Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bodies explode in space?

147 views
Skip to first unread message

snopes

unread,
Jul 26, 1994, 11:39:04 PM7/26/94
to
spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:

|> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode

> been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
> explode.

I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
but even *I* could spot that one.

- snopes

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Eating live worms shows a total disregard for living things. We take a |
| very dim view and just wish people could think of other ways to raise |
| money." |
| - Noeline Tamplin, RSPCA spokeswoman |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Andrew See

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 1:42:18 AM7/27/94
to
sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:

> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.

The Moon casts its shadow on the earth during an eclipse, and there is a
vacuum between the moon and the earth...


Craige Kevin Howlett

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 12:33:01 AM7/27/94
to
: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a

: shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by
: Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physic

: but even *I* could spot that one.

It would seem that you do know little about physics. Now here is
a basic lesson. Light traveling from an source (I.E. any local Sun will
do) and strikes an object that is more dense then it is (I.E. a shuttle
craft) will stop the light. Thus creating a shadow on the opposite
side. You do however have a agruement in that the nearest Sun was
probably too far away to have created a shadow.

That however does excuse you from thinking that shadow can't be
created in a vacuum. Are you sure you're old enough to be on the Net...
--
* "THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" cra...@netcom.com

-Mac

* Panatheism - Look it up and learn...


* "Today's NERD is tomorrows Bill Gates"

Joe Chew

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 12:46:36 AM7/27/94
to
Snoping merrily along:

: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a


: shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew
: by the Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum?

In space, no one can hear you scream, "Eclipse!"??? Pardon me while I
get out my umbra-ella. I think it's gonna rain followups.

What I want to know is, what lights the Enterprise up in the first place,
even when a good long way from any star. Yeah, yeah, I know: flood-
lights on the camera ship USS Weegee, known for her almost magical record
of being near the E whenever something interesting happens.

--Joe

EQM

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 4:00:18 AM7/27/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, snopes <sno...@netcom.com> wrote:

>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>
>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
> - snopes

There are two possibilities here:
1: You are trying to be funny.
2: You REALLY know zip about physics.

Considering my experience teaching Astro. I really hope it is option
number one.


--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
EQM
'We're just two lost souls...'
*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Andy Wardley

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 4:11:35 AM7/27/94
to
Craige Kevin Howlett writes:
> It would seem that you do know little about physics.

Your lip is bleeding. Must have something stuck in it.


Andy "nice one snopes" Wardley

Andy Wardley is "The Man From a...@oasis.icl.co.uk" ObRecursiQuoteVirus:
"Simply mention cunnilingus and Ice Cream in the same sentence and Jason
Heimba[u]gh is bound to include you in his .signature file" the count so far:
Derek Tearne:2 Andy Wardley:3 Vicki Robinson:2 Sean Willard:1 Harry Teasley:1

Joseph Moran

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 1:08:20 AM7/27/94
to
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.

[hehe this will be fun]

Well, since light behaves pretty much the same no matter what
medium it's in, air, vacuum, whatever, then shadows would behave the same
two. If you have a light source (flashlight, nearby sun) and a solid
opaque object (shuttlecraft, some juvenile idiot's corpse that was thrown
out of an airlock :) ), then that object will cast a shadow. That is
why we have night on earth, and solar and lunar eclipses.

Now here's a gripe I have: why is it always so bright in space? Even
when we see the Enterprise in interstellar space, not anywhere near a
star, it's still as bright as day. The only illumination available is
starlight--it should be dark!!! That's why the ships have nav. lights
and beacons.

If anything, it should be more like it was in the first three ST movies.
Remember those? The Enterprise actually had running lights, spotlights
to show the name and registry, etc. And the effect was quite nice as
well as realistic. I'd like to see the Ent. D like that....

Joe


Joseph Moran

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 1:13:01 AM7/27/94
to

Yes folks, it's true. Even thought the last two posts were both signed
'joe', they were in fact written by different people.

And you thought the borg were bad......

I am Joe of Joe, First of Two (I think)

You will be annoyed. Understanding is futile.

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 5:53:02 AM7/27/94
to

as...@arthur.st.nepean.uws.edu.au (Andrew See) writes:
>
>The Moon casts its shadow on the earth during an eclipse, and there is a
>vacuum between the moon and the earth...
>

Er, no. That's ether.

- Tor "vacuum is for wimps who cannot handle Vernian physics" Iver
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor...@pvv.unit.no> CS student at NTH, Trondheim, NO
Info: http://www.pvv.unit.no/~toriver/ Member of The Software Workshop, UNIT
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
- Dr. Barry Gehm's corollary to Clarke's law

George Sanderson

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 6:20:38 AM7/27/94
to
: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they

: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about
: physics, but even *I* could spot that one.

Yep - you do know _zip_ about physics...


Q: What do shadows have to do with the presence or lack of atmosphere?
A: Very little. The atmosphere may distort the light which in turn
may distort the shadow.


Andrew Welsh

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 5:52:47 AM7/27/94
to
sno...@netcom.com (snopes) wrote:

> spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>
> |> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode
>
> > been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
> > explode.
>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
> shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by
> the Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
> really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
> but even *I* could spot that one.

That wasn't a shadow, that was the ghost of "William Shatner" (or James T. Kirk
as he was later known). The writers of this particular ST:TNG episode were
trying to tie in the fact that, as with 'the force' in Star Wars powerful
figures in space don't really die - they float around for eternity.

Hope this helps

andrew
--
Andrew Welsh (and...@bnr.ca) - All views in this posting are mine alone

Steven W. Difranco

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 7:55:34 AM7/27/94
to

In a previous article, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) says:

>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>
>|> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode
>
>> been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
>> explode.
>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>

Physics is - apparantly - not the only thing you know zip about.
If it was - indeed - impossible to cast a shadow in vacuum, there
would never be an eclipse.

