JMS and SciFi Channel - a Promotion Commotion
Jerome
1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi" commercials?
2. I wonder if JMS ever did any short films of his own prior to B5.... something that he could put on "Exposure", in the vein of Tim Burton?
Jms at B5
>commercials?
a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that without
laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
b) A shotgun held to my head.
>2. I wonder if JMS ever did any short films of his own prior to B5....
>something that he could put on "Exposure", in the vein of Tim Burton?
>
Nope.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Diane K De
at B5) writes:
>
>>1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
>>commercials?
>
>a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that without
>laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
>
>b) A shotgun held to my head.
It also require that he NOT be connected to science fiction. The point of the
"I am SciFi" campaign is to take people who aren't normally associated with the
genre and have them say they are fans. It's meant to broaden the image of who
"SciFi" fans are.
DD
Gharlane of Eddore
> 1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
> commercials?
In <20000704180702...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that
> without laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
>
> b) A shotgun held to my head.
>
In <20000705105908...@nso-cc.aol.com>
dian...@aol.com (Diane K De) writes:
>
> It also require that he NOT be connected to science fiction. The point of
> the "I am SciFi" campaign is to take people who aren't normally associated
> with the genre and have them say they are fans. It's meant to broaden the
> image of who "SciFi" fans are.
>
"Science Fiction?" Joe is most assuredly not connected with "Science
Fiction." He's never written any; as a Liberal-Arts major with no
technical background, he can only write SPECULATIVE Fiction.
So it's perfectly all right, he *can* say "I AM SCI-FI!" without crossing
his fingers.
*evil grin*
Mark Maher
<8jvprg$j...@news.csus.edu>...
>
>"Science Fiction?" Joe is most assuredly not connected with
"Science
>Fiction." He's never written any; as a Liberal-Arts major
with no
>technical background, he can only write SPECULATIVE Fiction.
>
>So it's perfectly all right, he *can* say "I AM SCI-FI!"
without crossing
>his fingers.
>
>*evil grin*
I guess it depends on one's definition of science fiction. What
for you is purely speculative fiction is for most other posters
on this board science fiction. I guess one would have to say
that science fiction, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. With two Hugos on the mantle, I'd have to say the
beholders are pretty much against you one this point.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Stellijer
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote
>
> a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that
without
> laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
Who says you can't laugh your head off? Heh... that could actually make a
great scene... jms trying with forced, deliberative effort to say the
phrase, then cracks up, pounding his fist on the table, saying "I can't do
this! I just ca... hahahahahahhahaha!!!!"
> b) A shotgun held to my head.
Another interesting visual. Maybe get Ted Turner holding the shotgun,
hmm....?
lcou...@stetson.edu
"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Gharlane of Eddore wrote in message
> <8jvprg$j...@news.csus.edu>...
> >
> >"Science Fiction?" Joe is most assuredly not connected with
> "Science
> >Fiction." He's never written any; as a Liberal-Arts major
> with no
> >technical background, he can only write SPECULATIVE Fiction.
> >
> >So it's perfectly all right, he *can* say "I AM SCI-FI!"
> without crossing
> >his fingers.
> >
You know, gharlane, I never knew a degree in science had much to do
with one's knowledge of such or one's ability to write science
fiction... Silly me.
For someone who refuses to identify himslef publicly on this board -
hence the Gharlane nomiker - you seem to be willing to assert your
knoweldge of *so* much. Maybe some of the rest of us know a few things
as well.
> >*evil grin*
>
> I guess it depends on one's definition of science fiction. What
> for you is purely speculative fiction is for most other posters
> on this board science fiction. I guess one would have to say
> that science fiction, like beauty, is in the eye of the
> beholder. With two Hugos on the mantle, I'd have to say the
> beholders are pretty much against you one this point.
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
>
>
And 4 nominations. Whenver Gharalane really irritates me, I just remind
myseflf, now that I have read Lensman, that he is just a squashed
fricaseed, brain - and it didn't even take Clarissa and the girls to do
it....given this, how seriously can we take him?
Lisa Coulter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Harper
>how seriously can we take him?
Lisa, the answer to your question doesn't really matter, because how
ever seriously that is, it won't be anything like as seriously as he
takes himself.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Gharlane of Eddore
Gharlane of Eddore wrote in message
<8jvprg$j...@news.csus.edu>...
>
> "Science Fiction?"
> Joe is most assuredly not connected with "Science Fiction."
> He's never written any; as a Liberal-Arts major with no
> technical background, he can only write SPECULATIVE Fiction.
>
> So it's perfectly all right, he *can* say "I AM SCI-FI!"
> without crossing his fingers.
>
>
Once again displaying a teutonically ponderous humor
disability, in <8k4p26$n9b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
lcou...@stetson.edu writes:
>
> You know, gharlane, I never knew a degree in science had much
> to do with one's knowledge of such or one's ability to write
> science fiction... Silly me.
>
I didn't say that Joe needed a "degree in science."
I did clearly imply that he needed a "technical background."
Example: If he'd paid *attention* when reading Heinlein's "RED PLANET"
as a wee small chee-ild, he'd have known the surface gravity of Mars
well enough, at a reflexive level, that when it came time to use it
in a B-5 script, he wouldn't have derived an out-of-the-blue number
by looking up Mars' diameter in an encyclopedia, and arbitrarily
deciding that since Mars' diameter is about .6 of Earth's, that Mars'
gravity would be about six-tenths of Earth's, or "... forty percent
less than Earth's."
Note further that if he'd ever paid attention in junior high geometry
class, he'd have known that the volume of a sphere is cube-related
to diameter, not linearly; and that, further, had he ever taken a
low-level "physics for liberal arts majors" course, he'd have known
the MASS of a planet is average-density related, as well as volume
dependent, and that mass, rather than size, is the determining factor.
This is not "higher math." This is not a "degree in science."
--Just simple memory, general knowledge, and "technical" background
anyone who's *trying* to write science fiction should have at his or
her fingertips. The information was avaiable in *seconds*, but Joe
didn't know the answer, and WORSE, didn't have the conceptual tools to
*realize* he didn't know the answer.
>
> For someone who refuses to identify himslef publicly on this board -
> hence the Gharlane nomiker - you seem to be willing to assert your
> knoweldge of *so* much. Maybe some of the rest of us know a few
> things as well.
>
Possibly you intended to employ the term "moniker" above; the
multi-language composite term you've invented doesn't really
parse to quite the same context match that you appear to intend.
I note that in your passionate intensity, you have scrambled
several spellings in that posting, and presume "moniker."
Would you *really* respect me in the morning if I were to argue
my positions on the basis of "authority?" I am *NO ONE* of any
importance; but I do have some right answers, and some experience,
to contribute to on-line fora, and I do this because I enjoy
social interaction that I don't have to bathe and dress for,
and no one on-line *cares* if I've changed the nutrient solution
in my laboratory jar recently, as long as I'm right. And about
99% of the time I am, so there you are.
In <xGL85.7033$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> I guess it depends on one's definition of science fiction. What
> for you is purely speculative fiction is for most other posters
> on this board science fiction. I guess one would have to say
> that science fiction, like beauty, is in the eye of the
> beholder. With two Hugos on the mantle, I'd have to say the
> beholders are pretty much against you one this point.
>
Not at all. Since I had Joe in Slot Number One on my nominations
forms, and voted Joe #1 on both those occasions, I'm one of many
hundreds of active fans who *wanted* him to win. ... And for that
matter, he had one coming at the outset, but was shot down by
easily-impressed Trekkies who handed one to TNG for their fantasy
rewrite of a Night Under Elf Hill, "THE INNER LIGHT." At least
Joe got *some* recognition for "THE COMING OF SHADOWS" and
"SEVERED DREAMS." If the "Best Dramatic" rules system were
sensible, we'd have been able to vote the *series* for five
straight years, instead of coming in second to guys who accepted
awards and laughingly thanked B-5 fans for "not being able to
agree on the best episode," since only individual episodes could
be nominated.
Do you honestly think there would be an authorized copy of MQS'
marvelous backstage shot of Joe with his first Hugo on my Web
Page ( http://168.150.253.1/~zlensman/lensfaq.html , see
"Section Eight" ) if I begrudged him any awards or recognition?
I'm a *FAN* of "BABYLON 5;" have all extant episodes on tape, as
well as the movies. My only gripe is that Joe allowed the
bullheaded close-mindedness that is the only reason he got the
show made in the first place, to interfere with his ability to
request or accept input when he NEEDED it.
Think of Joe's impolite and ignorant comments to the fan who took
him to task for his assertions concerning the surface gravity of
Babylon-5; think of his responses when I posted accurate calculations
in response to his assertions that we "hadn't done the math" ( never
mind that Joe couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without
looking up the formula first, and then having someone explain the
concept of "pi" to him); think of his constant demonstrations
of complete ignorance of things astronomical, of simple high-school
orbital dynamics, of freshman dynamics in general.
No. You can NOT write "Science Fiction" without knowing at least a
*little* bit about arithmetic and general science, or at least
where to look up the answers.
This is not a problem for me, since I love good Fantasy and good
Speculative Fiction just as much as classic Science Fiction; but
I reserve the right to carp, cat-call, and point out shortcomings,
because that's how things get better. You keep your mouth shut
and don't gripe, don't do the work, don't walk the walk, you get
what you deserve.
In <8k4p26$n9b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> lcou...@stetson.edu writes:
>
> And 4 nominations. Whenver Gharalane really irritates me, I just
> remind myseflf, now that I have read Lensman, that he is just a
> squashed fricaseed, brain - and it didn't even take Clarissa and
> the girls to do it....given this, how seriously can we take him?
>
Actually, Gharlane didn't die at the end of "SECOND STAGE LENSMAN."
That was a put-up job. And he very nearly made it to a safe universe
during the Unit's destruction of Eddore; one day when they're getting
really desperate for additional volumes in the "Lensman" saga, and
I get my own humble addition to the canon, "A.I. LENSMAN," into
print, I'll send you a copy so you can see for yourself.
In the meantime, just try to bear in mind that reports of my demise
have been considerably exaggerated.
And for those of you who still don't understand the issue:
==================================================================
|| ||
|| " It's Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence ||
|| on the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it ||
|| could happen. Otherwise, it's Fantasy. " ||
|| ||
|| --- John W. Campbell, Jr. <1937> ||
|| ||
==================================================================
lcou...@stetson.edu
>
> ever seriously that is, it won't be anything like as seriously as he
> takes himself.
>
> Paul.
Ture. It just helps me with my own blod pressure. I have also noticed,
however much he insults jms - and I could point to numerous exapmles
just in the last several months - there is no response. The better part
of wisdom and all that... if only *I* could learn that lesson!
Lisa Coulter
> --
> A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
>
> " . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on
just
> about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys
done so
> little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
>
>
Harry
>
> >1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
> >commercials?
> b) A shotgun held to my head.
I haven't seen the commercials, but wouldn't that somewhat change
the tone of the message? Would be different though......
Kjotvi
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
> >commercials?
>
without
> laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
>
>
Who says it has to be serious? Think of it with a sense of giddy
wonder: "*I* am SciFi?"
Sort of like Alfred E Neuman's "What, me worry?"
"Form follows function - and frequently obliterates it."
Bryan H. Ackler
> >1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
> >commercials?
>
> a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that without
> laughing, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and/or
>
> b) A shotgun held to my head.
It that an AND or an OR....................
but you would be telling a story of sorts.
Bryan Ackler
Portland Oregon
James Bell
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
<snip>
> And for those of you who still don't understand the issue:
>
> ===============================================================
> || ||
> || " It's Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence ||
> || on the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it ||
> || could happen. Otherwise, it's Fantasy. " ||
> || ||
> || --- John W. Campbell, Jr. <1937> ||
> || ||
> ================================================================
I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand this.
Do people just *enjoy* being offended when someone is straightforward and
factual? What is so insulting about calling JMS's work "Speculative
Fiction"? It is far more accurate than Science Fiction. I think Gharlane
himself has stated that Babylon 5 is one of the best attempts ever at
Science Fiction on television. But to be accurate, the attempt doesn't
pass muster. Science in Babylon 5 is flawed too often for it to be
seriously called "Science Fiction." B5 is one of the great Speculative
Fiction television shows of all time. That's no insult.
Jim
Gharlane of Eddore
<snip>
>
>
> ==================================================================
> || ||
> || " It's Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence ||
> || on the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it ||
> || could happen. Otherwise, it's Fantasy. " ||
> || ||
> || --- John W. Campbell, Jr. <1937> ||
> || ||
> ==================================================================
>
In <39666F9B...@naxs.com> James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> writes:
>
> I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand this.
> Do people just *enjoy* being offended when someone is straightforward
> and factual? What is so insulting about calling JMS's work "Speculative
> Fiction"? It is far more accurate than Science Fiction. I think
> Gharlane himself has stated that Babylon 5 is one of the best attempts
> ever at Science Fiction on television. But to be accurate, the attempt
> doesn't pass muster. Science in Babylon 5 is flawed too often for it
> to be seriously called "Science Fiction." B5 is one of the great
> Speculative Fiction television shows of all time. That's no insult.
>
Precisely my point. If memory serves, it was Heinlein himself who
began espousing the term "Speculative Fiction," well over half a
century back. Ellison favors it as well.
Since *VERY* few people have the qualifications to write real actual
"Science Fiction," and worse, most readers, particularly the ones
who entered the field using TrekkieBooks as their entry path, don't
have the capacity to recognize and differentiate sub-genres, the
term has been inappropriately applied to many things that are *not*
"Science Fiction."
In mystery fiction, *NO* ONE gets upset over reference to a book as
"open mystery," "closed mystery," "cozy," "hard-boiled," or any of
the other well-defined types; no one takes offense at having it
pointed out that she's writing a "closed procedural" as opposed
to an "open cozy."
My original entry on the subject, that set off the humorless
hyperdefensive Britwights, was aimed at someone who'd referred
to Joe and the "Sci-Fi Channel" in terms of "Science Fiction."
That was fair game, since Joe is not, and never has been, and
may actually never BE, a "Science Fiction" writer. But that
isn't any reflection on Joe, *unless* he insists he *is* one;
and Joe's got enough sense, and pride of self, that he's more
likely to just laugh at you and say ( as Ellison is wont to )
"I am a *WRITER*. Sometimes I write Speculative Fiction."
About six months back, during a discussion along these lines,
I posted the following diagram as a superficial explication
of the range of Speculative Fiction..... perhaps it will help.
