ves Alkar comes on board to journey to a
dispute in the Rekag-Cironi system. Also with him is a very aged woman, Sev
Maylor, whom Alkar refers to as his mother, and who is by all appearances a
mean-spirited, nasty-tempered woman.
As the Enterprise journeys to Cironia, Troi and Alkar hit it off rather
nicely. Their friendship is hindered, however, by Maylor, who persistently
keeps after Troi, threatening that she will always regret any attachment she
forms with Alkar. Troi, disturbed, is distracted when Riker comes to work on
the crew evaluations, but cheers up with his reassurance and begins to work.
However, just then, Maylor dies--and strangely enough, Alkar seems almost
completely undisturbed. He asks Troi, as a fellow empath, to assist him in
the funeral ritual, a request she happily grants. However, at the end of the
ritual, Alkar touches his (now glowing) funeral stone to Troi's dormant one,
and Troi reacts with something akin to shock.
Some time later, Troi seems very edgy and concerned with her appearance.
Beverly's examination of Maylor, meanwhile, turns up high levels of
neurotransmitter residue and no trace of any disease. She asks Picard for
permission to conduct an autopsy, but since there's no obvious threat to the
ship and Alkar says it's against Lumerian custom, Picard refuses. Not long
after that, a very distracted Troi goes to see Alkar and attempts to seduce
him. When Alkar turns her down, saying that their relationship "just can't
be that way," she angrily leaves and instead makes a pass at a random ensign
in the turbolift with her. When Riker arrives not long after this to work
again on the crew evaluations, the ensign hurriedly leaves and Troi badgers
and snaps at Riker about perceived jealousy. Riker, realizing Troi is in no
condition to work, attempts to make a graceful exit.
Later, with the Enterprise having arrived at Cironia, Picard and Alkar work
with two other members of Alkar's delegation (Liva and Jarth). With
tentative arrangements made to bring both sides to the negotiations, all
seems well. However, Troi shows further signs of strain when she upbraids
one of her patients for "whining" and "complaining" all the time, and Geordi
and Beverly find evidence of *dramatic* deterioration in Maylor's condition
in the three days she was on board. That evening, as Alkar relaxes in
Ten-Forward, Troi (who now looks two decades older and is dressed as slinkily
as possible) marches in and accuses Alkar of flirting with Liva. She insults
everyone she can until marched out by Riker--and then, once Riker has brought
her back to her quarters, she attempts to seduce him, then deeply scratches
his face with her nails. Riker, decidedly uncomfortable, hastily leaves, as
Troi, all but hysterically, begs him not to.
That hysteria becomes even more evident the next morning, when Alkar informs
her he's going down to the surface. She reacts with jealous rage, accusing
him of going to Liva and then attacking him in the transporter room with a
knife when he attempts to beam down. The assault is unsuccessful, although
Picard is grazed, and Alkar beams down as Troi and Picard are taken to
sickbay. An analysis shows that Troi (now looking as aged as Maylor did)
also has extraordinarily high levels of neurotransmitter activity. Now an
autopsy is justified, it seems; and as Alkar is incommunicado in negotiations
planetside, Picard approves it.
The autopsy shows two mysterious things: first, that Maylor was in many
respects a scant thirty years old physically; and second, that her DNA shows
she was most definitely *not* Alkar's mother. With Troi's condition
deteriorating rapidly, Picard and Worf beam down to confront Alkar. He
informs them that he has the ability to channel his unpleasant, distracting
emotions into others, thus freeing himself to be the perfect diplomat.
Unfortunately, the results are the rapid aging and death of his
"receptacles". Although Alkar sees nothing wrong with this, Picard is
completely appalled, and threatens to take Alkar back immediately. However,
Alkar refuses, and Picard and Worf come under threat. They leave
empty-handed, but immediately work to plan a way to bring him back.
In the end, Beverly temporarily "kills" Troi to get Alkar to break his link
with her. Alkar, sensing that death, returns to the Enterprise to conduct a
new "funeral ritual" with Liva. With time running out, Beverly revives Troi
just as the ritual is concluding, and as she begins the neurotransmitter
decontamination, Alkar suddenly collapses, then attacks Liva. Liva is beamed
to safety, and Alkar, unable to cope with the dramatic overload of emotional
feedback, ages rapidly and dies in mere moments. Troi, returned to normal in
both appearance and attitude, returns to her duties aboard the Enterprise.
Well, hopefully that should do it. And now, the rest of the review:
First, let me shake you of the belief that I liked nothing about the show.
There were a few things I thought were interesting. For example:
--At least in the one scene with Picard planetside, Chip Lucia (Alkar) was
very effective in playing someone completely conscienceless and virtually
emotionless. That one scene was somewhat shocking.
--The climax was harsh; every bit as harsh as it deserved to be. I found
that particularly effective.
--There is one particularly cute bit of name-dropping that I thought was
clever. We have a threat whose most prominent symptom is rapid aging; and
the name of the ship originally carrying Alkar was the "Dorian". I expected
to see a Capt. Gray show up somewhere as well. :-)
That, however, is about it. Now, on to the much longer list of problems I
found.