--
Steven DiFranco - President, CEO, and founder of R.O.O.S. - "There
IS life after TNG...if we have the courage to believe." - Me
I'm not just the President of ROOS, I'm also a client.
(And I still have that "get out of debt" thing)

Tom Havey

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:32:25 AM7/27/94
to

The Enterprise D is lit up even in the middle of nowhere due to the
camera crew outside filming it for the show, of course!!


"Lights, camera, engage!"............

tch

Joe DiMaggio

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 10:50:58 AM7/27/94
to
snopes (sno...@netcom.com) spake thusly:

: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a


: shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
: Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
: but even *I* could spot that one.

6 (so far) on one hook.

My own puny trolling efforts pale in comparison to this.

If I had a hat, I'd take it off to you.

Joe D
"the wonder of it all"

Mark Hughes

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 10:47:09 AM7/27/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:

> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
> shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
> Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show?
> Do they really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know
> zip about physics, but even *I* could spot that one.

I don't see a smiley on this post, so I presume the poster is serious.
So...

Yes, light does travel in a vacuum, and yes, it can be blocked by
objects. So objects _do_ cast a shadow in a vacuum. That's what
a lunar eclipse is; the Earth casting a shadow on the moon.

I think you are thinking of sound. Sound doesn't travel in a
vacuum.

Mark

Russell Stewart

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 11:14:51 AM7/27/94
to
snopes (sno...@netcom.com) wrote:

: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they

: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
: but even *I* could spot that one.

Well, as many people have already pointed out, that's not true.

The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
sounsd in a vacuum. Personally, it doesn't bother me much, because I know
they're put in for effect only. But it kind of worries me sometimes when I
see so many people working so hard to point out technical errors in ST or any
other SF product, and they consistently ignore that one. Have we become
trained or something?


--
Russell Stewart "The more people I meet...
dia...@einet.com the more I like my dog."
Albuquerque, NM -A bumper sticker I saw

Stephen Zatman

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 1:11:05 PM7/27/94
to
In article 5...@mack.einet.com, dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
:-)>snopes (sno...@netcom.com) wrote:
:-)>
:-)>: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
:-)>: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
:-)>: but even *I* could spot that one.
:-)>

Wow, I wish I'd posted that. Congratulations. And for being such a martyr on the
Yale issue, have some smilies:

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
---

*****************************************************************
* can't stand those idiots with .sigs, myself. *
* *
* Stephen Zatman *
*****************************************************************


Kerry J. Person

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 12:59:03 PM7/27/94
to
In article <315s1d$d...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com>, mhu...@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) writes:
|> In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
|> > Do they really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum?

|> I think you are thinking of sound. Sound doesn't travel in a
|> vacuum.

Listen -- you're all nuts. I once sucked up my pet gerbil with my vacuum. I
used a flashlight to find him inside it. There were definitely shadows in
there. And I could hear him squeaking, too, so there goes that theory.

Sheesh, people, make sure you know what you are talking about before you post!

--
Kerry J. Person Electrical Engineering
kpe...@toons.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu North Dakota State University
kpe...@plains.Nodak.edu Fargo, ND USA

Norman Hirsch

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 5:53:02 PM7/27/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com> sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
>From: sno...@netcom.com (snopes)
>Subject: Re: Bodies explode in space?
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 03:39:04 GMT

>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:

>|> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode

>> been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
>> explode.

> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a


>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.

Yeah, and that also proves we really didn't land on the moon (it was
Arizona somewhere) because the men had shadows! This adds to the other
explanations: Helium filled out their bulging suits to make them
appear lighter but it gave them high voices and narcosis which is why they
bounced around so much and why they kept falling down.

snopes

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 2:58:20 PM7/27/94
to
cra...@netcom.com (Craige Kevin Howlett) writes:

> Light traveling from an source and strikes an object that is more dense then
> it is will stop the light.

Replace the word 'light' with 'information', and I think we have a winner.

- snopes

snopes

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 3:03:47 PM7/27/94
to
jmo...@netcom.com (Joseph Moran) writes:

> [hehe this will be fun]

Irony of ironies.

> Now here's a gripe I have: why is it always so bright in space?

To compensate for the dimness of the viewing audience, of course.

- snopes


Peter van der Linden

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 3:02:02 PM7/27/94
to

spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
> shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
> Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
> really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
> but even *I* could spot that one.

I must say I am disappointed in some of the so-called "answers" to this
Star-Trek gaffe. The claim about "sound not travelling in a vacuum" was
particularly stupid -- anyone who has operated a vacuum cleaner *knows*
that it is actually one of the *noisiest* domestic appliances.

It is also obvious that the inside of a vacuum cleaner (i.e. where the
actual "vacuum" is projected) is totally dark. It's the same principle
as a refrigerator -- with the door shut. Just how do you self-proclaimed
physics experts think that magnetism works, anyway? *That's* the reason
for the shadow, in this instance.

--
Peter van der Linden lin...@eng.sun.com /// Fave Dating Game question:
Q. What is the most unusual place that you have ever executed code?
A. That would be in the Stack Frame, Bob.

Stephen Mastrogiovanni

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 4:07:07 PM7/27/94
to
In alt.folklore.urban, sw...@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven W. Difranco) writes:
>In a previous article, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) says:
>
>>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>>
> Physics is - apparantly - not the only thing you know zip about.
> If it was - indeed - impossible to cast a shadow in vacuum, there
> would never be an eclipse.

Yes, light travels through a vacuum folks...but what about sound! STNG
always has these grand explosions etc. ??????