( This is a slightly edited version of that old entry. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| SPECULATIVE FICTION |
| ( fiction set in a reality |
| / that does not exist ) |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| FANTASY SCIENCE FICTION |
| ( fiction which ( Fiction based on a |
| cannot occur ) projection of current |
| | \___________ knowledge which is |
| | | legitimately defensible ) |
| CLASSIC FANTASY | / \ |
| ( elves, magic, wizards, | / \ |
| "Social Security" ) | SOFT SF HARD SF |
| Emphasis on mythic | ( one or more ( Based on |
| archetypes and quests | presumptions; stuff we know |
| ________| ESP, FTL, we'll be able |
| | or one major to build ) |
| SCI-FI departure Emphasis on |
| ---- ( Fantasy from known checkable math, |
| / with reality. ) logic, and info; |
| SKIFFY SF props Emphasis on characters think |
| ( largely substituted human reaction. and solve. |
| excrement ) for "magic." ) | | |
| | | | | |
| +--------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | SPACE OPERA --- can be SkiFfy to Sci-Fi to Hard SF | |
| +--------------------------------------------------------+ |
"SPECULATIVE FICTION" would include all non-real-world fiction with
fantastical elements. Things like "PT 109," "DYNASTY," "MIAMI VICE,"
"THE COSBY SHOW," "SIXTY MINUTES," and anything where Peter
Jennings tries to convince us he knows anything all count as forms
of "Speculative Fiction," since they deal with a world that does
not exist but might be interesting to visit, if only for the horror.
"FANTASY" would include all utterly impossible fictional frameworks,
ranging from "I LOVE LUCY" through "I DREAM OF JEANNIE" to the
Democratic National Convention. ( And not ignoring the Republican
Party's divorcement from reality... )
TV-Fantasy is normally inordinately putrid; happy exceptions in
recent years might include "BUFFY" and "ANGEL."
Respectable class efforts like "BRIMSTONE" have been made.
"CLASSIC FANTASY" would be the great works that transcend time, era,
and review by litterateurs; Homer, Vergil, Aristophanes, Tolkien,
Spenser, Lonnrott, Malory, and their ilk; numerous religious works
fall in this category as well. This category can range from
Gilgamesh to Michael Landon playing a Magic Angel.
I rate "XENA" as good Classic Fantasy, and "STAR WARS" as an also-ran.
"SCI-FI" is Fantasy that lifts props from Science Fiction without
laying the groundwork or establishing the need for technology.
( example; Crichton could just as easily be a human transported
across the Rainbow Bridge to Asgard, being Earnestly Interviewed
by Loki; we haven't seen any use of actual technology that can't
be handled just as easily with Magic Spells; he has a Magic Spell
to get home with, but it's clouded until the Right Time. At least
Manning had the class to slip "Froonium" in as *intended* as guff. )
Most of the "TREK" products range from "Fantasy" to "Sci-Fi," with
occasional coherent efforts that slip across the line into being
something that vaguely resembles real Science Fiction. Of course,
none of these occasional efforts have been seen on "VOYAGER," or
on an episode that Braga or Taylor did much work on.
"SKIFFY" is something that puts on airs about being "Science Fiction"
and isn't; unlike some "Sci-Fi" and some "Fantasy," it is almost
never respectable, and is only rarely worthwhile. It's a sort of
illegitimate offspring of "Sci-Fi," and is normally engaged in by
Production Suits with delusions of sapience. Classic examples
would include the late and unlamented "PREY," "SPACE: ABYSMAL AND
BORING," "SINKQUEST," and "EARTH 2." I believe that "PREY"
probably carries the all-time high score for insegrevious putridity,
although the others cited are certainly close runners-up.
"THIRD ROCK" is SkiFfy. "MY FAVORITE MARTIAN" was SkiFfy.
"GET SMART" was often SkiFfy.
"Hard Science Fiction" is written by people who know enough of science
and technology to know what is possible, and create a narrative milieu
based on the availability of something we haven't got yet, but can have.
VERY few people do "Hard Science Fiction" without slipping over the
edge here and there, so the real thing is very rare indeed. On TV,
the only two examples I can think of offhand are "MEN INTO SPACE"
and "STAR COPS," and some (infrequent) episodes of the old "SCIENCE
FICTION THEATER."
"Soft Science Fiction" is an exercise in coherent extrapolation; given
one presumption, how would life/society/human beings be affected, and
what would they do about it? Historically, some fairly wild one-
presumption schticks have been allowed, when developed with skill and
respect by the writer involved. ( My favorite examples here are
Alfred Bester's two best books, "TIGER, TIGER" and "THE DEMOLISHED
MAN," which aside from a few noncritical props, posit only one major
departure from present knowledge, the trainability of ESP powers. )
There were, of course, several examples of decent "Soft SF" on both
incarnations of "THE TWILIGHT ZONE," and one or two good tries on
the old "OUTER LIMITS." ( And a couple of good ones on the NOL,
after the staffing shakeups. ) The best current-production example,
in my opinion, is "STARGATE SG-1," which is often worth watching.
"SCIENCE FICTION THEATER" did several hard-SF scripts, and a
number of soft-SF, and a whole bunch of Sci-Fi.
"Space Opera" can range from "CAPTAIN VIDEO" to "STAR TREK," with
stops at "SPACE RANGERS" and "QUARK." I haven't seen any Space
Opera produced to date that qualifies as "Science Fiction," but
I've certainly seen a lot that I enjoyed.
For a formalized view of this sort of thing, constructed by someone
with a bit more formal academic rigor, see the "rec.arts.sf.tv"
FAQ created by the Estimable Hines; it's in the archive sites.
As they say over on "alt.religion.kibology,"
"Hope This Helps."
ear...@hotmail.com
>--Just simple memory, general knowledge, and "technical" background
>anyone who's *trying* to write science fiction should have at his or
>her fingertips. The information was avaiable in *seconds*, but Joe
>didn't know the answer, and WORSE, didn't have the conceptual tools to
>*realize* he didn't know the answer.
It's called a gaff. Just like the costumed arm of Delenn differed in
colour in both B2 and WWE, or the quick coverup surrounding Londo's
coat when it was time for him to go see the Shadow ships overflying
the palace. These things happen, and do not detract from the story or
the science in the story. How many calculation errors have you made?
Ever written pi quickly, and then mistook it for 11?
The science in B5 is speculative, yes. However, we do have Nasa
interested in building starfuries, we are building space stations
today, lasers have existed for decades, there is a great unexplained
mystery surrounding telepathic (for lack of a better general term)
abilities, and we don't know, conclusively, if there are species other
than our own, in the universe. Most scientists will agree that we
can't simply accelerate to a speed sufficient to carry us back and
forth to our nearest star in a reasonable timeframe (to permit
commercial traffic), and so have postulated other theories concerning
travel between two points. We can't build what they're proposing at
the moment, but to take a sound theory and create an effect depicting
it does not reduce the science in any way.
I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along the
way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to simple
speculative fiction is cheap.
>Think of Joe's impolite and ignorant comments to the fan who took
>him to task for his assertions concerning the surface gravity of
>Babylon-5; think of his responses when I posted accurate calculations
>in response to his assertions that we "hadn't done the math" ( never
>mind that Joe couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without
>looking up the formula first, and then having someone explain the
>concept of "pi" to him); think of his constant demonstrations
>of complete ignorance of things astronomical, of simple high-school
>orbital dynamics, of freshman dynamics in general.
Orbital dynamics in high school? We never even had calculus until,
lemme think, gr. 12 IIRC, and that was an OAC course I took one year
early. On that topic though, it's been 10 years since I attended
school, and not once in that time have I used quadratic equations,
calculus or anything beyond long division. I've actually forgotten
how to solve a quadratic equation, so it's not hard imagining
forgetting how to solve the volume of a sphere. And if I could
remember that also, I'd tell ya. :)
Remember too, that many posts to Joe were of the "I can't believe you
fscked up something so simple as <insert rant topic here>!" What do
you think his response would be?
---
"Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite.
Zathras is finite. This.. is wrong tool." -Zathras
Tom Holt
The message <95cfmsokhfaplfko8...@4ax.com>
from ear...@hotmail.com contains these words:
> I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along the
> way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to simple
> speculative fiction is cheap.
The implication is that there's something bad or second-class or
low-rent about speculative fiction. IMHO (and Gharlane's, too, if I
understood him correctly) there isn't. SpecFic isn't inferior to
Science Fiction, just as historical novels aren't inferior to
detective stories, or sonnets to ballads, or watercolours to oils.
The key to distinguishing between the various subgenres (assuming
this is a worthwhile and desirable objective, which I personally
dispute) is surely the intention of the author; namely, what the
author is aiming to write about.
In hard SF, as I understand it from a somewhat limited knowledge of
the field, the objective is to write about science, in particular the
science of the future; to speculate about the possible future
technological achievements of humanity and the effects of such, good
and bad, on human nature and society.
The intention in Speculative Fiction, as I understand it, is to tell
an interesting story about credible characters against a background
that is different from the here & now; whether it be a mythical past,
a mythical present or a mythical future. This, I believe, is what Mr
Straczynski did, exceptionally well, in B5.
To be sure, in B5 we get a certain amount of social and political
commentary on the present contrived through the device of apparent
extrapolation into the future ("if these present trends, which I
disapprove of, are allowed to continue, in the future things will be
thus and thus..."; the intention being to express the author's views
about the present rather than to attempt serious prophesy or
prediction of what may one day come to pass) This is a variant of the
Roddenberry Effect ("In the future everything will be hunky-dory and
wonderful if only we can learn to stop being nasty to one another")
and requires considerable skill if it's not to become obnoxious to
the thinking viewer. Fortunately, 7 times out of 10 Mr Straczynski
demonstrated that level of skill and was thus able to indulge himself
without spoiling the show.
There is no intrinsic virtue in 'hard' SF; it's just another literary
form, which suits the tastes of some readers/viewers, but not others.
Done well, it's good; done badly, it's a pain in the bum. The same
goes for any other genre. Good speculative fiction (B5, Tolkien, the
Mort d'Arthur) is as valid as any other work of art, including the
literary mainstream.
James Bell
> ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) spewed:
>
> >--Just simple memory, general knowledge, and "technical" background
> >anyone who's *trying* to write science fiction should have at his or
> >her fingertips. The information was avaiable in *seconds*, but Joe
> >didn't know the answer, and WORSE, didn't have the conceptual tools to
> >*realize* he didn't know the answer.
>
> It's called a gaff. Just like the costumed arm of Delenn differed in
> colour in both B2 and WWE, or the quick coverup surrounding Londo's
> coat when it was time for him to go see the Shadow ships overflying
> the palace. These things happen, and do not detract from the story or
> the science in the story. How many calculation errors have you made?
> Ever written pi quickly, and then mistook it for 11?
The costuming gaffs are a production mistake not a writer's mistake. We're
discussing what type of writing was done in Babylon 5. You say that they
do not distract from the story (probably true) or the science in the story
(completely false). When science is wrong it detracts from the science in
the story. How can it not?
As far as your point that everyone makes errors so we should just accept
them as scientific even when they are not, I think the point is that a
writer such as JMS who is attempting to write a story that is to be science
fiction must know what he knows and what does not know. When he is writing
of something that he does not know, that is when he should ask someone.
Making it up or guessing isn't fair to the story or to the fans who expect
accurate science.
> The science in B5 is speculative, yes. However, we do have Nasa
> interested in building starfuries, we are building space stations
> today, lasers have existed for decades, there is a great unexplained
> mystery surrounding telepathic (for lack of a better general term)
> abilities, and we don't know, conclusively, if there are species other
> than our own, in the universe. Most scientists will agree that we
> can't simply accelerate to a speed sufficient to carry us back and
> forth to our nearest star in a reasonable timeframe (to permit
> commercial traffic), and so have postulated other theories concerning
> travel between two points. We can't build what they're proposing at
> the moment, but to take a sound theory and create an effect depicting
> it does not reduce the science in any way.
>
> I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along the
> way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to simple
> speculative fiction is cheap.
To describe Speculative Fiction as "simple" is cheap as well as
fundamentally incorrect. Speculative Fiction is a valid form of writing
and there is no insult or cheapness implied or intended when labeling
Babylon 5 as such.
Words have meanings beyond the vernacular. When you look at what science
fiction means and what speculative fiction means and compare the
definitions to what Babylon 5 is, well, B5 matches up with one of them
better than the other despite what everyday people wish to call it.
If you wanted to break it down into specific elements (like the starfury)
or specific episodes there are probably many science fiction elements
throughout the series. That doesn't make the series or more specifically
the overall writing Science Fiction.
What would have made it Science Fiction? Use of a scientific advisor or
research by the writer in order to make up for scientific inadequacies.
Just to beat the dead horse one more time: *this is not an insult* JMS is
not a scientist, he is a writer. When writing about science, it is only
natural that he will make mistakes if he does not seek assistance.
> >Think of Joe's impolite and ignorant comments to the fan who took
> >him to task for his assertions concerning the surface gravity of
> >Babylon-5; think of his responses when I posted accurate calculations
> >in response to his assertions that we "hadn't done the math" ( never
> >mind that Joe couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without
> >looking up the formula first, and then having someone explain the
> >concept of "pi" to him); think of his constant demonstrations
> >of complete ignorance of things astronomical, of simple high-school
> >orbital dynamics, of freshman dynamics in general.
>
> Orbital dynamics in high school? We never even had calculus until,
> lemme think, gr. 12 IIRC, and that was an OAC course I took one year
> early. On that topic though, it's been 10 years since I attended
> school, and not once in that time have I used quadratic equations,
> calculus or anything beyond long division. I've actually forgotten
> how to solve a quadratic equation, so it's not hard imagining
> forgetting how to solve the volume of a sphere. And if I could
> remember that also, I'd tell ya. :)
And if you were a writer writing about it you would either look it up or
ask an expert. JMS chose to do neither. He chose to guess at vague
recollections and got it wrong, when getting it right would have taken
little more than a phone call.
> Remember too, that many posts to Joe were of the "I can't believe you
> fscked up something so simple as <insert rant topic here>!" What do
> you think his response would be?
I think it has happened. We can look up his responses.
Jim
James Bell
Gharlane a writer of some sort, too?) it will be heeded. I hope so.
Jim
Tom Holt wrote:
> The message <95cfmsokhfaplfko8...@4ax.com>
> from ear...@hotmail.com contains these words:
>
> > I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along the
> > way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to simple
> > speculative fiction is cheap.