The biggest one has nothing to do with the storyline; it's the writing and
acting of the characters. I can't remember the last time I saw a TNG episode
with everyone *this* flat; I felt like I was watching a picture of an episode
rather than an episode. I don't know if the writing or the acting is more to
blame, but given the abilities this cast can do when written well (and that
Stewart and Spiner can often turn in terrific performances even from lousy
scripts), I'm tempted to blame more of it on Frank Abatemarco, new
supervising producer and writer of this show.
Actually, I should amend that point above just a bit. Everyone was flat and
lifeless except Troi. Unfortunately, *she* was over-the-top and in major
"screaming ninny" mode. I don't know where the decision was made that a show
turning Troi into the bride of Frankenstein and letting her occasionally run
around in skimpy outfits was somehow a great dramatic idea, but I completely
disagree.
Bits of the scenes featuring Troi, in fact, made the show downright
*unpleasant* to watch at times. Her scream of abandonment after Alkar leaves
had me sorely tempted to go back to grading the papers I had in front of me,
and her attempt to seduce Alkar had me wondering if anybody actually talks
that way. (Certainly no one I know does.)
Although I think Troi has often been misused as a character, I'll grant that
there are a few Troi-focused shows here and there which have succeeded:
"Loud as a Whisper" and "The Masterpiece Society" come to mind as two of
them. This, on the other hand, highlighted the facets I really *dislike*
about Troi: Sirtis is usually rotten at getting across any anger without
looking petty and "Hollywood" doing it, Troi is too often used as a token
sexpot without any rhyme or reason, and there doesn't often seem to be
anything beneath the sexpot exterior. That's not what I watch the show for,
folks.
Anyway, enough about that. On to the plot, such as it was. Two words come
to mind: "predictable" and "dishonest".
I found the show entirely predictable, in that I could have told you roughly
what was going to happen before the opening credits even rolled. Maylor's
not really ancient or his mother? Check. Alkar's a manipulative,
conscienceless swine? Yep. Troi will be his next target, but miraculously
revived with less than three minutes to go in the show? Done. Anything of
particular importance that I missed? Not that I can see.
Then, there's "dishonest", which is a word I very rarely use for TNG. I
think the show wasn't truthful in setting itself up. From all appearances,
both in the preview and throughout the episode itself, the focus of the show
was usually on rapid-aging problems. Whoops; but both TOS and TNG have
already *had* a rapid-aging show; we shouldn't repeat that blatantly. Hey,
how about chalking it up to psychically channeling negative emotions that
somehow end up aging the victim in a way that can be immediately reversed?
Yeah, that'll work.
No, thank you. If you want to rerun an old technique, do that; but at least
be up-front about it, guys. Don't attempt to shoehorn in another problem
that's "really" the cause if it doesn't work. (The fact that this meant
another "vampire" type of story when we had one just two weeks earlier is
also a problem, but that's a different issue.)
Aside from basic issues of the plot simply not being interesting, it was also
riddled with inconsistencies. Let's see, this psychic "waste" rapidly ages
people to the point of changing *hair color* [you remember, those cells that
are already dead and not affected by what the body's condition is?], and is
easily curable by lowering neurotransmitter levels, but Bev isn't swift
enough to at least *try* lowering those levels if they're known to be
dangerous? Alkar is putting all his negative emotions into Troi, yet neither
one of them seems to get any remorse? You'd think given the level of his
actions, there should be lots of guilt in *one of them*. Riker is shocked
to the core by Troi's actions (not to mention physically hurt), yet doesn't
say anything about it to anyone until the next morning? What about those
scratches?
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. (A further point that I'm not
too concerned about is that heightening neurotransmitter levels is akin to
lowering the enzyme levels that inhibit neural activity; the same effect that
LSD has on humans. We're not talking nasty behavior, we're talking a major
acid trip here. I'm not going to sweat that, though.)
I talked last week about giving "Realm of Fear" something of an MST3K
treatment, but mostly all in good fun. This time, we were MSTing to survive.
I recommend you do the same. (Among other things, try as many Norman Bates
quips as you can during any scene revolving around Alkar and his mother.
They work wonders. ;-) ) Another example which was begging to be attacked:
Bev: "When I examined Maylor, I found her heart, her lungs, her skeletal
system..."
Us: "Boy, there's just no getting anything past you, is there? That *is*
suspicious."
I mean, come ON. What were we to do when given a straight line like that?
That's really about it. I'm hoping this was the season's "Cost of Living",
and that it's now out of the way *early*. Given the major problems that both
this and "Time's Arrow, Part II" had, though, I'm starting to get worried
about the season to come. Let's hope.
So, some numbers:
Plot: 3. The what?
Plot Handling: 3. Were we actually supposed to, well, *care* what happened
here?
Characterization: 2. A bit up for Alkar's one really good scene, but
everybody else was just going through the motions.
TOTAL: 3. Not a good sign at *all* here, folks...
NEXT WEEK:
A certain Scottish engineer we all know makes a trip to a new century. Now
*this* looks promising...
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Um...foreplay's usually more fun with someone else, Counselor."
--us, while watching Troi's solo scene on the holodeck
--
Copyright 1992, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Matthew Gertz
>WARNING: The following post contains spoilers regarding this week's TNG
>offering, "Man of the People". Those not wishing to be exposed to spoiler
>elements prematurely are advised to keep clear.
>Ecch.
Oh, you ain't just whistlin' Dixie...