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
sm
]]]]

snopes

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 3:26:13 PM7/27/94
to
Steven W. Difranco (sw...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:

> Physics is - apparantly - not the only thing you know zip about.
> If it was - indeed - impossible to cast a shadow in vacuum, there
> would never be an eclipse.

I'm curious: what else do I know zip about? I'm guessing spelling and
punctuation, apparently.

- snopes

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "It is evidently pleasing to many people to fantasy that when people are |
| trapped by some immobilizing event which deprives them of their usual |
| activities, most will turn to copulation." |
| - J. Richard Udry |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[EOB]


What a long strange trip it's been

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 4:41:58 PM7/27/94
to
Peter van der Linden (lin...@positive.eng.sun.com) wrote:

: spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:

: > Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
: > but even *I* could spot that one.

: I must say I am disappointed in some of the so-called "answers" to this
: Star-Trek gaffe. The claim about "sound not travelling in a vacuum" was
: particularly stupid -- anyone who has operated a vacuum cleaner *knows*
: that it is actually one of the *noisiest* domestic appliances.

Yeah, but that is OUTSIDE the vacuum, not IN the vacuum.

Lars "HA! Gotcha there! " Allen

: It is also obvious that the inside of a vacuum cleaner (i.e. where the


: actual "vacuum" is projected) is totally dark. It's the same principle
: as a refrigerator -- with the door shut. Just how do you self-proclaimed
: physics experts think that magnetism works, anyway? *That's* the reason
: for the shadow, in this instance.

Shadows are magnetic?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Lars
lra...@mcdata.com
Murphy's fifth Law of Combat:
Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Norman Hirsch

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:57:40 PM7/27/94
to
In article <CtM9H...@mcdata.com> lra...@mcdata.com (What a long strange trip it's been) writes:
>From: lra...@mcdata.com (What a long strange trip it's been)

>Subject: Re: Bodies explode in space?
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 20:41:58 GMT

>Peter van der Linden (lin...@positive.eng.sun.com) wrote:

>: spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:

>: > Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>: > but even *I* could spot that one.

>: I must say I am disappointed in some of the so-called "answers" to this
>: Star-Trek gaffe. The claim about "sound not travelling in a vacuum" was
>: particularly stupid -- anyone who has operated a vacuum cleaner *knows*
>: that it is actually one of the *noisiest* domestic appliances.

>Yeah, but that is OUTSIDE the vacuum, not IN the vacuum.

good point. I wonder if the sound get's sucked inside the vacuum cleaner, how
will it disappear? Maybe it turns to dust or something because if there is
no sound, where does it go. Energy turns to heat. Maybe sound turns to
dust. And what about light. What if a light is on in the room. Does the
light get sucked inside the vacuum cleaner? And what happens to it since it
is dark in there? But what happens if someone builds a vacuum cleaner that
is clear and light can get in? Wow, probably I've crossed the line here and
better get off before the US stops me from traveling to other countries.

>: It is also obvious that the inside of a vacuum cleaner (i.e. where the
>: actual "vacuum" is projected) is totally dark. It's the same principle
>: as a refrigerator -- with the door shut. Just how do you self-proclaimed
>: physics experts think that magnetism works, anyway? *That's* the reason
>: for the shadow, in this instance.

>Shadows are magnetic?

They act like magnets only if the object giving the shadow is touching
something. Then they are magnetically attracted to the point where the object
touches. No matter where you place the light, you can't demagnetize the
shadow from the object. This is the kind of magnetic energy that the Shadow
used in knowing what only he knew. That's why they wouldn't let him out of
the country either.


DAN THE FUNKY MOOSE MAN

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 7:22:00 PM7/27/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes...

>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>
>|> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode
>
>> been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
>> explode.
>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
Da Hell R U talkin about.. I don't mean to be rude.... but if
objects don't cast shadows in a vacume... HOW THE HELL DOES AN ECLIPSE
OCCUR?????????

that's just my $0.02!
>

_--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--_
| ____ __ __ | |
| / __ \ / | /\ / / | Cyberspace...... |
| / / | | / _ | / _\ / / | Sooner or later it'll be |
| / / / / / /_|| / / \\_/ / | in U'r face!............ |
| / /__/ / / ---|| / / \ / \\______//| .......ALL DAY!......... |
|/______/ /_/ ||/_/ \/ <oo> | ............EVERYDAY!... |
| Da MoOsE ][ | -MoOsE mYsTeR |
| E-mail: dl_...@pavo.concordia.ca | |
-__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__-

Christopher BIbbs

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 6:36:13 PM7/27/94
to
Russell Stewart (dia...@mack.einet.com) wrote:
: The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in

: every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
people have found in it. The only one I have ever found is that while on
the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.

--
Non-standard Disclaimer: All thoughts and opionions expressed above are
NOT my own, but rather are those of my boss, minister, parents, friends,
relatives, and the current ruling party. All flames and corrections
should be directed to them, not me.

Christopher M Bibbs chri...@umich.edu

Christopher BIbbs

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:47:17 PM7/27/94
to
snopes (sno...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a

: shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
: Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.

: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
: but even *I* could spot that one.

Gee, I'll have to chat with my physics 242 and 401 professors. They're
under the impression that light (and other forms of electro-magnetic
radiation) don't need a medium to travel through. They also have this
thing about relatively dense objects (like a shuttle I guess) being able
to block EM emmissions. They should really talk to you!

David Steers

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:57:30 PM7/27/94
to
In article <316ijl$h...@mack.einet.com>, dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
> OKAY!!!!
>
> We know have plenty of followups telling us that shadows DO ineed exist in
> a vacuum. The original poster made a mistake. He's been corrected.
>
> Don't people ever read followups before making one of their own? Jeez...