>
Tom Holt
The message <3967D535...@naxs.com>
from James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> contains these words:
> (isn't
> Gharlane a writer of some sort, too?)
born, so I guess he qualifies... He's probably got a Pointy Hat, too.
('Snot fair...)
Gharlane of Eddore
In <3967D535...@naxs.com> James Bell
<jam...@naxs.com> queries:
>
> (isn't Gharlane a writer of some sort, too?)
>
The *worst* sort. Why do you think I have to make my living with
source code and a soldering iron?
In <200007090...@zetnet.co.uk>
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> Well, he was being published in quality magazines long before
> I was born, so I guess he qualifies...
>
(A) Tom's definition of "quality" and mine vary considerably.
(B) I WAS NOT. The Rotten Kid is not THAT young.
>
> He's probably got a Pointy Hat, too.
>
> ('Snot fair...)
>
(C) Sure it's fair. If you lived in Vermont instead of Somerset,
British Customs would never have had a chance to nail your
Pointy Hat in transit.
Having your mail checked for your own protection is just one
of the many small prices you've chosen to pay in order to live
on the Sceptered Isle Of Albion, reaping the benefits of
all that Socialized Culture and Total Safety in a Gun-free
Environment. And don't forget the wonders of Socialized
Medicine, the National Health.
Tell you what, I'll have the Board ship you a Replacement
Pointy Hat from the *MOSCOW* chapter, marked as "Tractor
Spares." If it comes from Russia, it'll probably get past
your Customs Fuzz without more than a desultory rubber stamp...
======================================================================
|| ||
|| " To say that because there were some persons who would make ||
|| violent use of pistols, therefore the right to purchase or ||
|| possession by every Englishman should be taken away, is ||
|| monstrous. " ||
|| --- Rt. Hon. C.H. Hopwood, MP, 1895 ||
|| ||
|| The "Pistols Bill" was defeated 183 votes against 75. ||
|| Eight years later, they managed to slip it through, barely. ||
|| ||
======================================================================
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
> If it comes from Russia, it'll probably get past
> your Customs Fuzz without more than a desultory rubber stamp...
>
Unless they think it is food. The French written rules of the
Common Market ban the importing of food.
(Things like New Zealand butter come in by special
concession.)
Andrew Swallow
Paul Harper
>What is so insulting about calling JMS's work "Speculative
>Fiction"?
Nothing whatsoever. By the definitions provided it is an accurate
label.
Where the whole thing goes wrong is in the base desire to label it in
the first place. Labels like "Science Fiction", "Speculative Fiction",
"Murder Mystery" etc etc are either tools for marketing departments,
or aids for people who like to allow others to help them make their
mind up.
Phrases like "I am a Science Fiction fan" are deeply flawed and
generally meaningless, and the concept of getting upset about the
mis-labelling says a lot more about those getting upset than it does
about anything else.
The only label that matters is the answer to "do I enjoy it?".
Paul.
James Bell
> On 7 Jul 2000 18:00:32 -0600, James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> wrote:
>
> >What is so insulting about calling JMS's work "Speculative
> >Fiction"?
>
> Nothing whatsoever. By the definitions provided it is an accurate
> label.
>
> Where the whole thing goes wrong is in the base desire to label it in
> the first place. Labels like "Science Fiction", "Speculative Fiction",
> "Murder Mystery" etc etc are either tools for marketing departments,
> or aids for people who like to allow others to help them make their
> mind up.
>
> Phrases like "I am a Science Fiction fan" are deeply flawed and
> generally meaningless, and the concept of getting upset about the
> mis-labelling says a lot more about those getting upset than it does
> about anything else.
>
> The only label that matters is the answer to "do I enjoy it?".
I am not sure that I agree. I believe labels, especially descriptive labels
such as we are discussing, are not only appropriate but necessary. They give
us a way of describing things in a summary way that really aids in
communication provided the parties involved understand what the labels mean
(which in the case of this thread wasn't always the case).
For example, which says more:
1) I really think you will like the new book "The Keyboard on the Shelf."
or
2) I really think you will like the new speculative fiction book: "The Keyboard
on the Shelf."
The latter tells the listener that it isn't a computer manual, it is a novel of
speculative fiction.
I think humans have always had a need/tendency to categorize things. I realize
that in today's world we are supposed to appreciate diversity without actually
giving any of it a name but personally I think that is not only impossible but
foolish, as well.
Jim
Gharlane of Eddore
> anyone who's *trying* to write science fiction should have at his or
> her fingertips. The information was avaiable in *seconds*, but Joe
> didn't know the answer, and WORSE, didn't have the conceptual tools to
> *realize* he didn't know the answer.
>
In <95cfmsokhfaplfko8...@4ax.com> ear...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> It's called a gaff. Just like the costumed arm of Delenn differed in
>
No, a "gaff" is a pole with a metallic tip. You probably mean "gaffe."
>
> colour in both B2 and WWE, or the quick coverup surrounding Londo's
> coat when it was time for him to go see the Shadow ships overflying
> the palace. These things happen, and do not detract from the story or
> the science in the story.
>
Only for unthinking dolts who are just there to look at the Pretty
Pictures and don't enjoy the material enough to pay attention.
>
> How many calculation errors have you made?
>
Three in public in the last two decades. I am mightly embarrassed
by these, but bear in mind that they were the result of incorrect
numerical manipulation engendered by substance abuse ( chocolate
and caffeine ), and *NOT* rooted in fundamental ignorance and
conceptual incompetence, exacerbated by a disinclination to ask
anyone; and that when called on them, I apologized and corrected
the material in question.
>
> Ever written pi quickly, and then mistook it for 11?
>
The only time I write 3 as "11" is when I'm running in Binary/Base 2.
The rest of the time, in this space-time metric, it approximates (base 10)
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816+,
and I've always felt that 69 places ought to be good enough for anybody.
Note, incidentally, JMS's demonstration of the ignorance of numerical
bases and ordination terminology, again a seconds-long phone-call
patch he didn't bother with.
>
> The science in B5 is speculative, yes. However, we do have Nasa
>
If it's "speculative," it's not science.
Science theorizes, tests, discards, and reformulates; the phrase
"speculative science" would seem to imply a certain degree of
oxymoronicity.
There is little or no "science" in "BABYLON 5." Joe's not even
terribly good with *linguistics*, for Ghu's sake; but most of
the stuff that was done wrong in "BABYLON 5" occurred at the
engineering level, or the general-knowledge level. All Joe
needed was engineering and astronomy advice, and he'd have
eliminated ninety percent of the badses at the outset.
>
> interested in building starfuries, we are building space stations
> today, lasers have existed for decades, there is a great unexplained
>
And where did I ever decry the use of these? ( Although the fuelling
system and operation of the StarFuries begs explanation, I find the
design delightful, and the guys who did the CGI sequences often did
things very well. It's the *LAUNCHING* of them that JMS never got
right, and still doesn't understand, because he learned what little
ship dynamics he thinks he knows by watching "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA."
I suspect that, deep down inside, he *still* thinks an unpowered
StarFury will "spiral out" from the station. )
>
> mystery surrounding telepathic (for lack of a better general term)
>
Telepathy and other magic talents are eminently acceptable in "soft"
science fiction, if handled consistently, or in JMS-style Speculative
Fiction.
>
> abilities, and we don't know, conclusively, if there are species other
> than our own, in the universe. Most scientists will agree that we
> can't simply accelerate to a speed sufficient to carry us back and
> forth to our nearest star in a reasonable timeframe (to permit
> commercial traffic), and so have postulated other theories concerning
> travel between two points. We can't build what they're proposing at
>
>
Name the "most scientists" or don't cite them.
This is sheerest bullcragglies. STORYTELLERS have used the plot
device; a couple of scientists who delight in good stories have
retroactively designed consistency frameworks for posited FTL
systems. ( See the work of David Weber, or the "Alderson Drive"
in Pournelle & Niven's work, which was designed by a C.I.T.
physicist named Dan Alderson. ) --- but just TRY to get them
to agree on the possibility of the specific systems they describe.
They're for STORIES, they're not "science" at present.
>
> the moment, but to take a sound theory and create an effect depicting
> it does not reduce the science in any way.
>
There is NO SUCH THING as a "sound theory" concerning technology
or technique for FTL drive systems. At the moment, such technology
ranks as the most arrant of fantasies, because we've never been in a
position to TRY to test theories. We're only now starting to see
some experimental evidence of what *may* be quantum entanglement and
instantaneous particle transposition. While I'm certainly willing
to grant the possibility, since historically we've always found
SOME way to get around the rules, I decline to accept your
scientific (self-admitted) ignorance as qualification for
passing on the "soundness" of a "theory."
Even worse, although Joe started out with a relatively interesting
version of hyperspace, gleaned from the fiction of his predecessors,
he never made up his mind how it worked, and it's logically and
behaviorally INconsistent throughout the run of the series, just
as astronomical distances vary by hundreds of light years, and
travel distances and times vary madly from show to show and season
to season. He did *NOT* get competent help on his tech, or set up
a set of well-thought-out formatting points in advance of the actual
writing --- to his own detriment and the series'. These things
are *important* to the internal consistency and believeability
of fiction, and you ignore them at your peril.
>
> I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along
> the way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to
> simple speculative fiction is cheap.
>
You're welcome to your beliefs; as previously pointed out in this
topic, it's still a somewhat free country. However, your beliefs
have no impact on reality, and your opinions are of no import to
those aspects of the universe which JMS chose to misrepresent or
gloss over due to ignorance or intellectual laziness. You don't
know enough, and are insufficiently skilled in logical analysis,
to have an opinion on what does and does not constitute "science
fiction." You are an under-educated Trekkie who's been blessed
with sufficient raw intelligence and acumen to appreciate a
superior product, "BABYLON 5," but still lack the ability to
appreciate the magnitude of its occasional huge shortcomings.
Your assertion that I think "simple speculative fiction" is "reduced"
from "science fiction" is a demonstration that you have no idea what
I'm talking about; I love Fantasy and Speculative Fiction in general,
just as much as the next guy. ( I'm writing a Cthulhu Mythos yarn
at the moment, and expect to place it with only slight difficulty,
although the editor who's expecting it can be a tad demanding; he
has this deplorable attitude that you should do GOOD work at the
outset, or be willing to do seventy-eight rewrites until you get
it right...)
>
>>Think of Joe's impolite and ignorant comments to the fan who took
>>him to task for his assertions concerning the surface gravity of
>>Babylon-5; think of his responses when I posted accurate calculations
>>in response to his assertions that we "hadn't done the math" ( never
>>mind that Joe couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without
>>looking up the formula first, and then having someone explain the
>>concept of "pi" to him); think of his constant demonstrations
>>of complete ignorance of things astronomical, of simple high-school
>>orbital dynamics, of freshman dynamics in general.
>
> Orbital dynamics in high school? We never even had calculus until,
> lemme think, gr. 12 IIRC, and that was an OAC course I took one year
> early. On that topic though, it's been 10 years since I attended
>
I'd presume you'd gone to high school in California, except that
you spell things with too many "u"'s. Quite obviously, a great
many exercises in introductory physics and general science courses
are done with RECIPE formulae; most highschoolers who've done any
general-science classes have done exercises in orbital velocity
calcs, for example, using
v-squared over r equals G times mass over r-squared
to get orbital velocity for specific altitude above a planet of
specific mass; this is JUNIOR HIGH ALGEBRA, but Joe doesn't even
understand arithmetic. We still haven't been able to convince
him that an astronaut in a ship in free orbit isn't experiencing
acceleration in relation to the ship, for that matter.
>
> school, and not once in that time have I used quadratic equations,
> calculus or anything beyond long division. I've actually forgotten
> how to solve a quadratic equation, so it's not hard imagining
> forgetting how to solve the volume of a sphere. And if I could
> remember that also, I'd tell ya. :)
>
*shrug* They're obviously willing to pay you for knowing something
else; the fact that you're scientifically and mathematically
illiterate is not justification for equivalent ignorance among
members of professions which do require those simple abilities.
>
> Remember too, that many posts to Joe were of the "I can't believe you
> fscked up something so simple as <insert rant topic here>!" What do
> you think his response would be?
>
Given that he's historically *claimed* an interest in accuracy, and
*used* to brag about the technical advising he had on tap, a simple
"Mea culpa! Boy did I screw up on that one, shoot me few paragraphs
of citations and explanation and I'll try to fix it about eight shows
down the line since we've got a two-month lead in the can right now.."
might have been really cool. Even worse, on at least two occasions
that I can think of, when he *did* apparently try to patch up some
stuff, he blew it worse, because he didn't get proper explanations/
advising the *second* time around.
>
....<deletia>
>
(signed) gharlane, strong fan of "BABYLON 5" and Joe Straczynski,
no matter what attitudes you may have prejudicially and
unthinkingly read into the above posting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| __ __ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. / | / \ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, -|---+----+- |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, | | | |
| And invocations of equations. |_/ \__/ |
| |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. |
| |
| .....including how to spell "gray." +\../- |
| |
| "Ars sine scientia nihil est." --- Martinus Paduei |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LK
>In article <h5sbms8pfke5oongp...@4ax.com>,
> pa...@harper.net wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2000 08:22:21 -0600, lcou...@stetson.edu wrote:
>>
>> >how seriously can we take him?
>>
>> Lisa, the answer to your question doesn't really matter, because how
>> ever seriously that is, it won't be anything like as seriously as he
>> takes himself.
>>
>> Paul.
>
>
>Ture. It just helps me with my own blod pressure. I have also noticed,
>however much he insults jms - and I could point to numerous exapmles
>just in the last several months - there is no response. The better part
>of wisdom and all that... if only *I* could learn that lesson!
>
>Lisa Coulter
It's something that comes once you reach 45.
I think JMS is 46 now. 2000-1954=46
Harry Belefonte used to tease female members of his audience with the
notion that "Life begins at 40. Before that, everything is only a
rehearsal! Now, women over 40 sing!"
They did. Much louder and to greater applause.
LK
Iain Clark
"Gharlane of Eddore" <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote in message
news:8kab1a$c...@news.csus.edu...
> Only for unthinking dolts who are just there to look at the Pretty
> Pictures and don't enjoy the material enough to pay attention.
<snip>
> You are an under-educated Trekkie who's been blessed
> with sufficient raw intelligence and acumen to appreciate a
> superior product, "BABYLON 5," but still lack the ability to
> appreciate the magnitude of its occasional huge shortcomings.