>First, let me shake you of the belief that I liked nothing about the show.
>There were a few things I thought were interesting. For example:
>--The climax was harsh; every bit as harsh as it deserved to be. I found
>that particularly effective.
Ehh. I saw it coming, having carried the "Dorian Grey" parallel to its logical
conclusion. It actually reminded me of the Borg ship blowing up in BOBWII,
where basically, I think the writers were just looking for a convenient way
for the bad guys to get their just desserts. It sure was convenient that
Picard and crew had their problem taken care of for them (diplomatic
immunity, in this case) -- a little too convenient, methinks.
>The biggest one has nothing to do with the storyline; it's the writing and
>acting of the characters. I can't remember the last time I saw a TNG episode
>with everyone *this* flat; I felt like I was watching a picture of an episode
>rather than an episode.
"The Picture of Man of the People." :-)
> I don't know if the writing or the acting is more to
>blame, but given the abilities this cast can do when written well (and that
>Stewart and Spiner can often turn in terrific performances even from lousy
>scripts), I'm tempted to blame more of it on Frank Abatemarco, new
>supervising producer and writer of this show.
Well, Spiner got about 10 seconds of camera time, so maybe that explains
some of it... Gates McFadden gets a big thumbs down for her acting in this
one. Extremely unconvincing, though perhaps she couldn't figure out how
to salvage her scenes.
You already point out the biological and emotional absurdities of this
episode, as well as the predictability of it, so I'll lay off that angle.
I'll just mentioned that I found the non-Troi scenes to be very rushed,
in particular the Beverly scenes, where she and the other actors were
performing what I call "string dialog:" fast, rapidly drawn conclusions
going off on wild tangents designed to string the viewer along to a
final conclusion (a variation, I suppose, of the "locked room" mystery),
where any possible alternatives are just shrugged off or not even addressed.
"Gee, if I turn off the neurotransmitters, she'll get better, but I want the
audience to know that I can't even try to do something so dangerous without
the bad guy letting her go first." How the **** do you know all that, Bev?
Sheesh...
At least Picard let her go ahead and autopsy the old crone. Hiding behind
the PD would have been just one more convenient plot device designed to
conceal the (non)mystery. I'm glad they didn't stoop to *that* level.
>I talked last week about giving "Realm of Fear" something of an MST3K
>treatment, but mostly all in good fun. This time, we were MSTing to survive.
MST?
>TOTAL: 3. Not a good sign at *all* here, folks...
You were generous...
>NEXT WEEK:
>A certain Scottish engineer we all know makes a trip to a new century. Now
>*this* looks promising...
Promos look okay, but we'll see. I'm having my wisdom teeth yanked the
day before I see this one, so I really need a good episode this time...
if I end up gnashing my teeth it will HURT... :-)
--
Matt Gertz, mwge...@cs.cmu.edu
Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.
Bill Turner
> WARNING: The following post contains spoilers regarding this week's TNG
> offering, "Man of the People". Those not wishing to be exposed to spoiler
> elements prematurely are advised to keep clear.
>
> Ecch.
I'll second (at least) that....
One scene I did like (well, at least I didn't dislike it as much as some
of the others) was the "councilor from Hell" scene ("Perhaps he's tired
of listening to you complain. I know I am."). 'Course my wife, who got
her Bachelors in Psychology thought that was something *she* might
say.... :-)
--Bill Turner (btu...@cv.hp.com)
an...@fatboy.manassas.ibm.com
|>
|> >I talked last week about giving "Realm of Fear" something of an MST3K
|> >treatment, but mostly all in good fun. This time, we were MSTing to survive.
|>
|> MST?
|>
Mystery Science Theatre 3000
--
Brenda J. Molina an...@whoville.manassas.ibm.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do I have to do to convince you people that I'm human?"
"Die."
Stephen Dennison
(others dumping negative emotions *into* one being), "The Loss" (Troi
becomes a bitch) ? It's nice to know that they still recycle in the 24th
century ... even plots.
Oh, and if I see another mediator-based plot this year, I'm gonna *SCREAM* !!!!
You're right, Tim ... this one drew a vacuum !
-- Stephen
Though *believing* in things often wounds the spirit, *not* believing
in anything will eventually kill it. Therefore, *dream* ... and accept
the costs as reasonable.
Robert J. Granvin
|> Oh, and if I see another mediator-based plot this year, I'm gonna *SCREAM* !!!!
Worse! Mediator who single-handedly saves a world (or worlds) from
total destruction by war. All in one meeting. Hell, if conflicts
could be resolved that fast, it's unlikely that war would have been
started in the first place.
It's tired, old, irritating and worse, insulting.
You can still do a mediator plot without the "either/or" scenario.
I'd prefer to see a conflict over orders vs. reality. It doesn't
matter _at all_ whether he even has the ability to make any progress
in these matters. All that matters is that Picard is under orders.
|> You're right, Tim ... this one drew a vacuum !
I don't normally comment about any episode - I certainly don't post
reviews :-). But other than a little bit of costuming (the corridor
must be chillier than the staterooms :-), there wasn't much here at
all. As always, a few moments, a few good scenes and acting which was
generally fine (better than I can do :-), even if non-descript.