Yes, but people get the followups at different times. Some node may get
several followups right away. Another node may not get the followups for
awhile. So even though there are followups posted, some people may not see
them until after they made their own followup.

Anyways it was so much fun and everything else was so boring, people wanted
something to do.
--
Keep a cool and _\|/_ Have a good Weekend!
{õ õ}
==================================ooO=(_)=Ooo==================================

Russell Stewart

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 5:12:21 PM7/27/94
to
OKAY!!!!

We know have plenty of followups telling us that shadows DO ineed exist in
a vacuum. The original poster made a mistake. He's been corrected.

Don't people ever read followups before making one of their own? Jeez...


--
____________________________________________________________________
|Russell Stewart | "Dear sir, |
|dia...@rt66.com | I object to your assertation that |
|Albuquerque, NM | the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism!|
| | It is well known that we now have the |
| | problem relatively under control." |
| | -Monty Python |
|_______________________|____________________________________________|

Michael P Urban

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 1:04:24 PM7/27/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, snopes <sno...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about
>physics, but even *I* could spot that one.

Actually, the problem is that it is really difficult
to tell jokes in a vacuum. I think it has something
to do with Cultural Relativity, and the fact that there
is not enough gravity in the situation.

This _was_ an attempt at humor, I think?
Mike Urban

ur...@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:41:13 PM7/27/94
to
snopes writes:

>: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though:

You misspelled "gaff".

Lee "it's always Northridge somewhere on the net" Rudolph

mike...@options.sgi.com

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 5:43:11 PM7/27/94
to

But why don't they explode then?
(talk about a thread coming back to it's roots ;-)
--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Stegbauer - MikeS - stegbau...@tandem.com - formerly mikesteg
Tandem On-Line Support Center, Austin, TX - TNSC UNIX Support Analyst
1992 Laser RS AWD, Red - 1993 750 Nighthawk, Blue - trekkie(TOS,TNG,DS9,V)
"Walk softly and carry a big stick"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Patlan

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 12:21:00 PM7/27/94
to
In article <craigeeC...@netcom.com>,
Craige Kevin Howlett <cra...@netcom.com> wrote:

>: [ Casting shadows in a vacuum on ST:TNG ]
>:
>
> It would seem that you do know little about physics. Now here is
>a basic lesson. Light traveling from an source (I.E. any local Sun will
^^^^
Ummm, don't you mean "e.g."? (N.B.: lower case) I won't go into the
spelling, usage, and verb tenses, though....


>do) and strikes an object that is more dense then it is (I.E. a shuttle
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>craft) will stop the light. Thus creating a shadow on the opposite
>side. You do however have a agruement in that the nearest Sun was
>probably too far away to have created a shadow.
>
> That however does excuse you from thinking that shadow can't be
>created in a vacuum. Are you sure you're old enough to be on the Net...
>--
>* "THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" cra...@netcom.com
>
> -Mac
>
>* Panatheism - Look it up and learn...

Well, Physics 101 was 13 years ago, but I don't think that *density* is
really the significant factor here. And what does "it" refer to? What is
the density being compared to? Does light have density? And what about
Transparent Alumin(i)um?


Steve "What are they *teaching* these kids nowadays?" Patlan
--
tex...@starbase.neosoft.com
Finger for PGP key. Heh, heh.

KLEIN, EDWARD L

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:34:00 AM7/28/94
to
In article <CtLz6...@ns1.nodak.edu>, us...@machine.domain writes...


While your vacuum no doubt provides a very large pressure differntial between
it inlet and outlet, you do not have a vacuum, or lack of atmosphere. Actually,
there is a rather large amount of atmosphere flowing through your vacuum,
making it very easy for any squeaks to propagate to your ears.

--ED


Jason R. Heimbaugh

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 7:56:00 PM7/27/94
to
In article <27JUL199...@pavo.concordia.ca> dl_...@pavo.concordia.ca (DAN THE FUNKY MOOSE MAN) writes:
>In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes...
>> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>>
>> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>>but even *I* could spot that one.
>>
> Da Hell R U talkin about.. I don't mean to be rude.... but if
>objects don't cast shadows in a vacume... HOW THE HELL DOES AN ECLIPSE
>OCCUR?????????

There's no reason to get upset, especially as you're making a fool out of
yourself. An eclipse occurs when the Earth's moon is between the Earth and
the sun.

Oh, you meant how can we *see* an eclipse (the shadow of the moon). You see
an eclipse from Earth, there's an atmosphere around (stop me if I'm getting
too technical) Earth, therefore standing on Earth means that you are not in a
vacuum, and can obviously and easily watch an eclipse. What does casting a
shadow in a vacuum have to do with anything?

--
Jason R. Heimbaugh - j...@uiuc.edu
Blatant attempts such as: "Hey! I'm not *supposed* to be in anybody's sig."
from Paul Tomblin will *never* appear in my .sig.

Thomas Bagwell

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 1:18:02 AM7/28/94
to
Well, as somebody on the Star Trek production staff once remarked to an
interviewer,

"The lighting on the Enterprise is absolutely realistic, assuming the
ship is travelling through a solar system with 16 suns."

..heh

--
tbag...@netcom.com

Mark Webster

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 9:40:03 PM7/27/94
to
In article <jmoranCt...@netcom.com> jmo...@netcom.com (Joseph Moran) writes:
>Now here's a gripe I have: why is it always so bright in space? Even
>when we see the Enterprise in interstellar space, not anywhere near a
>star, it's still as bright as day. The only illumination available is
>starlight--it should be dark!!! That's why the ships have nav. lights
>and beacons.

>If anything, it should be more like it was in the first three ST movies.
>Remember those? The Enterprise actually had running lights, spotlights
>to show the name and registry, etc. And the effect was quite nice as
>well as realistic. I'd like to see the Ent. D like that....