<snip>
> (signed) gharlane, strong fan of "BABYLON 5" and Joe Straczynski,
> no matter what attitudes you may have prejudicially and
> unthinkingly read into the above posting.
It's *just* possible that the pompous and condescending way in which you
choose to phrase your opinions might be interfering with the effective
communication of your argument.
In many ways I agree with your general point, however if you make it in an
offensive way you can hardly feign surprise when it produces a defensive
response.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Tom Holt
The message <39688BED...@naxs.com>
> that in today's world we are supposed to appreciate diversity without actually
> giving any of it a name but personally I think that is not only impossible but
> foolish, as well.
to any functional intellectual system. It's the misuse of
categorization that troubles me. Labelling something, shoehorning it
into a category, makes it easier to denigrate it or dismiss it out of
hand; thus "Oh, science fiction, I don't read kids' stuff like that."
For example, the neutral terms 'science fiction' and "sci-fi" have
been allowed to acquire a negative charge in everyday speech,
particularly among people who are ignorant of or hostile to the
genre. Thus, any book labelled 'science fiction' is extremely
unlikely to get reviewed in a non-genre publication, and will almost
certainly be put on the 'ghetto shelves' in the bookstore;
immediately, it ceases to be accessible to the large proportion of
readers who know they don't like sci-fi, even though they've never
read any. Everybody loses.
There's no easy answer to this one, apart from the general and
universal exhortation to beware of buzz-words, easy answers,
Newspeak, political correctness and spin. Once non-words and
negatively-charged words become accepted into the language, it ceases
to be possible to think the forbidden or disapproved thought, and
part of what makes us human is lost for ever.
Tom Holt
The message <20000709075406...@nso-cc.news.cs.com>
from andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew Swallow) contains these words:
Is that really true? Bloody hell.
Paul Harper
wrote:
>There's no easy answer to this one, apart from the general and
>universal exhortation to beware of buzz-words, easy answers,
>Newspeak, political correctness and spin. Once non-words and
>negatively-charged words become accepted into the language, it ceases
>to be possible to think the forbidden or disapproved thought, and
>part of what makes us human is lost for ever.
Kinda sums up my views on organised religion, but let's not open
*that* can of worms!!
You can tell he's a writer, can't you! :-) :-)
Paul Harper
wrote:
>
>The message <20000709075406...@nso-cc.news.cs.com>
> from andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew Swallow) contains these words:
>> (Things like New Zealand butter come in by special
>> concession.)
>
>Is that really true? Bloody hell.
Surprised me too.
I always thought it came in those nice half pound cubes.
Ah well. Live and learn. <g>
Tom Holt
The message <01uhmsksobfurd9q6...@4ax.com>
from Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> contains these words:
> On 9 Jul 2000 15:50:31 -0600, Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >The message <20000709075406...@nso-cc.news.cs.com>
> > from andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew Swallow) contains these words:
> >> (Things like New Zealand butter come in by special
> >> concession.)
> >
> >Is that really true? Bloody hell.
> Surprised me too.
> I always thought it came in those nice half pound cubes.
Dirty shame on you, Paul; you aren't allowed to say 'half-pound' any
more. Imperial weights & measures have been declared
Doubleplusungood, and shopkeepers are liable to get fined for
offering goods for sale in non-metric quantities
(I heard somewhere that an engineering firm is being prosecuted under
these provisions for selling 1/4" drill bits; the argument that they
were made to measure exactly 0.2500" wasn't accepted by trading
standards, who insisted that they should've been marked 6.352mm. It's
shit like this that's putting honest satirists out of business. We
just can't compete)
Wayne Throop
:: How many calculation errors have you made?
: ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
: Three in public in the last two decades. I am mightly embarrassed by
: these, but bear in mind that they were the result of incorrect
: numerical manipulation engendered by substance abuse ( chocolate and
: caffeine ), and *NOT* rooted in fundamental ignorance and conceptual
: incompetence, exacerbated by a disinclination to ask anyone; and that
: when called on them, I apologized and corrected the material in
: question.
Well, yes, OK, but...
: in this space-time metric, [pi] approximates (base 10)
:
: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816+,
Gharlane continues to spread this misconception.
That is, the above is technically correct, but only because pi has the
same value in EVERY space-time metric, just like "3" or "sqrt(2)" or
any other number. The myth that pi "changes value" is a rather horrible
conceptual error despite being a common meme at sci-fi conventions,
which Greg Bear, Sagan, and Gharlane alike really ought to know better than.
Um. So there.
:: Most scientists will agree that we can't simply accelerate to a speed
:: sufficient to carry us back and forth to our nearest star in a
:: reasonable timeframe (to permit commercial traffic), and so have
:: postulated other theories concerning travel between two points. We
:: can't build what they're proposing at the moment, but to take a
:: sound theory and create an effect depicting it does not reduce
:: the science in any way.
: Name the "most scientists" or don't cite them.
He probably means Misner Thorne and Wheeler et al about wormlholes,
or more recently Alcubierre and others with papers on proposed warp metrics.
On the other hand, it's a *bit* more than just "can't build it now";
there's really very little evidence that the negative mass-energy densities
used in making both of these concepts work as FTL transportation is anything
but unobtanium or handwavium of the "General Products Hull" or "scrith"
or "stasis field" or even "cavorite" variety. And we all know what
Jules Verne said about Cavorite.
: There is NO SUCH THING as a "sound theory" concerning technology or
: technique for FTL drive systems. At the moment, such technology ranks
: as the most arrant of fantasies, because we've never been in a
: position to TRY to test theories.
Oh, I dunno. There are fantasies more arrant.
But the substance remains: GR is a "sound theory", but doesn't really
have any hints towards technology or technique for constructing FTL systems
without adding quite a lot of fantasy/speculative elements. Similar things
apply to QM.
Of course, most authors that pose FTL systems ignore the single most
important question: do they do or do they don't turn out to be
equivalent to time machines. Probably the best (but least noticeable)
treatment of this I know of is Vinge, in "The Witling", where a casual
in-passing mention is made of FTL leading to the discovery of the "ether
drift" (I think was the phrase he used; or was that "prefered frame";
ANYways, it was very appropriate to the text, since the protagonist was
historian specializing in things related to early relativity theory, but
I digress).
But the MAIN B5-relvant point is NOT that JMS didn't use enough GR or QM
jargon to justify his treatment of FTL, or that there was no "sound
theory" underlying it. That's pretty much irrelevant in this context,
and JMS did just fine.
No, the problem is the *internal*to*the*story* inconsistencies in the
capabilities of the jumpgates, the transit times, and the scale of the
action. JMS seemed to have VERY little idea of how BIG the galaxy is,
and how insignificantly small his background spanned until he suddenly
promoted it to galaxy-spanning scale. Similar problems in "how big is
space" and "how far away are planets and stars" and "how far away can
you get in 3 hours of 1g acceleration" and so on abound. And NONE of
these have to do with future technology; they are mistakes about as bad as
putting Canada to the south of the US in a work with a recent-historical
or present-day setting.
Mistakes like that can be forgiven easily enough.
It's just sad, because they are so preventable.
It's pretty much a quality-of-background-research issue.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Iain Rae
I did read recently in New Scientist that someon had come across screws
marked 50mmx1"1/2 though it was the last word which does tend to hit on
urban myths every now and again.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Mistakes like that can be forgiven easily enough.
> It's just sad, because they are so preventable.
> It's pretty much a quality-of-background-research issue.
I think he was trying to make up for that by bringing JPL in on Crusade.
In interview with the advisors (in the B5 Magazine), they said that they
were given more and more input in each episode, so I think stoopid
mistakes would be cut down to a minimum.
Of course, the next step would be to follow Gharlane's suggestion and
hire a "Technical Advisor with Gun". For extra effect his office should
be placed next to the catering tables. :-P
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Tom Holt
The message <3969189D...@civ.hw.ac.uk>
from Iain Rae <ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> contains these words:
> I did read recently in New Scientist that someon had come across screws
> marked 50mmx1"1/2 though it was the last word which does tend to hit on
> urban myths every now and again.
A 50mm X 1 1/2" screw (1.970" wide X 1.5" long) would probably be a
special order...
(Unless 1 1/2 actually refers to the pitch; a rather fine thread for
such a wide diameter, but possible for a specialised pipe fitting.
The proper nomenclature for metric threads is diameter X pitch [eg 6
X 0.75], with no guidance as to whether this represents coarse or
fine unless you look the bloody thing up in a table...)
Tom Holt
The message <9631...@sheol.org>
from thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) contains these words:
> action. JMS seemed to have VERY little idea of how BIG the galaxy is,
> and how insignificantly small his background spanned until he suddenly
> promoted it to galaxy-spanning scale.
ISTR G'kar's plaintive little comment about searching the Rim for
*days on end*, looking for Z'Ha'Dum...
Gharlane of Eddore
In <20000704180702...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> 1. What would it take to get JMS to do one of those "I am SciFi"
> commercials?
>
> a) For me to take myself sufficiently seriously that I could say that
>
> b) A shotgun held to my head.
>
In <8jvdgh$6ri$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Kjotvi <kjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Who says it has to be serious? Think of it with a sense of giddy
> wonder: "*I* am SciFi?"
>
> Sort of like Alfred E Neuman's "What, me worry?"
>
*BRILLIANT*, no heavy FX needed.....
You just
EXT. - TV STUDIO - NIGHT
Outside of studio building with one light on, on second floor.
STEADICAM SEQUENCE, UNDERCRANKED to add sense of speed
POV / We ENTER the building, CLIMBING to second floor
We see signs on the walls as we climb and go down the hall;
"BABYLONIAN PRODUCTIONS INC" "PRODUCTION OFFICES" "EXECUTIVE PRODUCER."
We ENTER the lit office, TURNING TO SIDE, SCANNING across shelves,
pausing very briefly on multiple trophies and awards, and we HEAR
SFX: frantic typing noises, someone ripping along at about a
hundred words a minute and groaning.
PAN TO BLURRED FIGURE HUNCHED OVER COMPUTER KEYBOARD -- CUT TO
ANGLE ON KEYBOARD
C.U. on the hands doing the typing on a computer keyboard;
overcranked so the blurring fingers move in a slow ballet.
We HEAR "OMPHALE'S SPINNING WHEEL" playing softly in the
background, then
SFX: O.S., a <soft moan>, someone suffering the tortures
of the damned.
FOLLOW ONE HAND IN C.U.
as it PULLS BACK from the keyboard and DESCENDS into a BUCKET
OF ICE WATER placed on the floor next to the typist's chair.
CIRCLE TO REAR OF SEATED FIGURE WHILE PULLING BACK
To reveal
The typist sitting in his chair, his arms down at his sides
holding both hands in convenient pails of ice water.
CONTINUE CIRCLE, slowly ZOOMING IN on FACE OF TYPIST AS WE TRACK.
We see that the TYPIST is JOE STRACZYNSKI, his eyes closed in
pain. His eyes open, and focus on something O.S.
SWISH PAN to a MEDIUM C.U. on a HUGO AWARD TROPHY.
CUT TO: JOE STRACZYNSKI, medium shot showing the seediness
and loneliness of his post-midnight office vigil.
There is a plate heaped with gnawed barebecued rib bones
and an empty coffeepot shoved in among the heaps of
crumpled papers on the desk. There are overflowing
wastebaskets and the floor is covered with crumpled
paper and computer disks. Perhaps a few rats play
among the trash on the floor, looking around curiously.
STRACZYNKSI
( querulously, almost whimpering )
*I* ( a beat ) .....am SCI FI ??????
PULL BACK at HIGH SPEED, shrinking Joe to a minute far-off figure,
a pinpoint on a black background. We HEAR:
SFX: < INCLUDE ECHO CHAMBER EFFECT >
frantic typing noises, someone ripping along at about a
hundred words a minute and groaning.
CUT TO: Standard "SCI-FI CHANNEL" promotion closer
-----------------------
Not at all a bad idea, "Kjotvi."
Paul Harper
wrote:
>A 50mm X 1 1/2" screw (1.970" wide X 1.5" long) would probably be a
>special order...
Nah. Round here they come in half pound cub... <thump!> :-)
Gharlane of Eddore
"Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk>
cited the following excerpts from one of my postings:
>
> "Gharlane of Eddore" <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote in message
> news:8kab1a$c...@news.csus.edu...
>
> > Pictures and don't enjoy the material enough to pay attention.
>
>
> > You are an under-educated Trekkie who's been blessed
> > with sufficient raw intelligence and acumen to appreciate a
> > superior product, "BABYLON 5," but still lack the ability to
> > appreciate the magnitude of its occasional huge shortcomings.
>
>
> > (signed) gharlane, strong fan of "BABYLON 5" and Joe Straczynski,
> > no matter what attitudes you may have prejudicially and
> > unthinkingly read into the above posting.
>
In <8kams8$250h3$1...@ID-36593.news.cis.dfn.de>
"Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk>
>
> It's *just* possible that the pompous and condescending way in
> which you choose to phrase your opinions might be interfering
> with the effective communication of your argument.
>
Good grammar and an attempt at precisionist word choice now
count as "pompous?"
As for "condescending," naaaah. I haven't descended on a Con
in years; too many Trekkies. Ewww, *sticky*.
>
> In many ways I agree with your general point, however if you
> make it in an offensive way you can hardly feign surprise when
> it produces a defensive response.
>
You mean, "when it elicits a defensive response."
As for making a point in an "offensive way," are you at all
familiar with the anecdote involving the farmer, the mule,
and the 4x4? Sometimes you have to get their attention in
the first place, just to *begin* getting a pointe across.
( And I'm studiously ignoring, here, how incredibly offensive
the postings I *respond* to tend to be, in the first place.... )
Gharlane of Eddore
I said,
> in this space-time metric, [pi] approximates (base 10)
>
> 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816+,
>
In <9631...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
> Gharlane continues to spread this misconception.
>
> That is, the above is technically correct, but only because pi has
> the same value in EVERY space-time metric, just like "3" or "sqrt(2)"
> or any other number. The myth that pi "changes value" is a rather
> horrible conceptual error despite being a common meme at sci-fi
> conventions, which Greg Bear, Sagan, and Gharlane alike really
> ought to know better than.
>
> Um. So there.