But even the makeup work was poor. When Troi was aging, it was OBVIOUS
that she had a full face pancake on. How can you tell? Her face was
shinier than the rest of her skin. Not so bad, unless you the division
line between heavy and standard makeup isn't an obvious straight line.
Ugh.
The dreaded crew evaluations. I'd have preferred an hour of that.
(Why not? Why not an hour of flashbacks of a dozen "unknown/regular"
crewmembers doing their jobs for which they are being evaluated for.
Old and tired, but Would've been much more interesting. Yawn.)
Personally, I'd take all the videotapes containing the episode, boat off
the shore of Florida and make an artificial reef out of 'em. Put 'em to
good use.
--
Robert J. Granvin School of Statistics
r...@umnstat.stat.umn.edu University of Minnesota
roland blackwell
^L
First I would to say this was a very sentimental episode for me, mainly because
of the holodeck recreation of the old enterprise 1701 no A.. no B.. no C or D.
I was moved by this scene. Even the computor sounds of the 1701 was like an
old friend paying a visit. It's been a long time since TNG has made my heart
heavy, it's ironic that it was a TOS influenced scene that did it. Anyway, my
question is, was the inside parameter of the Dyson sphere the living area, or
were there suppose to be worlds inside the sphere? If there were no worlds
inside how does gravity work?
---------------------------------------------
If you don't like the truth, change the facts|
---------------------------------------------
Keith Bockus
>> Oh, and if I see another mediator-based plot this year,
I'm gonna *SCREAM* !!!!
>Worse! Mediator who single-handedly saves a world (or worlds) from
>total destruction by war. All in one meeting. Hell, if conflicts
>could be resolved that fast, it's unlikely that war would have been
>started in the first place.
Wouldn't it be great if just once the writers would let the
mediation mission fail and have some poor planet go up
in flames? The show desperately needs a few more dark
endings.
Keith
Edward V. Wright
^L
>Anyway, my
>question is, was the inside parameter of the Dyson sphere the living area, or
>were there suppose to be worlds inside the sphere?
The inner surface was habitable. If you looked closely,
you would have seen oceans and continents covering the
inner surface near the portal where the Enterprise entered.
>If there were no worlds inside how does gravity work?
Presumeably, the same way gravity on the Enterprise works.
Some type of gravity generator powered by unobtainium.
Richard Lawrence
>question is, was the inside parameter of the Dyson sphere the living area, or
>were there suppose to be worlds inside the sphere? If there were no worlds
>inside how does gravity work?
It is assumed that you would have some type of gravity generator,
probably based off of solar power (since you are capturing the entire
output of the sun in any case).
You can't just spin it, because atmosphere would be gathered at the
poles by the low gravity force there, and you'd get monster storms from
the coriolus (sp, I'm not gonna look it up) effect.
Larry Niven thought of the best comprimise: mike a giant ring instead,
with big interior walls on the edge that point towards the sun and keep
the atmosphere from spilling out. Then you can spin it and have natural
gravity and atmosphere. This was the basis for his "Ringworld" books,
which are highly entertaining.
--
Rich Lawrence, Synoptics Systems Engineer DOD#9630 ri...@grebyn.com
'92 Seca II "Yuri" CI$:71101,2272 GEnie:R.LAWRENCE14
216 years ago my government gave me certain inalienable rights.
Since then, they've been trying to correct their mistake.
Vidiot
<In <1992Oct14.0...@phx.mcd.mot.com> rol...@phx.mcd.mot.com (roland blackwell) writes:
<
<
<^L
You got the above wrong. You entered it as two characters, the ^ and the L.
It is a single character, a control-L (press and hold the control key and
then press the L key [no need to also press the shift key]).
--
harvard\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
rutgers/ INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroa...@spool.cs.wisc.edu
br...@wi.extrel.com
Karl R. Kistler
ri...@grebyn.com (Richard Lawrence) writes:
> >question is, was the inside parameter of the Dyson sphere the living area, or
> >were there suppose to be worlds inside the sphere? If there were no worlds
> >inside how does gravity work?
>
> It is assumed that you would have some type of gravity generator,
> probably based off of solar power (since you are capturing the entire
> output of the sun in any case).
>
> You can't just spin it, because atmosphere would be gathered at the
> poles by the low gravity force there, and you'd get monster storms from
> the coriolus (sp, I'm not gonna look it up) effect.
>
> Larry Niven thought of the best comprimise: mike a giant ring instead,
> with big interior walls on the edge that point towards the sun and keep
> the atmosphere from spilling out. Then you can spin it and have natural
> gravity and atmosphere. This was the basis for his "Ringworld" books,
> which are highly entertaining.
or your Dyson sphere could have a series of lattitudinal walls to keep
the atmosphere from drifting toward the poles.
Steve Clancy
>
>>question is, was the inside parameter of the Dyson sphere the living area, or
>>were there suppose to be worlds inside the sphere? If there were no worlds
>>inside how does gravity work?
>
>It is assumed that you would have some type of gravity generator,
>probably based off of solar power (since you are capturing the entire
>output of the sun in any case).