Only sensible comments in this entire thread. Here, here!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__ |\ D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N C E
/ |_| \ --------------------*--------------------
.' \ DEFENCE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION
/ DSTO \ Aeronautical & Maritime Research Laboratory
\ __ / GPO Box 4331 Melbourne VIC 3001
\_.-' \_*/ Mark Webster, Ship Structures and Materials Division
v web...@ssmd.mrl.dsto.gov.au +61 3 626 8256
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this message do not necessarily represent
the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian Department of Defence.

Bruce Tindall

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 4:09:49 PM7/27/94
to
In article <315s1d$d...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com>,

Mark Hughes <mhu...@pms144.pms.ford.com> wrote:
>I don't see a smiley on this post, so I presume the poster is serious.

Imminent death of literate civilization predicted.

Bruce "what does the 'T.' in Jonthan T. Swift's name stand for?" Tindall
--
Bruce Tindall, P. O. Box 447, Morrisville, N.C. 27560 USA

Kevin Napolitano

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:13:08 AM7/28/94
to
-: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do
-they
-
-: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip
-about
-: physics, but even *I* could spot that one.
-
-Yep - you do know _zip_ about physics...


-Q: What do shadows have to do with the presence or lack of
-atmosphere?
-A: Very little. The atmosphere may distort the light which in turn
- may distort the shadow.

Where do _you_ get _your_ info. We all know that objects do _not_
cast shadows in a vacuum, just like we _know_ that you can't
hear anything when the lights are off. For example, notice how
it's quiet at night when there is little if any background
light.(insert smiley here ;))

kevin

snopes

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 3:56:12 AM7/28/94
to
mhu...@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) writes:

>Yes, light does travel in a vacuum, and yes, it can be blocked by
>objects. So objects _do_ cast a shadow in a vacuum. That's what
>a lunar eclipse is; the Earth casting a shadow on the moon.

Duh, like there's not an atmosphere around the Earth or anything. I
seriously doubt that we've been unknowingly living in a vacuum all this time.

Of course Earth casts a shadow, because there's air all around it. I was
talking about outer space, not Earth. Hard to tell the difference around
here sometimes.

- snopes

snopes

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 4:07:24 AM7/28/94
to
tbag...@netcom.com (Thomas Bagwell) writes:

> "The lighting on the Enterprise is absolutely realistic, assuming the
> ship is travelling through a solar system with 16 suns."

^^^^

You misspelled 'sons'. That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to
Patrick Stewart's promiscuity, made by one of the film crew.

- snopes

snopes

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 4:39:57 AM7/28/94
to
lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) writes:

>Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
>What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the
>big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
>Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?

>Well -- how did they know that the apes didn't just build something
>exactly like the Statue of Liberty on their planet? Talk about
>technical goofs!

Yeah, like apes are really going to erect this huge statue with a
*human* face. I suppose they caught their own mistake, saying, "Whoops, we
goofed: wrong kind of face. Let's just bury it in the sand somewhere."

Does this mean we should expect a gigantic statue of King Kong to go up
in New York Harbor any day now? No wonder Sun stock is going down the
toilet, with idiots like this working there.

> Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics?

What the hell for? There were hardly any of them to begin with. Why
would they be worried about birth control?

- snopes

No sig, no shoes, no service. No kidding.

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 6:38:09 AM7/28/94
to
aiss...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (George Sanderson) writes:

>Q: What do shadows have to do with the presence or lack of atmosphere?


>A: Very little. The atmosphere may distort the light which in turn

> may distort the shadow.

Well, sheesh, I guess I'm not going to have any long romantic dinners
with *you*.

Lee " " Rudolph

Michael Begley

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 7:02:45 AM7/28/94
to
Hi all,

>>Yes, light does travel in a vacuum, and yes, it can be blocked by
>>objects. So objects _do_ cast a shadow in a vacuum. That's what
>>a lunar eclipse is; the Earth casting a shadow on the moon.
>
>Duh, like there's not an atmosphere around the Earth or anything. I
>seriously doubt that we've been unknowingly living in a vacuum all this time.
>
>Of course Earth casts a shadow, because there's air all around it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> I was
>talking about outer space, not Earth. Hard to tell the difference around
>here sometimes.

Good Lord, does this person not read follow ups ?
Light can travel in a vacumn, air has nothing to do with it (except that under
certain circumstances it can reflect or refract the light) and YES shadows
will be cast in outer space.

Better to keep you mouth shut and look like a fool, than to open it and
remove all doubt.

Mike.

Ad absurdum per aspera

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 7:26:29 PM7/27/94
to
> I wonder if the sound get's sucked inside the vacuum cleaner, how
> will it disappear? Maybe it turns to dust or something because if
> there is no sound, where does it go.

The accelerated dust scatters inelastically off photons in a
reaction mediated by phonons from the sound sucked in by the
vacuum (which does not actually produce sound, but merely
resonates, much like a bridge over which a platoon of troops
is marching in step). Because the reaction cross section is
critically dependent on the structure of the particles --
sweater fluff has a far higher cross section than, say, soil
or dead skin cells -- this is called the Cashmere Effect. If
the device is tuned to the correct subspace resonance, the
Cashmere Effect focuses the energy of the vacuum into a field
that destabilizes and randomly redirects electromagnetic
radiation in the complex plane. This is how the cloaking
device works -- it literally sucks.

Joe "Babble on 5; not much better on 2, 4, 7, or cable" Chew

Michael Begley

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 7:10:29 AM7/28/94
to
Hi all,

>>The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
>>every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)

>>sounds in a vacuum.
>
>What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You don't need to
>vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.