>
Oh, absolutely. Certain Un-Named Brit hackwriters to the contrary,
( remember who Greg Bear apparently got the idea from, those ACE
products from the sixties.... )
you can NOT find your way home from an alternate universe using "pi"
as a home address; since in any universe with dimensional structure
roughly equivalent to our own, "pi" *will* have precisely the same
value it does here; at least when measured or calculated using
"local" instrumentation or math.
In actuality, the yarn I was thinking of was Charles L. Harness'
classic exercise in pseudoreligious solipsism and joke physics,
"THE NEW REALITY." If you don't know it, I bet you'll enjoy it.
It's a golden-age fantasy with a superficially acceptable rationale,
at least until you realize what he's actually up to.....
lcou...@stetson.edu
ear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) spewed:
>
> >--Just simple memory, general knowledge, and "technical" background
> >anyone who's *trying* to write science fiction should have at his or
> >her fingertips. The information was avaiable in *seconds*, but Joe
> >didn't know the answer, and WORSE, didn't have the conceptual tools
to
> >*realize* he didn't know the answer.
To be hosnest, most people *I* know who are sciene fiction / fantasy
fans would call what you and , presumably , Cambpell label as science
fiction, hard science fiction - and then even question that if you
throw out all possibility of FTL, time travel (my sources here are a
recent Nova and an update by Hawking on "A Brief History of Time") and
psi powers (no good evidence for, but a lot of anecdotal evidence).
In addition, what you characterize as science fiction runs the risk of
becoming "fantasy" within 5 years, especially if it is cutting edge
hard science fiction (see Beaar's discussion of his science at the end
of Darwin's Radio for example.) So, ok, if you are going to be that
closed I may not be able to argue with you - just point out that most
of my friends and acquaintances recognize hard sceince fiction, soft
science fiction, space opera , military space opera, sceince fantasy,
heroic fantasy, magic realism, dark fantasy, etc. - a far broader view
then you stipylate, and certainly using labels - they certainly aren't
offensive to me.
>
> It's called a gaff. Just like the costumed arm of Delenn differed in
> colour in both B2 and WWE, or the quick coverup surrounding Londo's
> coat when it was time for him to go see the Shadow ships overflying
> the palace. These things happen, and do not detract from the story or
> the science in the story. How many calculation errors have you made?
> Ever written pi quickly, and then mistook it for 11?
>
> The science in B5 is speculative, yes. However, we do have Nasa
> interested in building starfuries, we are building space stations
> today, lasers have existed for decades, there is a great unexplained
> mystery surrounding telepathic (for lack of a better general term)
> abilities, and we don't know, conclusively, if there are species other
> than our own, in the universe. Most scientists will agree that we
> can't simply accelerate to a speed sufficient to carry us back and
> forth to our nearest star in a reasonable timeframe (to permit
> commercial traffic), and so have postulated other theories concerning
> travel between two points. We can't build what they're proposing at
> the moment, but to take a sound theory and create an effect depicting
> it does not reduce the science in any way.
>
> I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along the
> way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to simple
> speculative fiction is cheap.
>
This is my genreal opinion, but if one was to class it as "hard"
science fiction - which I don't think was intended in any case, I would
need to look at it much closer to render a professional opinion. OTOH,
two episodes which used a lot of science and seemed to be accurate IIRC
were "The Fall of Night" - the fall, and "Confessions and
Lamentations" - I remember Joe quoting experts who certainly know more
than almost anyone on this forum on this one.
> >Think of Joe's impolite and ignorant comments to the fan who took
> >him to task for his assertions concerning the surface gravity of
> >Babylon-5; think of his responses when I posted accurate calculations
> >in response to his assertions that we "hadn't done the math" ( never
> >mind that Joe couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without
> >looking up the formula first, and then having someone explain the
> >concept of "pi" to him); think of his constant demonstrations
> >of complete ignorance of things astronomical, of simple high-school
> >orbital dynamics, of freshman dynamics in general.
>
> Orbital dynamics in high school? We never even had calculus until,
> lemme think, gr. 12 IIRC, and that was an OAC course I took one year
> early. On that topic though, it's been 10 years since I attended
> school, and not once in that time have I used quadratic equations,
> calculus or anything beyond long division. I've actually forgotten
> how to solve a quadratic equation, so it's not hard imagining
> forgetting how to solve the volume of a sphere. And if I could
> remember that also, I'd tell ya. :)
>
> Remember too, that many posts to Joe were of the "I can't believe you
> fscked up something so simple as <insert rant topic here>!" What do
> you think his response would be?
> ---
>
> "Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite.
> Zathras is finite. This.. is wrong tool." -Zathras
>
>
Genrealyy, I think calling as braod a range of things "speculative
fiction" is not useful - it is, in my experience, not how the terms are
used and is more confusing than it is worth. If you want to use the
term "Hard" scieence fiction, that's fine with me, happen to like quite
a bit of it.
In the end, there is always the sunrise...
Lisa Coulter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lcou...@stetson.edu
James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this post, Tom. Maybe now that it has come from a writer
> Gharlane a writer of some sort, too?) it will be heeded. I hope so.
>
> Jim
>
I agree, it is an interesting post - but calling only "hard" science
fiction, which Tom basically admits he is doing, science fiction, is, I
think, a mistake. And putting all speculative fiction together -
Tolkien, B5, Mallory, is also a mistake. There is fantasy, soft sf,
space opea,etc.
It's a question of distinctions which are *useful* and the genreal
person, with some knowledge, will understand.
Lisa Coulter
> Tom Holt wrote:
>
> > The message <95cfmsokhfaplfko8...@4ax.com>
> > from ear...@hotmail.com contains these words:
> >
> > > I believe B5 is science fiction that made some minor errors along
the
> > > way. To say that the errors reduce it from science fiction to
simple
> > > speculative fiction is cheap.
> >
Tom Holt
The message <8kd41o$125$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
from lcou...@stetson.edu contains these words:
> calling only "hard" science
> fiction, which Tom basically admits he is doing, science fiction, is, I
> think, a mistake. And putting all speculative fiction together -
> Tolkien, B5, Mallory, is also a mistake. There is fantasy, soft sf,
> space opea,etc.
> It's a question of distinctions which are *useful* and the genreal
> person, with some knowledge, will understand.
to see 'soft SF' as something of a contradiction in terms, in that it
basically means 'science fiction without the science', which is a bit
like Damon Runyon's rum and rock candy without the rock candy. Take
out the 'science' part and the definition ceases to be meaningful and
becomes a mere label. Definitions surely ought to mean what they say,
rather than degenerating into mere terms of art, meaning (first) what
we think they mean, (then) what we want them to mean.
Also, I think it's valid (in as far as any such categorizations are
valid) to put Tolkien, B5 and Malory in the SpecFic category, since
that's what they all are. Of course, if you care to do so you can
subdivide that category into more precise compartments - Tolkien is
mythic past/"other" universe; B5 is mythic future/our universe;
Malory is mythic past/our universe; and so on. The number and variety
of subdivisions is limited only by the ingenuity of scholars and the
availability of research funding. At what point the depth of
subdivision ceases to be useful depends on what you're aiming to
achieve - a quick choice of which shelves to start with in a
bookstore, or a PhD.
The point here, surely, is that (in the eyes of far too many people)
Malory is Respectable English Literature, Tolkien is Not Quite
Respectable English Literature But Hailed As A Classic By A Vast
Majority Of Geeks, and B5 is a TV Show With Spaceships; the
superficial differences between the three are highlighted, the
tremendous amount that they have in common is ignored, and lots of
people miss out on lots of good stuff. How you break down these
barriers, I don't know; but surely it's by broadening the categories
rather than seeking after yet more precise subdivisions; and getting
rid of labels that are already tainted with pejorative and negative
connotations.
lcou...@stetson.edu
It's hard for me to really disagree with this - we are basically
arguing semantics. However, the Lensman would clearly be called sf by
most despite the fact that as far as I can tell most of it's science is
completely erroneous; ditto Dune (being able to do FTL via a drug? Fits
no theory I know of). Yes, there should at least be some science in sf -
the problem with being too picky is it takes PhD's in the requisite
fields to verify if things are sf, and in a year or two it might not be
if the theories it uses turn out wrong. Greg Bear discusses this at the
end of Darwin's Radio, though not whether his novel should be called sf
or not.
Most people would call Foundation, Dune, A Fire Upon the Deep (which as
far as I can tell, since it assumes zones of space which no respectable
physicist I know of postulates would *not* fit your definition) science
fiction. Ditto B5 - there is a lot of good science, albeit a few
bloopers, as pointed out by others, in this show.
Tolkein is fantasy.
In terms of literary distinction, I can't argue that Tolkien, Malory,
and B5 are all mythic - they just express it in different forms. As to
being respected, we're not very far along here - most great literature
takes 100 years (or more) to hit that category. To be honest, IMHO, B5
will at least equal Tolkien in respectability and noteworthiness in
time. Maybe I am nuts - but when the Star Wars commercials came out
saying "Every generation needs a legend" I thought B5 was that much
more than Star Wars - and I speak as one who saw the first trilogy as a
teenager to early 20's - so it definitely made an impact. however, even
then I remember being bothered by the fact that Return of the Jedi
seemed to rehash much of the first movie - not the greatest writing.
B5, call it what we will (speculative, mythic sf, whatever) is one of
the great ones.
Lisa Coulter
lcou...@stetson.edu
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: ear...@hotmail.com
> :: How many calculation errors have you made?
>
> : ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
> : Three in public in the last two decades. I am mightly embarrassed
by
> : these, but bear in mind that they were the result of incorrect
> : numerical manipulation engendered by substance abuse ( chocolate and
> : caffeine ), and *NOT* rooted in fundamental ignorance and conceptual
> : incompetence, exacerbated by a disinclination to ask anyone; and
that
> : when called on them, I apologized and corrected the material in
> : question.
>
>
> : in this space-time metric, [pi] approximates (base 10)
> :
> :
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816+
,
>
> Gharlane continues to spread this misconception.
>
> That is, the above is technically correct, but only because pi has the
> same value in EVERY space-time metric, just like "3" or "sqrt(2)" or
> any other number. The myth that pi "changes value" is a rather
horrible
> conceptual error despite being a common meme at sci-fi conventions,
> which Greg Bear, Sagan, and Gharlane alike really ought to know
better than.
>
> Um. So there.
>
speed
> :: sufficient to carry us back and forth to our nearest star in a
> :: reasonable timeframe (to permit commercial traffic), and so have
> :: postulated other theories concerning travel between two points. We
> :: sound theory and create an effect depicting it does not reduce
> :: the science in any way.
>
>
> He probably means Misner Thorne and Wheeler et al about wormlholes,
> or more recently Alcubierre and others with papers on proposed warp
metrics.
>
> On the other hand, it's a *bit* more than just "can't build it now";
> there's really very little evidence that the negative mass-energy
densities
> used in making both of these concepts work as FTL transportation is
anything
> but unobtanium or handwavium of the "General Products Hull"
or "scrith"
> or "stasis field" or even "cavorite" variety. And we all know what
> Jules Verne said about Cavorite.
>
> : technique for FTL drive systems. At the moment, such technology
ranks
> : as the most arrant of fantasies, because we've never been in a
> : position to TRY to test theories.
>
>
>From my recent reading, and I have cited sources, this isn't true - we
may never build it, but even Hawking and Thorne can't yet guarantee it
will never be built.
> But the substance remains: GR is a "sound theory", but doesn't really
> have any hints towards technology or technique for constructing FTL
systems
> without adding quite a lot of fantasy/speculative elements. Similar
things
> apply to QM.
>
Of course, GR and quantum physics contradict, and we have yet to have a
scientifically accepted theory which joins them.
> Of course, most authors that pose FTL systems ignore the single most
> important question: do they do or do they don't turn out to be
> equivalent to time machines. Probably the best (but least noticeable)
> treatment of this I know of is Vinge, in "The Witling", where a casual
> in-passing mention is made of FTL leading to the discovery of
the "ether
> drift" (I think was the phrase he used; or was that "prefered frame";
> ANYways, it was very appropriate to the text, since the protagonist
was
> historian specializing in things related to early relativity theory,
but
> I digress).
>
Every example I have seen of FTL claims it is equivalent to time travel.
> But the MAIN B5-relvant point is NOT that JMS didn't use enough GR or
QM
> jargon to justify his treatment of FTL, or that there was no "sound
> theory" underlying it. That's pretty much irrelevant in this context,
> and JMS did just fine.
>
> No, the problem is the *internal*to*the*story* inconsistencies in the
> capabilities of the jumpgates, the transit times, and the scale of the
> action. JMS seemed to have VERY little idea of how BIG the galaxy is,
> and how insignificantly small his background spanned until he suddenly
> promoted it to galaxy-spanning scale. Similar problems in "how big is
> space" and "how far away are planets and stars" and "how far away can
> you get in 3 hours of 1g acceleration" and so on abound. And NONE of
> these have to do with future technology; they are mistakes about as
bad as
> putting Canada to the south of the US in a work with a recent-
historical
> or present-day setting.
>
> Mistakes like that can be forgiven easily enough.
> It's just sad, because they are so preventable.
> It's pretty much a quality-of-background-research issue.
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>
It is a shame, but in genreal jms's gaffs did not lessen my enjoyment
of the show - unlke those in Voyager for example. So I consider B5
mythic science fiction.
You know, when I watch or read SF-and I use this term cause it's at
least what I and my friends call it - I don't do it with calculator,
computer or slide rule in hand. Funny, but I intend to enjoy it more
this way. Also, anyone writing science fiction near the cutting edge
could find the subgenre his / her book is put into change due to new
discoveries or theories. To me, this seems silly. Hard sf uses cutting
edge research carefully used, and generally makes very few
nondefensible assumptions - although A Fire upon the Deep certainly
seems to. Soft sf makes certain nonprovable assumptions (FT:. to,e
trave;) amd doesn't seem to care too much about the mechanisms. Hoever,
IMHO, Doomsday Book is science fiction, not fantasy - fantasy is
something else (the Earthsea Trilogy, Tolkien, McKillip, to name a
few). At least some of the science inDoomsday Book is well rewsearched -
viruses and the flu - and the time travel is just used as a device.
Science fantasy is McCaffrey's dragons. I could go on, and again we are
arguing semantics, perhaps silly, but most people who read /watch
science fiction *don't* go to the trouble of reading the latestjournal
articles to see if what they are reading is currently in vogue, so it
seems silly to use a term most would be confused by. If you choose to
use it, I will try to remmeber when talking to you, and at least we
will be able to communicate.