The dyson sphere was supposed to have been made or "carbon
neutronium." Now I'm not exactly sure what that is chemically, but it
sounds very dense to me. Remember that the Enterprise detected an
intense "gravity well" at the beginning. Perhaps the material of the
sphere is dense enough to provide a natural gravity for the
inhabitants on the inside surface.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
% Steve Clancy, M.L.S. % Wellspring RBBS %
% Biomedical Library % 714-856-7996 300-9600 24hrs %
% University of California % 714-856-5087 300-9600 24hrs %
;;;;7202
(Steve Clancy) writes:
>The dyson sphere was supposed to have been made or "carbon
>neutronium." Now I'm not exactly sure what that is chemically, but it
>sounds very dense to me.
Also, the hull of the planet killer in the TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine"
was "solid neutronium."
Barry Wise
> The dyson sphere was supposed to have been made or "carbon
> neutronium." Now I'm not exactly sure what that is chemically, but it
> sounds very dense to me. Remember that the Enterprise detected an
> intense "gravity well" at the beginning. Perhaps the material of the
> sphere is dense enough to provide a natural gravity for the
> inhabitants on the inside surface.
>
>
Sorry, doesn't work that way. The gravitational force anywhere within a
spherical shell is zero. The contribution from the area below you is cancelled
out by the area above you. It's not intuitive but it's one of the calculations
you go through is freshman physics.
--
Barry Wise
William (Dragon) Hertling
>In article <2ADE30...@news.service.uci.edu> scl...@orion.oac.uci.edu
>(Steve Clancy) writes:
>
>> The dyson sphere was supposed to have been made or "carbon
>> neutronium." Now I'm not exactly sure what that is chemically, but it
>> sounds very dense to me. Remember that the Enterprise detected an
>> intense "gravity well" at the beginning. Perhaps the material of the
>> sphere is dense enough to provide a natural gravity for the
>> inhabitants on the inside surface.
>>
>Sorry, doesn't work that way. The gravitational force anywhere within a
>out by the area above you. Its not intuitive but it's one of the calculations
How about a combination of ideas: The shell is spinning, and thus the
centrifugal force keeps the inhabitants on the inside plastered to the shell,
with no normal gravitation effects, since they are cancelled out by the
rest of the shell. The ship on the outside was attracted by the
gravity, and this gravity exceeds the centrifugal force.
So it would be like this. The gravity provided by the density of the
shell is roughly 2 times earth gravity. The centrifugal force is roughly
equal to earth gravity. someone on the inside would not feel the gravity,
but would feel the centrifugal force, so they have a mass equal to their
mass on earth. Someone on the outside experiences twice the gravity,
but this is halved by the centrifugal force, so again, their mass is
equal to their mass on earth.
- D R A G O N -
Kirk Marcroft
Federation was sending to Science ships to the Dyson Sphere.
The next thing is does any one know how they will follow the story line of the
Dyson Sphere....TNG epasode....book.....movie..?
Wookie
Mike White
> The shell [of the Dyson Sphere] is spinning...
Nope, that won't work, either. Gravity would only be "normal" at
the "equator" of the shere. As one got closer to the "poles", the
effect would diminish, reaching zero at the spin axis. Also, the
force of "gravity" experienced anywhere other than the equator
would be non-normal to the local surface, leading to very funny
looking city skylines. My guess is that in any actual Dyson Sphere,
folks would live in a very narrow band around the equator, and
use the rest of the inside of the sphere for energy collection,
agriculture, and some very rad skateboarding.
************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
Elros F.
the inner side of the sphere: It won't work.
Gravity inside a spherical object cancels out. You have to either spin it
and live only in the equatorial region, have a double shell and don't spin
it, or provide gravity generators. Given their tech level, I would assume
the last.
==============================================================
Jeffrey Richard Lamb
>William (Dragon) Hertling writes:
>> The shell [of the Dyson Sphere] is spinning...
>Nope, that won't work, either. Gravity would only be "normal" at
>the "equator" of the shere. As one got closer to the "poles", the
>effect would diminish, reaching zero at the spin axis. Also, the
>force of "gravity" experienced anywhere other than the equator
>would be non-normal to the local surface, leading to very funny
>looking city skylines. My guess is that in any actual Dyson Sphere,
>folks would live in a very narrow band around the equator, and
>use the rest of the inside of the sphere for energy collection,
>agriculture, and some very rad skateboarding.
What about the atmosphere? The atmosphere at the poles would get sucked
into the sun.
--
Money can't buy you poverty
Jeff R. Lamb
Midnight Arrow
(jl...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) Champion of Reality
Jeffrey Richard Lamb
Uh . . . Gravity in the center of a sphere cancells out. Gravity
on the inside surface of a sphere doesn't since gravity is a function
of mass and distance. That would be neat (ie dig a hole and become
weightless since you are inside a sphere), but it just doesn't work
that way. Also the shot of the inside of the sphere shows that there
is gravity at places other than the poles because there are clouds
(and therefore atmosphere) in the northern hemisphere.
Tim Russell
>William (Dragon) Hertling writes:
>> The shell [of the Dyson Sphere] is spinning...
>Nope, that won't work, either. Gravity would only be "normal" at
[deleted]
You all need to read Dyson's published stuff. Dyson spheres presuppose
the existence of gravity generators, because they don't spin. That's why
Niven proposed the Ringworld as a compromise, because it still captures a
whole lot of sunlight and all the space of a Dyson sphere is kinda overkill.
It also doesn't require grav generators, just very strong materials.