Heavan help us, SOUND DOES NOT TRAVEL IN A VACUUM.
By defination a vacuum does not contain "any old molecules" at all.
Outer space is not a "true vacuum" in the strictest sense of the word, it
does contain some stray molcules (mainly hydrogen) but in such scarce
quantities it can be considered a vacuum. Sound (except MAYBE a faintly
detectable amount) by enlarge will not travel through space, there aren't
enough of "any old molecules" to carry it.

Better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool, than to open it and
remove all doubt.

Mike.

Michael Begley

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 7:23:20 AM7/28/94
to
Hi all,

lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) writes:

>What about that scene right at the end of 2001,

^^^^^

>when they discover the
>big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
>Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?

>Well -- how did they know that the apes didn't just build something
>exactly like the Statue of Liberty on their planet? Talk about
>technical goofs!

Methinks you've confused two films, the end of 2001 shows Dave reborn as a
star child (or something to that effect, actually the book describes and
explains both the start & end of 2001, much better than it is depicted
in the film).

The film refered to above is Planet of the Apes (or one of its sequels,
I'm not really sure).


sno...@netcom.com (snopes) replies: (or rather just insults)

> Yeah, like apes are really going to erect this huge statue with a
>*human* face. I suppose they caught their own mistake, saying, "Whoops, we
>goofed: wrong kind of face. Let's just bury it in the sand somewhere."
>
> Does this mean we should expect a gigantic statue of King Kong to go up
>in New York Harbor any day now? No wonder Sun stock is going down the
>toilet, with idiots like this working there.


Guess the people at SUN are too busy to spend the inordinate amount of time you
seem to have, pondering such things.


>> Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics?
>
> What the hell for? There were hardly any of them to begin with. Why
>would they be worried about birth control?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Eh! Right, well if you have some new way of using cosmetics...... :-).

Bryan Thomas Beach

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 8:40:56 AM7/28/94
to

Mark Wojcik

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 8:56:57 AM7/28/94
to
In article <asee.77...@lancelot.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> as...@arthur.st.nepean.uws.edu.au (Andrew See) writes:

>sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
>
>> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
>> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>The Moon casts its shadow on the earth during an eclipse, and there is a
>vacuum between the moon and the earth...

This *must* have been a troll, right? Please tell me this was a troll....

Mark Wojcik

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 9:11:56 AM7/28/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com> sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
>spo...@amcntl.auto.com (Bob Gardner) writes:
>
>|> if went out in to a vaccum of space he'd explode
>
>> been over that many times before in alt.folklore.science; no he wouldn't
>> explode.
>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
> - snopes

I know I already said this, but I really hope this was an unregistered troll.

Peter van der Linden

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 8:22:55 PM7/27/94
to
From: o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs)

> As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
> the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
> down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.

Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the


big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?

Well -- how did they know that the apes didn't just build something
exactly like the Statue of Liberty on their planet? Talk about

technical goofs! Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics? Like,
how did they put lipstick on? A real technical consultant would have
solved issues like these.

--
Peter van der Linden lin...@eng.sun.com /// Fave Dating Game question:
Q. What is the most unusual place that you have ever executed code?
A. That would be in the Stack Frame, Bob.

Mark Wojcik

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 9:54:06 AM7/28/94
to
In article <315tlb$5...@mack.einet.com> dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
>snopes (sno...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>: but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>Well, as many people have already pointed out, that's not true.

>
>The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
>every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
>sounsd in a vacuum. Personally, it doesn't bother me much, because I know
>they're put in for effect only. But it kind of worries me sometimes when I
>see so many people working so hard to point out technical errors in ST or any
>other SF product, and they consistently ignore that one. Have we become
>trained or something?

This is exactly the *kind* of thing that happens on ST all the time...but, off
the top of my head, I can't think of a specific instance of this particular
offense.

Frequently, when an explosion occurred outside the ship (in either show),
you'd hear an explosion-ish noise when the shock wave hit the ship, but that's
not unreasonable.

There are scenes when the ship goes to warp, or whatever, and you hear a
whooshing sound effect, but I assumed that we were watching from outside the
ship but hearing the sounds audible *inside* the ship. I can think of a few
occasions on the old show where a ship exploded on the view screen but there
was no explosion sound effect (admirable restraint).

But this hasn't much to do with afu....

Mark "I'm chastising myself with scorpions...civil war soon, I guess" Wojcik


V.J. Robinson

unread,
Jul 27, 1994, 3:35:09 PM7/27/94
to
In article <CtLAr...@dsbc.icl.co.uk> a...@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Andy Wardley) writes:

>Craige Kevin Howlett writes:
>> It would seem that you do know little about physics.
>
>Your lip is bleeding. Must have something stuck in it.
>
>
>Andy "nice one snopes" Wardley
>
NO! It's *not* a nice one. Keyword is missing, and, anyway, trolling
in any of the *.startrek.* groups is the moral equivalent of hanging out
by the salt lick with a really bright light.

Now, if the Newsgroups line had had AFU and sci.skeptic, I'd have to
agree.

Vicki "Maybe Carl would have come back to yell at us some more."
Robinson

>Andy Wardley is "The Man From a...@oasis.icl.co.uk" ObRecursiQuoteVirus:
>"Simply mention cunnilingus and Ice Cream in the same sentence and Jason
>Heimba[u]gh is bound to include you in his .signature file" the count so far:
>Derek Tearne:2 Andy Wardley:3 Vicki Robinson:2 Sean Willard:1 Harry Teasley:1
>


--
Vicki Robinson "Simply mention cunnilingus and Ice Cream in the
Odd Physics Professor same sentence and Jason Heimba[u]gh is bound to
NTID/RIT include you in his .signature file - Derek Tearne
- Derek Tearne - Andy Wardl[e]y - Vicki Robnson" - Andy Wardley

Bryan Thomas Beach

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:15:25 PM7/28/94
to
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Bodies explode in space?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <snopesCt...@netcom.com> <27JUL199...@pavo.concordia.ca> <316s6g$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
Keywords: van der trollen


Do you guys really have nothing better to do than to post the same #$%^
bulletins on two (or more) different newsgroups? I mean this thread is
not the most stimulating, and really has nothing to do with ST! Please
stop wasting my time with these postings!