Gharlane of Eddore
Referring to a bit of Holtiana,
In <8kfa10$jf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> lcou...@stetson.edu writes:
>
> It's hard for me to really disagree with this - we are basically
> arguing semantics. However, the Lensman would clearly be called sf by
> most despite the fact that as far as I can tell most of it's science is
> completely erroneous; ditto Dune (being able to do FTL via a drug? Fits
>
Yes and no. E.E. Smith did his PhD in Chemistry, at a time when a
PhD was a vastly more respectable and difficult degree than it is now;
in the process he became a competent engineer, precision machinist,
manager, designer, etc. HOWEVER, in those early days of the field
that would eventually grow into modern speculative fiction, concepts
were a lot looser, less defined. For example, lacking much of modern
physics to mine for initial concept, the major writers had a field
day trying to invent newer and better technobabble FTL drives.
( Note that John Campbell described the first FTL drive of the kind
we'd now call a "warp field," creating a highly stressed bubble of
space with different physical constants around the ship, where
the speed of light is hugely different...... Jack Williamson came
up with some cool ideas for the Legion of Space yarns, including
an interstellar matter transmitter......
And after Campbell did his stressed-space drive for the "Ancient
Mariner," and E.E.Smith came up with his inertia nullifier,
Heinlein aced them *all* in "METHUSELAH'S CHILDREN," when Andrew
Jackson Libby built the single most unabashedly magical "space
drive" ever seen in the pages of "ASTOUNDING"/"ANALOG," in 1941.)
However, the major point of the EES "inertial nullification" drive
is not whether it would work like that, or could work like that,
but rather that it operated with specific behavior that remained
consistent throughout the series. It was a joke, a conceit, a
"Soft-SF" presumption that allowed the creation of the rest of
the milieu; but it was *treated* like real-world technology, with
specific characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages.
>
> no theory I know of). Yes, there should at least be some science in sf -
> the problem with being too picky is it takes PhD's in the requisite
> fields to verify if things are sf, and in a year or two it might not be
> if the theories it uses turn out wrong. Greg Bear discusses this at the
> end of Darwin's Radio, though not whether his novel should be called sf
> or not.
>
Find and read Randall Garrett's "BACKSTAGE LENSMAN," which pokes massive
holes throughout the entirety of "LENSMAN," which by the way Garrett
loved. Garrett was a devoted and respectful fan of the work, but it
didn't keep him from eviscerating a number of the habitual sillinesses;
his comments on the physical impossiblity of the planet Trenco are
hilarious, and were highly amusing to EES, who read and vociferously
approved of the satire.
It doesn't take a PhD in anything to write good SF, it just takes a
bit of effort. Poul Anderson, for example, our greatest living
fantasist, speculative fiction writer, and science fictioneer, did
a double major in astronomy and physics about a half century ago,
and continues to study languages, sociology, history, psychology,
biology, etc. etc. und so weiter, right up to this very day. Although
he *can* do the math, he would laugh in your face if you told him
he needs a PhD to write valid, defensible, worthwhile science fiction.
>
>Most people would call Foundation, Dune,
>
"FOUNDATION"'s major point is the predictability, en mass, of any
statistical universe; the application to social engineering is
dubiously defensible, but is specifically genre-defensible.
Some of his technology is not, but since it's unimportant to the
plot, it doesn't directly pertain.
"DUNE" has massive quantities of real-world science, sociology,
language, and politics mixed in. Its presumptions have to do
with the powers of the drug-fuelled mind, and are most likely
unrelated to the real world. I regard it as Fantasy set in a
strongly science-fictional framework. ( Herbert once cracked,
"____, I put in ornithopters so people would *know* I wasn't
writing science fiction, how blatant did I have to be?" )
>
>
> A Fire Upon the Deep (which
> as far as I can tell, since it assumes zones of space which no
> respectable physicist I know of postulates would *not* fit your
> definition) science fiction.
>
*grin* I'm quite comfortable with the concept of non-homogeneous
spacial characteristics. In the complete absence of qualifications
in post-grad physics, I regard such speculation as legitimate.
Besides, Vinge has never in his life written anything that isn't
worth my time and money ( at least, that I've heard of...).
>
> Ditto B5 - there is a lot of good science, albeit a few
> bloopers, as pointed out by others, in this show.
>
No, there's a huge amount of very *BAD* science in "BABYLON 5," ranging
from physics and engineering on over through sociology and linguistics.
Straczynski couldn't even be bothered to get himself a *military*
advisor, much less a technical one. ( And he knows no more of
command management and military psychology than he does of astronomy,
with equally culpable results. ) Not one military officer ( or
enlisted type ) who appears anywhere in "BABYLON 5" is portrayed
believeably. I've been nice about it, since he *was* trying; but Joe's
knowledge of the military is derived from war movies, as is that of most
of his few other writers. Joe has never seen any sort of military,
militia, or police service, doesn't know how to handle weapons, doesn't
know how to take orders or give orders, and has no idea how to plan an
invasion. Militechnics is as much a science and a professional art as
any other profession, specifically including medicine and physics.
The only thing that saved him in this respect is that everyone else
( specifically excepting "STARGATE SG-1," which quite often does very
good work, and should be habitual viewing for anyone who liked "B5" )
doing this sort of thing on TV did it much worse. ( Think of the
blatant ignorance and incompetence displayed by Morgan & Wong when
they had "SPACE: ABYSMAL AND BOTCHED" in production, for an example
of how much worse it could have been, if Joe's native talent and work
ethic hadn't mitigated his ignorance and closed-mindedness. )
Heck, two hours on a Saturday morning with a bo-jitsu instructor could
have given them a martial-arts form for Minbari Battle Pikes ( *BAD*
name, by the way; a pike has a tipped, pointy end ) that looked a bit
better than the scenes we got, normally just out-of-shape untrained
actors waving staffs at each other. I figure if Gabrielle can learn a
basic staff form, it shouldn't be that hard for a bunch of guys who
supposedly have *some* dramatic training....
>
> Tolkein is fantasy.
>
Actually, JRRT's stuff is all just literary padding for an intellectual
exercise; he designed a couple of languages for fun, and then had to
design a *HISTORY* to explain how the languages got that way, and in
the process found himself with a shelf-full of notes for a couple of
quest-oriented narrative endeavors that his kids loved, so he decided
what the heck and tried to get them published.
>
> In terms of literary distinction, I can't argue that Tolkien, Malory,
> and B5 are all mythic - they just express it in different forms. As to
> being respected, we're not very far along here - most great literature
> takes 100 years (or more) to hit that category. To be honest, IMHO, B5
> will at least equal Tolkien in respectability and noteworthiness in
> time. Maybe I am nuts - but when the Star Wars commercials came out
>
Naaaah, Galadriel is *much* cuter than Ivanova; but I've always
vastly preferred Belphebe, anyway; Belphebe is a good shot and a
good camping partner. Pity Spenser croaked before he finished it.
>
> saying "Every generation needs a legend" I thought B5 was that much
> more than Star Wars - and I speak as one who saw the first trilogy
> as a teenager to early 20's - so it definitely made an impact. however,
> even then I remember being bothered by the fact that Return of the Jedi
> seemed to rehash much of the first movie - not the greatest writing.
> B5, call it what we will (speculative, mythic sf, whatever) is one of
> the great ones.
>
Vociferously agreed; at his most stressed and debilitated, Joe
never lost sight of where he was trying to go with his story, just
of some of his techniques and minor plotlines.
George Lucas is an unabashed student of the works of Joseph Campbell,
from whom he derived the majority of the major points in his saga;
an exploration of mythic archetypes set in a SkiFfy frame is not
"Science Fiction." It *can* be a fundamentally important exercise,
a proof-of-concept, and a respectable, enjoyable effort worth my
ticket money.
However, Lucas has completely lost sight of the fundamental core
of what he was attempting to do; think of the re-edited versions
of the movies he released a while back.... Luke now *screams* as
he falls down into the pit at the end of "... STRIKES BACK."
Han Solo no longer fires first from under the table in the cantina
confrontation with Greedo.
These two points are the most appalling indictment I can think of;
when he made those changes, Lucas was selling out his characters and
his vision, watering down who they were, and turning them from heroic
archetypes into Politically Correct Wussies that no one can enjoy
identifying with. I despise him for it, and if he were doing science
fiction, I'd be even more incensed. As it is, it's *his* soup, and
if he wants to pour in sugar and then let the neighbor's dog go in it,
it's no skin off my nose; I don't have to buy it.
Pål Are Nordal
[ Concerning Starfuries ]
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
> It's the *LAUNCHING* of them that JMS never got
> right, and still doesn't understand, because he learned what little
> ship dynamics he thinks he knows by watching "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA."
> I suspect that, deep down inside, he *still* thinks an unpowered
> StarFury will "spiral out" from the station.
I would think that the launching mechanism was designed by Foundation,
not jms. And would you mind explaining what's wrong with it? Never hurts
to learn something new :-)
Jane E. Nicholson
>The point here, surely, is that (in the eyes of far too many people)
>Malory is Respectable English Literature, Tolkien is Not Quite
>Respectable English Literature But Hailed As A Classic By A Vast
>Majority Of Geeks, and B5 is a TV Show With Spaceships; the
>superficial differences between the three are highlighted, the
>tremendous amount that they have in common is ignored, and lots of
>people miss out on lots of good stuff. How you break down these
>barriers, I don't know; but surely it's by broadening the categories
>rather than seeking after yet more precise subdivisions; and getting
>rid of labels that are already tainted with pejorative and negative
>connotations.
>
Unfortunately, if you start using different labels, the new labels will quickly
be associated with the tainted labels. This will not improve the situation.
Stupid, but people are like that.
I took some books to a second hand bookstore on the weekend. The woman behind
the counter told me that she would talk to the buyers, but it they probably
wouldn't want it because it was 'sci-fi, which doesn't sell well'. The books
were White Dragon, some of the Hitch-hiker's Guide (they were books I had
multiple copies of). But they were 'sci-fi', and therefore bad.
I still lament that fact that many companies haven't woken up to the fact that
with the computing industry as it is at present, there is a large number of
young people around with few responsibilities and a large disposable income -
and most of them, being of scientific minds, are interested in sci-fi. I don't
understand why we're not being targeted.
In fact, one of our major bookstore chains here (NZ) has recently decided that
there's no money in Sci-fi. They used to have a large section of sci-fi books
and videos. It's now reduced to a single stand (and only one and a half sides
of it) that's no more than two meters wide and 4-5 shelves. And fully half of
that contains ST and SW novels.
I missed the first season of B5 when it was shown here in NZ. It was shown
once. It will, almost certainly, never be repeated. If I wanted to see it
here, it was on video only - and the commercial videos took nearly forever to
reach NZ.
I haven't _finished_ ranting, but I'm going to stop now.
Jane
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Straczynski couldn't even be bothered to get himself a *military*
> advisor, much less a technical one. ( And he knows no more of
> command management and military psychology than he does of astronomy,
> with equally culpable results. )
I do believe the military aspects of Babylon 5 were handled by John
Copeland, so many of your complaints should be directed at him. For
example, he designed EF's rank system (which appeared in a recent issue
of the B5 Magazine).
> Not one military officer ( or
> enlisted type ) who appears anywhere in "BABYLON 5" is portrayed
> believeably.
I just read an old post from someone who was a marine (or at least
claimed to be) and praised "GROPOS" for finally getting all the little
details right... Of course, I am in no position to make any informed
statement of my own on the subject.
Jane E. Nicholson
wrote:
>Oh, absolutely. Certain Un-Named Brit hackwriters to the contrary,
>( remember who Greg Bear apparently got the idea from, those ACE
> products from the sixties.... )
>you can NOT find your way home from an alternate universe using "pi"
>as a home address; since in any universe with dimensional structure
>roughly equivalent to our own, "pi" *will* have precisely the same
>value it does here; at least when measured or calculated using
>"local" instrumentation or math.
>
pulls out some description of tool not unlike a tri-corder, glances at it, and
exclaims, "Pi's up!"
Sounds sort of Douglas Adams-ish to me. Does anyone remember the reference?
Jane
Gharlane of Eddore
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
> Straczynski couldn't even be bothered to get himself a *military*
> advisor, much less a technical one. ( And he knows no more of
> command management and military psychology than he does of astronomy,
> with equally culpable results. )
>
In <396BB628...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
>
> I do believe the military aspects of Babylon 5 were handled by John
> Copeland, so many of your complaints should be directed at him. For
> example, he designed EF's rank system (which appeared in a recent
> issue of the B5 Magazine).
>
Well, that will be interesting, since it never made sense to me;
but since it wasn't story-germane, I never asked or griped about
it, aside from a few snide comments here and there.
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
> Not one military officer ( or enlisted type ) who appears anywhere
> in "BABYLON 5" is portrayed believeably.
>
I admit that this is a slight exaggeration, posted in the heat of
the moment. I have the acolytes slipping a bit of ethanol into
the nutrient feed, and I'm all better now. Substitute "Most
military officers and enlisted types who appear anywhere in
"BABYLON 5" are portrayed unrealistically and badly."
In <396BB628...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
>
> I just read an old post from someone who was a marine (or at least
> claimed to be) and praised "GROPOS" for finally getting all the
> little details right... Of course, I am in no position to make any
> informed statement of my own on the subject.
>
Hit the archive sites for a couple of weeks subsequent to the initial
airing date of "GROPOS," and you'll find massive complaints about
everything *but* Marie Marshall, a lot of them from active-duty
types and former military types, citing chapter and verse of why
it was Baaaad. I initially defended it, with an attitude of
"at least they tried," but the more I thought about it, the less
I liked it. Every scene involving the military seemed to have
come out of mid-fifties WWII movies that were so stylistically
ritualized that they bore little resemblance to reality.
They TRIED, I give them that; but they needed either a rewrite pass
with a competent military advisor on hand, someone who'd commanded
in combat... or perhaps a thorough re-read of "STARSHIP TROOPER."
Or *something.* My detail comments are available in the archives,
I won't belabor the matter at this date. You will also find a
number of detailed explications of procedures and normal military
operation posted by junior officers and senior noncoms in several
active-duty units who were not pleased with the script.
I just try to ignore it, and concentrate on "THEY TRIED," and on
the fact that Marie Marshall is cool even in scenes with limping
dialog.
The major excellences of "GROPOS," to my way of thinking, were
the ways they contrived to give the superficial impression of moving
LOTS of troops around, on a limited budget...and the FX CGI in the
battle sequences, which probably look dated by today's standards,
but were probably slightly *better* than state-of-the-art at
the time.....