--
Tim Russell Omaha, NE trus...@unomaha.edu
"Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
-- Epicurus
Jason W. Hinson
>
>Uh . . . Gravity in the center of a sphere cancells out. Gravity
>on the inside surface of a sphere doesn't since gravity is a function
>of mass and distance. That would be neat (ie dig a hole and become
>weightless since you are inside a sphere), but it just doesn't work
>that way. Also the shot of the inside of the sphere shows that there
>is gravity at places other than the poles because there are clouds
>(and therefore atmosphere) in the northern hemisphere.
OK, back to first year physics...
You do not feel gravity anywhere inside a uniform spherical shell. To
help you conceptualize this, consider a position close to one of the
sides. A small amount of the sphere is close to you, pulling you in one
general direction, but most of the sphere is far away from you pulling
you in the other direction. Since gravity depends directly on how much
mass is pulling on you, and inversely on the square of the distance
between you and it, you can see that the results might be (and are if
you want to do the math) that you feel no gravitational force from the
shperical shell.
As far as digging a hole and becoming weightless, you will have to do a
little more than that. You will have to dig a hole and empty out the
entire content of the interior of the Earth. Then you will have a
spherical SHELL.
-Jay
Yoichi Ii
>As to the density of the Dyson sphere providing gravity to hold people to
>the inner side of the sphere: It won't work.
>Gravity inside a spherical object cancels out. You have to either spin it
>and live only in the equatorial region, have a double shell and don't spin
>it, or provide gravity generators. Given their tech level, I would assume
>the last.
If they have gravity generators, why can't they live on the outer
surface of the sphere (I assume the natural gravity induced by the
sphere material would be too weak at that distance.) Seems like
they'd be able to tolerate more violent sun activities that way
(inside surface would be the solar collector, or whatever). They
can even poke holes here and there and have orbiting mirrors reflect
back the sun light to generate artificial day and night.
I like the double shell idea best, though.
Kyle Jones
> If they have gravity generators, why can't they live on the outer
> surface of the sphere (I assume the natural gravity induced by the
> sphere material would be too weak at that distance.) Seems like
> they'd be able to tolerate more violent sun activities that way
> (inside surface would be the solar collector, or whatever). They
> can even poke holes here and there and have orbiting mirrors reflect
> back the sun light to generate artificial day and night.
Poke holes in the sphere and you'll heat up parts of atmosphere.
Hellacious storms. Plus your some of your air will leak into the
sphere. If a planetoid hits the sphere, then there will be even
worse storms and a lot of air will leak in.
Me, I'd prefer to live on a Ringworld. Less chance of it getting
tagged by something big and emptying out all the air.
> I like the double shell idea best, though.
It would be unstable. And if the shells ever collided, ho nelly,
what a mess.
Edward V. Wright
> You all need to read Dyson's published stuff. Dyson spheres presuppose
>the existence of gravity generators, because they don't spin.
Dyson never actually proposed a solid sphere. He suggested a *lot* of
small habitats in orbit about a star at roughly the Earth's distance.
The appearance, to an outsider at a distance, would be that of a sphere.
A solid Dyson sphere is more challenging technologically. (As if what
Dyson proposed -- which required disassembling Jupiter, etc. -- isn't
challenging enough. :-)
Simon Garton
neutronium : the incredibly dense mass gives you automatic
gravity. See 'Strata' by Terry Pratchett for a discussion.
simon
Spaceman SPiff
Not on the inside. Everyone learns in elementry physics that inside a shell
of matter of even density, the net force on any object is zero.
--
------------------------------------------------
John C. Martin
University of Virginia, Astrophysics; CLAS II
jc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu
Yoichi Ii
>yoi...@carson.u.washington.edu (Yoichi Ii) writes:
> > If they have gravity generators, why can't they live on the outer
> > surface of the sphere (I assume the natural gravity induced by the
> > sphere material would be too weak at that distance.) Seems like
ky...@wendy-fate.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) writes:
>Poke holes in the sphere and you'll heat up parts of atmosphere.
>Hellacious storms. Plus your some of your air will leak into the
>sphere. If a planetoid hits the sphere, then there will be even
>worse storms and a lot of air will leak in.
Ok, so you have to channel the light through some indirect means and
have some barriers to localize the damage in case of disaster. It just
seems like a good use of space if you can use both interior and exterior
surfaces. If they had the need for that much space, presumably they could
have used more :-).
BTW, what prevented the atmosphere from gushing out of the portals/gates?
Did the gate protrude into the interior, "above" the atmosphere? Sorry if
it's been discussed already.
Patrick Rannou
If they have gravity generators, why can't they live on the outer
surface of the sphere (I assume the natural gravity induced by the
sphere material would be too weak at that distance.) Seems like
they'd be able to tolerate more violent sun activities that way
(inside surface would be the solar collector, or whatever). They
can even poke holes here and there and have orbiting mirrors reflect
back the sun light to generate artificial day and night.
The general idea is not to let the energy escape and reuse it as much as
you can. So all those lights you turn on to light your cities would be
wasted energy. With the people on the inside this light would "bounce back"
to the people on the other side of the sphere. Given that the sphere is
sooo big, irradiated energy outside the sphere would be kept minimal, only
in the high-entropic (thermal ?) range. Or maybe they even found the secret
to transform energy back into matter, and so they don't need to output any
energy at all.