What a long strange trip it's been

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:19:13 PM7/28/94
to
KLEIN, EDWARD L (elk...@summa.tamu.edu) wrote:
: >
: >--
: While your vacuum no doubt provides a very large pressure differntial between

: it inlet and outlet, you do not have a vacuum, or lack of atmosphere.
Actually,
: there is a rather large amount of atmosphere flowing through your vacuum,
: making it very easy for any squeaks to propagate to your ears.

So, do gerbils explode when they squeak in a vacuum?


Lars " My Kirby squeaked just before it exploded" Allen

Tom Bowns

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:18:13 AM7/28/94
to

From the illustrious snopes:

> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.

>
> [multiple replies from fished-in posters deleted]
>


Jeez, snopes. You really got a line full with that one.


-TBB

Mark Wojcik

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:23:24 AM7/28/94
to

Maybe the ship is made from a futuristic self-lighting hull material....


Norman Hirsch

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 6:22:36 PM7/28/94
to
In article <775410...@sgoodey.demon.co.uk> st...@sgoodey.demon.co.uk (Steve Goodey) writes:
>From: st...@sgoodey.demon.co.uk (Steve Goodey)

>Subject: Re: Bodies explode in space?
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 15:44:55 +0000

>In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com> sno...@netcom.com "snopes" writes:

>> dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
>>
>> >The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
>> >every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)

>> >sounds in a vacuum.
>>
>> What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to

>> vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.
>>

>> - snopes
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Sound can travel in a vacuum? Is this guy serious? I get the impression
> from this and previous postings from this gent, that he maybe a wind-up
> merchant.

No, he's talking about sound molecules. The problem is that when you put
them in a vacuum, there is no longer a vacuum so it's really a misnomer.

jmi...@uwyo.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 1:49:39 PM7/28/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:

>
> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>but even *I* could spot that one.
>

> - snopes
>

I wouldn't even go as far as to say you know zip. Unless you're in a black
hole, when something solid comes between an object and it's light source a
shadow is cast.


Jeff M.
jmi...@uwyo.edu

Casey Grimm

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 2:34:35 PM7/28/94
to
In article <316tov$6...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Peter van der Linden,

lin...@positive.eng.sun.com writes:
>From: o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs)
>> As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
>> the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>> down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.
>
>Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
>What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the
>big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
>Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?
>
>Well -- how did they know that the apes didn't just build something
>exactly like the Statue of Liberty on their planet? Talk about
>technical goofs! Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics? Like,
>how did they put lipstick on? A real technical consultant would have
>solved issues like these.

Q: But what's it got to do with Archaeology?

A: Oh, to Hell with Archaeology! (smash)

-c.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Grimm, alias "Redfang" Cor'aH, Chief Science Officer,
Klingon Free Commando, and neophyte Druid
USS Reliant, NCC 1864
Castro Valley, CA
GS H-- s++:- p? au+ a- w++@ v++ C++++ N++ W+ M-- -po+ t+ 5-- R+++ G++
tv-- b++ B--- n----@ y+

What a long strange trip it's been

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 4:49:11 PM7/28/94
to
Michael Donnelly (donn...@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote:
: In alt.folklore.urban, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
: >
: >What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to

: >vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.
: > - snopes
: >

: I see that Beavis and Butthead finally figured out how to use a computer
: and a cheap modem. Hey Snopes, why don't you go get a clue! What do
: you think a vacuum is, something you plug into the wall and clean carpets
: with? If you had been awake during high school physics class (or looked
: in a dictionary) you would know that a vacuum is space entirely deviod
: of matter, similar to the space between your ears. Sound can travel
: through air, water, etc, but IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRAVEL THROUGH SPACE!
: Just because they have sound in space in Star Trek does not mean it
: happens in real life. Sure any old molecules will do for sound travel,
: but you can't have sound travel if you don't have molecules.


OK Snopes. You gotta have yer limit, by now. Pull your line in, and
go have a beer, before I complain to the AFU Game warden.

Lars "And just leave that bait can where it is, OK?" Allen

Steve Goodey

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:44:55 AM7/28/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com> sno...@netcom.com "snopes" writes:

> dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
>
> >The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
> >every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
> >sounds in a vacuum.
>

> What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to
> vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.
>
> - snopes
>
>
>
>

Sound can travel in a vacuum? Is this guy serious? I get the impression
from this and previous postings from this gent, that he maybe a wind-up
merchant.

--
Steve Goodey. st...@sgoodey.demon.co.uk

Doug S. Caprette

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 2:47:35 PM7/28/94
to
In article <316ngt$b...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs) writes:
>Russell Stewart (dia...@mack.einet.com) wrote:
>: The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in

>: every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
>As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
>people have found in it. The only one I have ever found is that while on
>the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.
>

One of the more obvious ones is that the Earth as seen from the moon in the
film was inconsistent in phase and position in the sky.

Another was that in the airlock sequence the pod remained stationary during the
explosive decompression. We switch to a different camera angle, then when we
switch back the pod is gone. Also, the pod door which is seen to blast into
the airlock simply disappears.

Still a great scene and a great film.