Andrew Swallow
<a_b...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> [ Concerning Starfuries ]
>
>Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>>=20
>> It's the *LAUNCHING* of them that JMS never got
>> right, and still doesn't understand, because he learned what little
>> ship dynamics he thinks he knows by watching "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA."
>> I suspect that, deep down inside, he *still* thinks an unpowered
>> StarFury will "spiral out" from the station.
>
>I would think that the launching mechanism was designed by Foundation,
>not jms. And would you mind explaining what's wrong with it? Never hurts
>to learn something new :-)
>
Babylon 5 should act like a spin dryer. The water/StarFury should
exit in a straight line at the speed of the drum. This may only be
60 miles an hour (20 near the thin part) but it should be moving.
Andrew Swallow
Pål Are Nordal
>
> In <396BB628...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
> >
> > I do believe the military aspects of Babylon 5 were handled by John
> > Copeland, so many of your complaints should be directed at him. For
> > example, he designed EF's rank system (which appeared in a recent
> > issue of the B5 Magazine).
>
> Well, that will be interesting, since it never made sense to me;
> but since it wasn't story-germane, I never asked or griped about
> it, aside from a few snide comments here and there.
Correction - the ranking system was designed by Joe, but Copeland wrote
the piece in B5 Magazine #17, and was the one responsible for checking
military details. The ranks are explained as being a blend of Air Force
and Naval rankings, borrowing a few designations from outside the US.
Admiral (fleet commanders)/General (tactical commanders?)
Colonel
Lt. Colonel
Major
Captain
Commander
Lt. Commander
Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
Ensign
With "regular ranks(?)" following the Brits.
> Hit the archive sites for a couple of weeks subsequent to the initial
> airing date of "GROPOS," and you'll find massive complaints about
> everything *but* Marie Marshall, a lot of them from active-duty
> types and former military types, citing chapter and verse of why
> it was Baaaad.
I would, unfortunately the archive I was looking through (SF Lovers
Digest) only has selected messages, and the only other site I know of
(deja) has disconnected their pre-1999 archives.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Babylon 5 should act like a spin dryer. The water/StarFury should
> exit in a straight line at the speed of the drum. This may only be
> 60 miles an hour (20 near the thin part) but it should be moving.
Ah... I though it was that they were doing... Will look closer the next time.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <396B895A...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
>
> [ Concerning Starfuries ]
>
>Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>>=20
>> It's the *LAUNCHING* of them that JMS never got
>> right, and still doesn't understand, because he learned what little
>> ship dynamics he thinks he knows by watching "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA."
>> I suspect that, deep down inside, he *still* thinks an unpowered
>> StarFury will "spiral out" from the station.
>
>I would think that the launching mechanism was designed by Foundation,
>not jms. And would you mind explaining what's wrong with it? Never hurts
>to learn something new :-)
>
Ohhhh, lordy, here we go again.
This is all in the archive sites....
Joe was under the impression that a StarFury "dropped" through the
"floor" of Babylon-5 would "spiral out" from the station....
We couldn't get it across to him that an unpowered 'Fury would
leave on a straight-line course tangent to the drop point, at
precisely the velocity of the station's surface at that point.
Even worse, we couldn't get the point across that a dropped 'Fury,
sharing the same momentum vectors as the station, will be spinning
at roughly the same rate as the station... drop it nose-down, and
in roughly (slight variations possible, due to center-of-mass of
'Fury and physical construction of the drop rails ) one-quarter
of a station-revolution, the 'Fury's nose will be pointing along
its primary vector of travel. ( and three-quarters of a station
revolution after drop, the 'Fury's nose will be pointed to the
rear... in other words, you have to do a quick burn to kill the
rotational vector as soon as you drop, unless you're using the
spin to do a visual examination of the universe.. )
Now, from INSIDE the station, from a reference frame that looks
at the station as motionless and the universe as spinning outside,
yes, it will appear that the StarFury "spirals out;" but when
Joe drew an EXTERIOR view of the station with a 'Fury spiralling
out, he wasn't operating from that frame, *and* he had the spiral
going in the wrong direction. Cat-calls ensued. ( This was a
long-ago SF convention appearance, and I do not have it on tape. )
We also noticed that Joe and several of the Foundation employees
weren't clear on the subject of orbital velocities; vide the
discussion of tossing a coffin into the sun. One of the
Foundation guys explained that all you had to do was move away
from the station, and you'd fall into the sun. ( This was in
defense of Joe in a discussion over how best to toss a coffin... )
Now, in answer to the guy who wanted to know about L4/L5 points
and B-5's location....
--------------------------------------
To this day, I suspect that Joe can't draw you a picture on a
blackboard of a planet circling a sun and then point to the
five LaGrange Points, and explain why two are good places to
put things you want to keep around with marginal stability,
and the other three points require powered station-keeping....
He doesn't even understand the difference between lunar LaGrange
points and planetary LaGrange points, or the relatively simple
formula that describes the limiting factors of the masses
involved.
Note that B5, as shown in the series, can NOT be in any sort
of LaGrange point, lunar or planetary. ( If it were in a
planetary LaGrange point, the planet would be a vaguely bright
star, not a visible disk; and if it were in a lunar LaGrange
point, the angular diameter of the planet would be just a whole
frap of a lot less, since we know its surface gee approximates
Earth-normal. )
It's all in the archives, and I really don't want to drag out
all that guck and repost it.... tell you what, here's one I
keep on line, since it was posted by a guy with more immediate
knowledge of orbital dynamics than I'll ever have, since I
only looked at it in high-school and freshman physics, decades
ago...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Does B5 Orbit Eridani's Sun? (Lagrange Points)
- Message-ID: <4urlp3$m...@news.csus.edu>
- From: Gharlane of Eddore
- Date: 1996/08/14
- summary: yes, *AND*......
----------------------------------------------------------
In <31F532...@stf.org>, Stephen Langasek <wakko(atat)stf.org> wrote:
>
> Has anyone given thought to the idea that the jumpgate might
> be in *B5's* L4 or L5 point? I don't have quite the necessary background
> (read, the relevant equations at hand) to determine the stability of
> such a system, and I imagine, due to the much lower mass of B5, that it
> wouldn't be nearly as stable as a setup where there was a major moon,
> but it seems to me that it would reduce, at least to some extent, the
> need for thrusters to keep the jumpgate (or B5) in place.
Ho boy, here we go again......
In <4urd2i$g...@tera.eng.sc.rolm.com>
rogerw(atat)robadome.com (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
>
> The Trojan Points (L4 and L5) between something Epsilon 3 and something
> as small as B5 (a paltry 2.5 million tons of spinning metal) would be so
> weak as to be useless.
We've already established that the mass given for B-5's "tons of spinning
metal" is insufficent to build the station, and that a great many other
materials, and a truly mind-boggling amount of additional mass, must be
involved. But you're right, it *is* still insignificant in relation
to the mass of a planet.
> There is little or no need for thrusters to maintain an orbit if either
> (A) the object you are orbiting has no appreciable atmosphere or (B) you
> are high enough that you're outside the effects of the upper atmosphere.
> Geostationary satellites, which orbit 22,000 miles above the Earth, don't
> need to correct their orbits except to match the Earth's nutation (not
> because of drag); only low-Earth orbiting satellites have to worry about
> orbital decay. And from what I can see, B5 looks to have QUITE a high
> orbit around Epsilon 3.
>
> By the way, as to the "Subject:" line of this thread: NO. JMS has
> said that Epsilon 3 (and thus B5) orbits an as-yet-undiscovered star
> some 25 light-years away from Earth. Epsilon Eridani is only about 11
> light-years from Earth and is definitely as-yet-discovered.
>--
No, JMS *used* to say that, and said it for the first year or two; then
he embedded the line, "....In the epsilon eridani sector....." in the
script of "AND NOW FOR A WORD...." thus avoiding *specifying* where the
station was, and giving us only a rough general direction. This was
acceptable, since he'd never publicly defined what he meant by "sector."
Of course, unGhodly early on the morning of March 9th, this year,
JMS posted the following:
===================================================================
>
> Subj: Re:Questions, Schmestions!
> Date: 96-03-09 05:25:22 EST
> From: Jms at B5
>
> B5 orbits Epsilon Eridani.
>
> jms
>
===================================================================
...thus officially moving B-5 to within approximately 10.8 light years
of Earth, and just co-incidentally slowing all the spaceships down by
a factor of nearly three, since rather than the "two point five days"
of travel time they *used* to take, they're now taking "roughly three"
to go from Earth to B-5.
Here's another entry on the subject of LaGrange points, which you
may have missed, from a guy who's done the calcs, as well as
having current references to hand:
===================================================================
> From: dasmith(atat)space.mit.edu (Don A. Smith)
> Subject: Re: La Grange Points (was Re: Does B5 Orbit Iridani's Sun?)
> Date: 16 Jul 1996 14:42:07 GMT
> Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
> Message-ID: <4sg9nv$8...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
>
> Dear James Michael Sambrook and others,
>
> I'm afraid you need to take that Astronautics course again. I just
> dragged out my old homework assignments from my Intro to Graduate
> Astrophysics class I took a couple years ago, and we worked through
> the entire LaGrange three-body problem in gory detail.
> You have to solve del Veff = 0, where Veff is the sum of the two
> gravitational fields and the fictional Centrifugal and Coriolis terms
> (this is all done in the rotating frame of reference).
> To address the stability question, you need to calculate and diagonalize
> the second rank tensor di dj Veff (where di is supposed to be the 3-d
> vector derivative. Hard to do the math notation in ASCII.) What you
> get is that L1, L2, and L3 lie on the line connecting the two major
> masses in the system (you have to do all this assuming that M1 and M2
> are much much greater than m. m in this case would be Babylon 5),
> and they are unstable. Physically, L1 is basically the point where the
> two major masses' gravitational forces cancel out. Clearly, that's
> unstable, because if you move in either direction, the force from the
> nearer mass always gets stronger. L2 and L3 are on the outside of the
> masses, and represent the points where the centrifugal force cancels out
> the gravity of the two major masses. Again, since the centrifugal force
> increases with r, and the gravitational force decreases with r, these
> points are also clearly unstable.
>
> The L4 and L5 points *always* lie at the third point of an equilateral
> triangle with the opposite side being the line between the two major
> masses. However, they are only *stable* if (M1 + M2)^2 > 27*M1*M2.
> Perhaps that is what you were thinking of when you were talking about
> the effect of the masses on the Lagrange points, but what you said
> ("Unless the sun and planet (or planet and moon) have the same mass, the
> L-5 point will not form an equilateral triangle.") was just plain wrong.
> It is also wrong to say "The La Grange points are the 5 locations which
> remain stationary in the orbital plane." That sentence is meaningless.
> They are the five locations where there is no net force on a test particle
> sitting at that location (in this rotating frame of reference).
>
> And would people *please* stop calling them "Trojan Points"????
> The Trojan *Asteroids* cluster at the L4 and L5 points of the Jupiter-Sun
> system. The points themselves are not called "Trojan Points", in general!
>
> If you don't believe me, look it up in a textbook, and you'll see I'm
> right. Now can we please lay this confusion to rest? I swear, they
> should be calling it the Misinformation Superhighway.
>
> Not really frustratedly, more bemusedly yours,
>
> Don Smith Astrophysics PhD Student
===================================================================
Please note that, over the years, JMS has repeatedly changed his mind
about whether the station is in a planet-moon L4/L5 type point, or
whether it's orbiting the planet, or whether it's "in orbit" around
"Epsilon Eridani." (His capitalization.)
Obviously, a sun-planet L4/L5 position *would* count as being "in orbit
around 'Epsilon Eridani.'" ....but if the station *were* in a sun-planet
L4/L5, the planet would look like a bright star, not a disk, so it's far
more likely, given the proximity of the planet, that it's in some sort of
orbit around the planet.
It is not yet clear that JMS actually understands the locations and
differences in type of the various LaGrange Points, and his public
statements relating to the subject have never been such as to inspire
any great amount of confidence.
Wayne Throop
::: It's the *LAUNCHING* of them that JMS never got right, and still
::: doesn't understand,
But the portrayal is actually startlingly good, despite JMS's use of the
term "spiraling out". Note: from the non-inertial coordinates of
somebody standing on the launch bay floor, the course IS a spiral...
( Of course, Gharlane is perfectly well aware of this:
: ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
: Now, from INSIDE the station, from a reference frame that looks at the
: station as motionless and the universe as spinning outside, yes, it
: will appear that the StarFury "spirals out;"
the problem is just that the spiral is not the one JMS thought it was;
for details, see
http://sheol.org/throopw/starfurry-align.html
and also
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/Answers/answ75.html
http://sheol.org/throopw/starfury-launch1.gif
http://sheol.org/throopw/starfury-launch2.gif
: but when Joe drew an EXTERIOR view of the station with a 'Fury
: spiralling out, he wasn't operating from that frame, *and* he had the
: spiral going in the wrong direction. Cat-calls ensued. ( This was a
: long-ago SF convention appearance, and I do not have it on tape. )
:
Exactly. JMS had the starfury at successive instants staying along the
radial line through the launch bay. Doubly wrong; it doesn't move along
a radial line at all, and if you look at the spiral in
launch-bay-floor-centric coordinates, the spiral you get from JMS's
approach has the wrong chirality compared to the station center.
: ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
: Even worse, we couldn't get the point across that a dropped 'Fury,
: sharing the same momentum vectors as the station, will be spinning at
: roughly the same rate as the station...
True, but not very relevant from the point of view of the portrayal.
The rotation of a dropped starfury, presuming a perfectly symmetrical
drop from the launch frame, would be about 1rpm. But they are
routinely shown assuming powered flight within seconds of launch,
well before their rotation wrt the background stars would be apparent.
And, of course, they *wouldn't* be rotating compared to the station
in the immediate background; the station floor will be tilting at
exactly the same rate as the starfury nose is pitching down, so
there'd no no appearance of rotation to portray anyways.
What a starfury pilot would actually *see* in terms of motion
would be dropping straight nose-wards though a hole in the station
skin; the orientation of the starfury's "nose down" is exactly the right
one to give them the best field of view, and an pilot-visible apparent
motion directly nosewards as it leaves the launch bay.