I like the double shell idea best, though.
Waste of material, IMHO, although my theory is that the Dyson sphere's
thickness is soooo negligible compared to it's radius that it's nearly like
comparing the thickness of a BIG soap bubble compared to it's diameter.
I'd say this means that any gravity you might feel from "under" you (for
someone inside the sphere) is pretty much negated by all the gravity from
the rest of the spehere that is "above" and on the side.
Some might say that since the distance under you is smaller, it's effect is
greater (distance squared. OK, but the surface under you is a LOT smaller,
much more than r^2 allows, than the surface OVER you. The best I'm willing
to allow, without further mathematical proof, is that there is a net
gravity effect of zero anywhere in the spehere, although I feel you get
that only when attaining the center of the sphere.
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Ran...@info.polymtl.ca |
\---------------------------/
Linc Madison
>Uh . . . Gravity in the center of a sphere cancells out. Gravity
>on the inside surface of a sphere doesn't since gravity is a function
>of mass and distance. That would be neat (ie dig a hole and become
>weightless since you are inside a sphere), but it just doesn't work
>that way. Also the shot of the inside of the sphere shows that there
>is gravity at places other than the poles because there are clouds
>(and therefore atmosphere) in the northern hemisphere.
Exactly wrong. The gravitational force of a spherical shell on **ANY**
point inside it is **ZERO**. Say you're walking on the inside surface
of the spherical shell. There is a small bit "below" you that is very near,
but an enormous amount farther away that is "above" you. You don't become
weightless simply by digging a hole in the ground, because most of the
mass of the earth is still inside spherical shells that you are entirely
outside. You have to be inside a *hollow* shell.
Of course, that assumes that the mass-density of the spherical shell is
uniform. You could get some gravity by making the shell "lumpy," but
that would only work in isolated areas -- if you had very many "lumps,"
they'd cancel out again. The same principle holds, by the way, for rings
as for spheres; you've got to spin them to get a sensation of gravity.
Oh, well; Sky One has now shown thirteen episodes of ST:NG, so maybe I'll
get to actually see the current episodes before they come true....
-- Linc Madison == lmad...@ie.oracle.com (Dublin, Ireland)
Patrick Rannou
Nope, that won't work, either. Gravity would only be "normal" at
the "equator" of the shere. As one got closer to the "poles", the
effect would diminish, reaching zero at the spin axis. Also, the
force of "gravity" experienced anywhere other than the equator
would be non-normal to the local surface, leading to very funny
looking city skylines. My guess is that in any actual Dyson Sphere,
folks would live in a very narrow band around the equator, and
use the rest of the inside of the sphere for energy collection,
agriculture, and some very rad skateboarding.
COME ON!!!
How can people be so unimaginative?
What you have here is TOTAL CONTROL over the entire energy output of a
WHOLE STAR. If the Feds can have their whole ships plastered full of
gravity generators, I'd guess those who built the Dyson sphere were able to
do the SAME thing (and they had the energy to do it, too).
Conclusion: the sphere wasn't spinning at all.
And as far as keeping the star in the center of the sphere, that isn't a
problem either. I mean, those who built that thing really had the
thecnology! They just where kinda stupid when designing their front doors
security devices... (like, *NO* password to enter that portal? MEGA-DUH!)
Despite the major trektech plot holes and alter-reality plot devices, I
still loved the episode.
Yoichi Ii
> < About gravity inside a double shell with sun at center>
>
>I'd say this means that any gravity you might feel from "under" you (for
>someone inside the sphere) is pretty much negated by all the gravity from
>the rest of the spehere that is "above" and on the side.
>
>Some might say that since the distance under you is smaller, it's effect is
>greater (distance squared. OK, but the surface under you is a LOT smaller,
>much more than r^2 allows, than the surface OVER you. The best I'm willing
>to allow, without further mathematical proof, is that there is a net
>gravity effect of zero anywhere in the spehere, although I feel you get
>that only when attaining the center of the sphere.
Well, from my very faint recollection of 1st year physics, the gravity
should behave like this (correct me if I'm wrong):
Let r=center of sphere to where you are.
1. Inside the inner shell: mass of sun only (proportional to 1/r^2).
2. In between the inner and outer shells: mass of sun plus inner shell
(Still proportional to 1/r^2).
3. Outside the outer shell: mass of sun plus both shells (Still 1/r^2).
In the case of empty shell (no sun), just set mass of sun to 0. In any case,
the mass above you (as long as it's uniform) doesn't affect your gravity.
Given the great distance between the Earth and sun, the gravity inbetween
the shells would be pretty weak, unless the inner shell happens to be
Edward V. Wright
>BTW, what prevented the atmosphere from gushing out of the portals/gates?
>Did the gate protrude into the interior, "above" the atmosphere? Sorry if
>it's been discussed already.
No, you saw the Enterprise flying through the clouds. Presumeably
some sort of force field that's selectively permeable, allowing ships
to pass through but not gases. (Hmm... wouldn't it have been...
interesting... if the field had stopped the photon torpedoes. :-)
Kyle Jones
Not likely. The gravity gradient you get with neutronium is much
too great. Getting near a slab of neutronium isn't quite as bad
as falling into a black hole, but the subatomic tomato paste
you'd become would not be able to appreciate the difference.