: We also noticed that Joe and several of the Foundation employees
: weren't clear on the subject of orbital velocities; vide the
: discussion of tossing a coffin into the sun. One of the Foundation
: guys explained that all you had to do was move away from the station,
: and you'd fall into the sun. ( This was in defense of Joe in a
: discussion over how best to toss a coffin... )
Note also the launch of probes orbitwards to land them on planet Sigma
nine-mumble-whatnot, in the episode that introduces the notion of the
First Ones. Among many other examples. Never heard of the "out to go
back, back to go down, down to go ahead, ahead to go out" local
rules of thumb.
:: dasmith(atat)space.mit.edu (Don A. Smith)
:: Physically, L1 is basically the point where the two major masses'
:: gravitational forces cancel out. Clearly, that's unstable, because
:: if you move in either direction, the force from the nearer mass
:: always gets stronger. L2 and L3 are on the outside of the masses,
:: and represent the points where the centrifugal force cancels out the
:: gravity of the two major masses. Again, since the centrifugal force
:: increases with r, and the gravitational force decreases with r, these
:: points are also clearly unstable.
Misleading, since by this analysis, L4 and L5 must be "unstable" also.
Indeed, the common meme that L4 and L5 form "potential wells" in the
system-center-of-mass rotating reference frame is incorrect; they form
potential *hills*. The problem with L1 through 3 is that they form
potential *ridges*, and it is this difference that renders the former
stable and the latter unstable.
That's slightly esoteric, but it's good to keep in mind that L4 and L5
aren't potential wells; they confine things like electrons in a magnetic
field, not like electrons kept near by a positive charge.
: Note that B5, as shown in the series, can NOT be in any sort of
: LaGrange point, lunar or planetary. ( If it were in a planetary
: LaGrange point, the planet would be a vaguely bright star, not a
: visible disk; and if it were in a lunar LaGrange point, the angular
: diameter of the planet would be just a whole frap of a lot less, since
: we know its surface gee approximates Earth-normal. )
Well... the planet's moon could be really really close,
but then, we'd see it in the longer-range establishing shots.
So all in all, yes, the portrayal of B5 is not consistent with
it actually being at any L5 point at all.
: It is not yet clear that JMS actually understands the locations and
: differences in type of the various LaGrange Points, and his public
: statements relating to the subject have never been such as to inspire
: any great amount of confidence.
That is, indeed, an accurate account of the bottom line.
Lars Haugseth
* ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
|
| Now, in answer to the guy who wanted to know about L4/L5 points
| and B-5's location....
[snippety-snip]
For a brief explanation of the LaGrange points, with illustrations,
have a look at this page at NASA's website:
<URL:http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/lagrange.html>
--
Lars Haugseth [Remove hyphen for personal email address]
Health warning: This article could be
hazardous to the health of close-minded nincompoops. If you
suffer from this condition, consult your doctor immediately
The Nuclear Marine
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
> >
> > Straczynski couldn't even be bothered to get himself a *military*
> > advisor, much less a technical one. ( And he knows no more of
> > command management and military psychology than he does of astronomy,
> > with equally culpable results. )
>
> I do believe the military aspects of Babylon 5 were handled by John
> Copeland, so many of your complaints should be directed at him. For
> example, he designed EF's rank system (which appeared in a recent issue
> of the B5 Magazine).
>
Finally, a man to blame for Lochley being on post for 6+ years as CO of
B5. No, wait, the only reason she is still there sounds more like
contractual obligations or promises to the actress who played her.
>
> > Not one military officer ( or
> > enlisted type ) who appears anywhere in "BABYLON 5" is portrayed
> > believeably.
>
> I just read an old post from someone who was a marine (or at least
> claimed to be) and praised "GROPOS" for finally getting all the little
> details right... Of course, I am in no position to make any informed
> statement of my own on the subject.
>
Your not talking about me now are you? `Besides, jms did not write GROPOS
if I recall correctly. But that SgtMaj for the General of a MAGTF would
unlikely be doing the 1stSgt level busy work he was doing in that
episode. At least the enlisted were given play in it but extremely
unlikely that two non-NCO's would be placed in the stateroom of an officer
who also was a Squadron Leader.
It is ironic we expect a certain amount of realism from the fantasy that
is B5. Goes to show how much it is appreciated.
==============================================
This .sig for rent.
The Nuclear Marine
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
> Correction - the ranking system was designed by Joe, but Copeland wrote
> the piece in B5 Magazine #17, and was the one responsible for checking
> military details. The ranks are explained as being a blend of Air Force
> and Naval rankings, borrowing a few designations from outside the US.
>
> Admiral (fleet commanders)/General (tactical commanders?)
> Colonel
> Lt. Colonel
> Major
> Captain
> Commander
> Lt. Commander
> Lieutenant
> 1st Lieutenant
> Ensign
>
Unlikely, Admiral was only used once in the first season, Lt.Colonel was
never used. Major could reference Major General seeing as the Major in
Severed Dreams and End of the Line seemed to have clout. Colonel appeared
again only once in the first season being on par with Captain. And the
Major in the first season that was referenced as was Garibaldi's old
acquantince placed the rank below Captain and on par with Lt. Cmdr seeing
as how Ivanova treated the major in that episode.
So the rank structure is flubbed up. Ask me, keep the naval ranks with
General as the flag level and all is well and good. Series is as the
series was filmed and unless jms or WB feels like correcting the rank
structure after weighing the cost, it is as it is for good and bad. Such
was the organic nature of the show.
Can't keep a good man down, unless you got some really strong rope.
lcou...@stetson.edu
> > Straczynski couldn't even be bothered to get himself a *military*
> > advisor, much less a technical one. ( And he knows no more of
> > command management and military psychology than he does of
astronomy,
>
> I do believe the military aspects of Babylon 5 were handled by John
> Copeland, so many of your complaints should be directed at him. For
> example, he designed EF's rank system (which appeared in a recent
issue
> of the B5 Magazine).
>
> > enlisted type ) who appears anywhere in "BABYLON 5" is portrayed
>
> I just read an old post from someone who was a marine (or at least
> claimed to be) and praised "GROPOS" for finally getting all the little
> details right... Of course, I am in no position to make any informed
> statement of my own on the subject.
>
> a_b...@bigfoot.com
>
>
I have to agree with Are on this. I have many people in my family who
were in the military (I suspect I am not unique in this; many who post
here must have fathers, grandfathers, etc, who fought in WW2, Korea, or
Viet Nam). In addition, I cound as colleagues certain peole I met at
West Point at a conference. Now, let me start by saying that I don't
consider B5 to be in the main "military space opera" - many of the
militaries are alien, and politics and ethics seem much more important
to the story at large.
However, based on my (dmittedly) meager knowledge, as well as
interviews with Boxleitner (jms told him to take cues from certain WW2
generals) and jms's seemingly large knowledge of WW2, I can't believe
his portrayal is that off. And sorry, IMHO, he appears to have gotten
his info from much more than watching Casablanca and Tora, Tora, Tora.
Perhaps the rank system is somewhat different than the current one - it
is a different service, set 200 years in the future. Also, in genral
we're dealing with higer level people, not GROPOS and NCOs.
Sorry, Gharlane, until you are willing to do more than flame and reveal
your sources, it tracks fine with me and I'm not buying your supposed
expertise.
Iain Rae
>
> [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
>
> > Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
I'd always assumed that it was much like say the RN and RM or USN and
USMC, if you have a ship based specialisation you have navy ranks and if
you have a ground based background you have Army/Marine ranks.
--
Iain Rae
Computing Officer
Dept. Civil & Offshore Engineering
Heriot-Watt University
lcou...@stetson.edu
Also, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but Sheridan and
Sinclair, whatever their ranks, were direclty responsible for B5 - to
the Joint Chiefs. Hence, I assumed the major from Season 1 couldn't
outrank Sinclair since this was a B5 question, and once they broke away
from Earth, Major Ryan (I believe) would be unlikely to give Sheridan
orders in any case. IIRC, and I may not, in "In the Beginning" generals
ran things and lower ranks were treated as such. Captains (like the one
on the Prometheus and Sheridan's ship) had ultimate responsibility for
ships. To me, at least, it made sense.
Iain Rae
>
<snip>
>
> Also, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but Sheridan and
> Sinclair, whatever their ranks, were direclty responsible for B5 - to
> the Joint Chiefs. Hence, I assumed the major from Season 1 couldn't
> outrank Sinclair since this was a B5 question, and once they broke away
> from Earth, Major Ryan (I believe) would be unlikely to give Sheridan
> orders in any case. IIRC,
They wouldn't anyway, Sinclair and Sheriden both outrank a Major, at
least according to the UK structures, the RN/RM scales run as:
Subsequent Promotion
Royal Navy Royal Marines
Lieutenant Captain 27,783 - 32,295
Lieutenant Commander Major 34,999 - 41,920
Commander Lt Colonel 49,369 - 54,567
Captain Colonel 57,169 - 63,185
(with salary scales as of 1 April 2000).
Mark Maher
<8klbtt$38l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>Also, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but
Sheridan and
>Sinclair, whatever their ranks, were direclty responsible for
B5 - to
>the Joint Chiefs. Hence, I assumed the major from Season 1
couldn't
>outrank Sinclair since this was a B5 question, and once they
broke away
>from Earth, Major Ryan (I believe) would be unlikely to give
Sheridan
generals
>ran things and lower ranks were treated as such. Captains (like
the one
>on the Prometheus and Sheridan's ship) had ultimate
responsibility for
>ships. To me, at least, it made sense.
>
"..I do believe that you have got it surrounded."
Spot on on all three points.
1. Even though CAPT Pierce (EAS HYPERION) outranked CDR Sinclair
in grade, Sinclair's position was that of a presidential
appointee, who reported directly back to the Senate in terms of
policy and the Joint Chiefs for administrative purposes. The
Babylon 5 treaty placed that area of space under the direct
juridiction of the station's commander.
2. MAJ Ryan was both subordinate in rank to CAPT Sheridan and in
the process of defecting from EarthForce. He wasn't likely to be
giving anyone orders but folks onboard the ALEXANDER. Although
he was the de facto Captain of the ALEXANDER (they never did
really specify that he was the officer formally assigned that
job), which technically put him on even terms with CAPT Hiroshi,
they were both subordinate to Sheridan, due to clause 1 above.
3. The position of ship's Captain (regardless of rank) has
traditionally granted whoever held the position The Last Word
when it comes to matters affecting the ship and its crew.
Admirals and Generals who are embarked onboard will usually
defer to the Captain's judgement when it comes to these matters.
As you stated, the Captain has the ultimate responsibility,
which means he has to have the ultimate authority. Any superior
officer who fails to heed that tradition usually finds himself
listed next to the word "IDIOT" in the history books.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
>
>Obviously, a sun-planet L4/L5 position *would* count as being "in orbit
>around 'Epsilon Eridani.'" ....but if the station *were* in a sun-planet
>L4/L5, the planet would look like a bright star, not a disk, so it's far
>more likely, given the proximity of the planet, that it's in some sort of
>orbit around the planet.
>
I feel like throwing a curved ball in here. Lets assume that the time
rift has the same mass as the moon. Does this produce a stable
mountain top (point)?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
<nuke-...@home.com> writes:
>
>Unlikely, Admiral was only used once in the first season, Lt.Colonel was
>never used. Major could reference Major General seeing as the Major in
>Severed Dreams and End of the Line seemed to have clout.
I think Major Ed Ryan from Severed Dreams should have been Brigadier
Ed Ryan. Equivalent to a Real Admiral (lower half). A rank higher that
a naval captain but lower than a general. Unfortunately he was only
given a rank higher than an army captain.
Andrew Swallow
Joseph DeMartino
the name of their Quarter Pounders? (I suppose they *could* always rename
the things, "The Royale" and the "Royale with Cheese"<g>)
Regards,
Joe
Gharlane of Eddore
In <396DE9A9...@civ.hw.ac.uk> Iain Rae <ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> writes:
>The Nuclear Marine wrote:
>>
>> Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>>
>> > Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
< deletia, a whole lot of stuff from several folks, NONE of which did
I write, so including my source-line is completely frojinous. >
Since I'm not paying attention, I don't know whether Nordal or Marine
is responsible; this is addressed to whichever of you terminated the
canine in mid-flight:
Thank for trimming your post; now learn HOW to trim.
When you trim, please trim *accurately*, lest ye be reviled,
vilified, and just generally pointed at and jeered by those whom
you're making inadvertantly responsible for the twaddlings of
others, and thank you for your attention.
lcou...@stetson.edu
Thanks guys. Wow! I was sure I was off on something.
Lisa
Pål Are Nordal
>
> < deletia, a whole lot of stuff from several folks, NONE of which did
> I write, so including my source-line is completely frojinous. >
>
> Since I'm not paying attention, I don't know whether Nordal or Marine
> is responsible; this is addressed to whichever of you terminated the
> canine in mid-flight:
How can you even /suggest/ such a thing? Even though I use a <spit>web
browser</spit> to post with (which will soon be ditched for either slrn
or Gnus), I compose in plain text, and always take great care to snip
properly - Deja searches will even reveal me complaining about similar instances.
IOW - It wasn't me.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Gharlane of Eddore
>Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>>=20
>> I write, so including my source-line is completely frojinous. >
In <396FC8B6...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
>>=20
>> Since I'm not paying attention, I don't know whether Nordal or Marine
>> is responsible; this is addressed to whichever of you terminated the
>> canine in mid-flight:
>
>How can you even /suggest/ such a thing? Even though I use a <spit>web
>browser</spit> to post with (which will soon be ditched for either slrn
>or Gnus), I compose in plain text, and always take great care to snip
>properly - Deja searches will even reveal me complaining about similar in=
>stances.
>
>IOW - It wasn't me.
>
>--=20
>
Ah. That explains those "=20" artifacts embedded in all your posts.
--- *nearly* equally culpable, just not dangerously so.
You can relax now; my minions are no longer targeting your homestead.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> In <396FC8B6...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
> >
> >How can you even /suggest/ such a thing? Even though I use a <spit>web
> >browser</spit> to post with (which will soon be ditched for either slrn
> >or Gnus),
>
> --- *nearly* equally culpable, just not dangerously so.
Actually, my posts leave Communicator as 8bit, containing no encoding.
Alas, somewhere along the line in the moderation process it is converted
to "quoted-printable" without my approval, something that would probably
happen no matter which newsreader I use.
I could of course use an alternative spelling for my name and send them
as bog standard 7bit, though I won't because of the childhood trauma
inflicted on me by not being able to enter my name in computer game
highscore lists.