Assuming you could somehow mold a thin shell of neutronium, the
moment you turned off your force fields (or whatever you used to
shape it) it would collapse almost instantly back into a sphere.
And probably shower you with X-rays to boot.
Jason W. Hinson
<jl...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb):
<>Uh . . . Gravity in the center of a sphere cancells out. Gravity
<>on the inside surface of a sphere doesn't since gravity is a function
<>of mass and distance. That would be neat (ie dig a hole and become
<>weightless since you are inside a sphere), but it just doesn't work
<>that way. Also the shot of the inside of the sphere shows that there
<>is gravity at places other than the poles because there are clouds
<>(and therefore atmosphere) in the northern hemisphere.
<
<Exactly wrong. The gravitational force of a spherical shell on **ANY**
<point inside it is **ZERO**. Say you're walking on the inside surface
<of the spherical shell. There is a small bit "below" you that is very near,
<but an enormous amount farther away that is "above" you. You don't become
<weightless simply by digging a hole in the ground, because most of the
<mass of the earth is still inside spherical shells that you are entirely
<outside. You have to be inside a *hollow* shell.
<
<Of course, that assumes that the mass-density of the spherical shell is
<uniform. You could get some gravity by making the shell "lumpy," but
<that would only work in isolated areas -- if you had very many "lumps,"
<they'd cancel out again. The same principle holds, by the way, for rings
<as for spheres; you've got to spin them to get a sensation of gravity.
<
Uh, I wasn't sure if I was remembering this correctly, so I quickly
worked through an example of a RING's gravitational force on an object
not at it's center (and still in the plane of the ring), and I found
that there is a force felt. I remebered a professor pointing out that
while it is true for a spherical shell, it is not true for a ring because
the inverse *square* nature of gravity.
I'll double check my results, and encourage others to do the same, but
I believe this is right.
-Jay
Sten M. Drescher
Jason> Uh, I wasn't sure if I was remembering this correctly, so I
Jason> quickly worked through an example of a RING's gravitational
Jason> force on an object not at it's center (and still in the plane of
Jason> the ring), and I found that there is a force felt. I remebered
Jason> a professor pointing out that while it is true for a spherical
Jason> shell, it is not true for a ring because the inverse *square*
Jason> nature of gravity.
Jason> I'll double check my results, and encourage others to do the
Jason> same, but I believe this is right.
I hope you're right, because it would allow for a good concept
for a Dyson sphere/Ringworld cross. I would seem that if a several
thousand km 'ring' of the shpere could be made thick enough to cause
gravity, while the rest would only need to be thick enough for
structural integrity.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Sten Drescher | There are men who seem like more than men.
AL/HRTI | Living examples of what we could be if we
Brooks AFB, TX 78235 | tried. They are men of courage, compassion,
-------------------------------+ and justice. On the other hand, there are
sdre...@animal.brooks.af.mil | presidential candidates.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Looking for Marvel Masterpieces promo cards - email with offers.
David Johnson
Concerning constructing a solid sphere: can you imagine how much matter
that would take? You would need to harvest an awful large number of
planets and then transport the matter. Just gathering the raw materials
is quite a technical challenge.
--
David Johnson
XLNT Designs, Inc. (XDI)
da...@xlnt.com
Administrator
negated anywhere inside a sphere made of uniform density shell. If such
a sphere contained a sun at the center, then obvously any object inside
the sphere would fall into the sun, unless either it is it orbit or it
expends engery opposing the sun's gravity. I think I could even
reproduce the equation that shows the gravity negation, but I won't
bother you gentle folk with the double integration that's required. :)
By the way, I think placing a sun in the middle of such a sphere creates
an inherently unstable system. It would rather be like trying to balance
a pencil on its tip. There would be no force trying to keep the sun in
the center of the sphere since gravity is negated an any point inside.
I'm not real sure what kind of effect spinning such a system would do,
but my first guess would be that just a mere spin would not create a
completely stable system. Perhaps stability will be achieved perpendicular
to the axis of the spin, but I think the system remains unstable along
the spin axis. Any physics students out there want a crack at this?
--
Bing H Bang +---------------------------+
Senior Systems Analyst | This is my home computer. |
National Data Corporation, Atlanta, GA | I do not speak for NDC. |
uucp: gatech!warlord!bing!root +---------------------------+
Bryan Van Blaricom
Larry Niven had to adjust the makeup of his Ringworld for "Ringworld
Engineers" for just that reason after it was pointed out to him that the
Ringworld system was unstable - the sun would always be centered along the
rings ecliptic, but there was nothing to stop it (or the ring) from
drifting along the plane of the ecliptic until the sun crashed into the
ring. Larry basically added dynamic balance to the system through the use
of a series of drives around the rim of the ring which could be used to
adjust it's position if the sun ever got off center. Presumably a Dyson
sphere would have to use a lot of that "Limitless energy" it was collecting
from the sun at the center to make gravitational adjustments to ensure that
the sun STAYS at the center, and that things on the inner surface stay
there.
Bryan
Jason W. Hinson
Please READ my posts before you respond to them. I was talking about
the reference to the gravitational force felt within a RING! A RING!!
I, myself, have pointed out many times to others that the gravitational
force felt from a uniform spherical shell by an object within the shell
is zero.
-Jay