--
d...@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Po-ta-toes -- the Gaffer's delight, and rare good ballast
for an empty belly." -- Samwise Gamgee

What a long strange trip it's been

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 5:12:08 PM7/28/94
to
Michael Donnelly (donn...@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote:
: >
: at the U of Ill? If light traveling through a vacuum can't make a shadow,
: why is there a dark side of the moon? Why were shadows clearly visible
: during the Apollo missions? You can have shadows in a vacuum.

Oh, Yeah? That's where yer wrong, bub. That was filmed in the meteor crater
in Arizona. I have been there, and I can vouch for the fact that there is
atmosphere in that crater. So, that's where the shadows came from.

Lars " and ask Floyd about the dark side" Allen

: md

msho...@drew.drew.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:01:51 PM7/28/94
to


WAIT! WAIT! WAAAIIIIITTTT!!!! I get it now!!!! Do you remember the
Twilight Zone with KIRK in it? There was a monster on the wing tearing
up the plane!! Get it?! The tie in is sooo obvious!!!!! GOD I GEEL
GREAT!!!!! SOMEBODY SPANK ME!!!!

--MIKR

gri...@uwyo.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 5:14:16 PM7/28/94
to
>: I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a

>: shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>: Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>
>: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>: but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>6 (so far) on one hook.
>
>My own puny trolling efforts pale in comparison to this.
>
>If I had a hat, I'd take it off to you.
>
>Joe D
>"the wonder of it all"

Uh, guys? I'm not sure what the situation was in the episode you saw, but as
far as I know, if there was a light source (You know, a SUN, a planet
reflecting light from a sun, whatever) and it was backlighting that shuttle,
you're darn tootin' there'd be a shadow. Of course, I'm not sure how far away
said shuttle was supposed to be from the enterprise...but light is light, even
though refraction is different in a vacuum.

/=====================================================\
|Gri...@plains.uwyo.edu||Anonymity is the culmination|
|"Do you know Kimball?" ||of a life full of emptiness.|
|_______________________||____________________________|

Ted Frank

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 6:19:07 PM7/28/94
to
In article <316ijl$h...@mack.einet.com> dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
>OKAY!!!!
>
>We know have plenty of followups telling us that shadows DO ineed exist in
>a vacuum. The original poster made a mistake. He's been corrected.
> ____________________________________________________________________
>|Russell Stewart | "Dear sir, |
>|dia...@rt66.com | I object to your assertation that |
>|Albuquerque, NM | the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism!|
>| | It is well known that we now have the |
>| | problem relatively under control." |
>| | -Monty Python |
>|_______________________|____________________________________________|

You should talk about mistakes. Aside from the tab damage, everyone
knows that the host of "$20,000 Pyramid" was Monty Hall, not Monty
Python, who's never said a word in his life, being the mute member of
the comedy troupe.
--
ted frank You know, I thought they were kidding when they said they'd
test suretyship on the bar.

Stephen M. Webb

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 10:23:43 AM7/28/94
to
In article <nhirsch.12...@panix.com>,
Norman Hirsch <nhi...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <CtM9H...@mcdata.com> lra...@mcdata.com (What a long strange trip it's been) writes:
>>From: lra...@mcdata.com (What a long strange trip it's been)

>>Subject: Re: Bodies explode in space?
>>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 20:41:58 GMT
>
>>Shadows are magnetic?
>
>They act like magnets only if the object giving the shadow is touching
>something. Then they are magnetically attracted to the point where the object
>touches. No matter where you place the light, you can't demagnetize the
>shadow from the object. This is the kind of magnetic energy that the Shadow
>used in knowing what only he knew. That's why they wouldn't let him out of
>the country either.

Ah, that would explain Peter Pan: his body influenced the magnetic fields
that attracted his shadow, so he lost it, and had to have it surgically
reattached by the amateur physician, Wendy Darling. Peter probably also
had difficulty wearing a wristwatch (my mother-in-law has such difficulty,
due to the magnetic fields in her body). That might also explain that whole
crocodile/captain Hook thing -- after all, Hook couldn't wear a wristwatch,
and he was shadowed by a crocodile who had swallowed a clock. Perhaps my
mother-in-law could clarify this.


--
Stephen M. Webb ------- Consider Whirled Peas ------- ste...@teleride.on.ca

Canada: a part of the United States where people are so smart they've never
paid any taxes to Washington.

Michael Donnelly

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 3:42:35 PM7/28/94
to
In alt.folklore.urban, lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) writes:
>From: o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs)
>
>Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
>What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the
>big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
>Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?
>
>Well -- how did they know that the apes didn't just build something
>exactly like the Statue of Liberty on their planet? Talk about
>technical goofs! Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics? Like,
>how did they put lipstick on? A real technical consultant would have
>solved issues like these.


Hey Pete, you've mixed up your movies. There are no apes in 2001, the
apes and Statue of Liberty were in Planet of the Apes. 2001 had the
psychedelic ending.

md

NAME = Andy

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 8:36:26 PM7/28/94
to
In article <316tov$6...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) writes:
> From: o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs)
>> As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
>> the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>> down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.
>
What about the main living area, I have never figured out how they manages to
get 3 pod bays, the bridge, hal, and living areas iinto the Shere at the front.


> Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
> What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the
> big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
> Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?

I think you mean Planet of the Apes.

Also -- did the female apes use cosmetics? Like,
> how did they put lipstick on? A real technical consultant would have
> solved issues like these.

They did, look at Michial Jackson.

Andy.

Paul Tomblin

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 2:53:08 PM7/28/94
to

In a previous article, o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs) said:

>Russell Stewart (dia...@mack.einet.com) wrote:
>: The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
>: every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)

>As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws

>people have found in it. The only one I have ever found is that while on

>the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.

That's because those straws were stuck into sealed containers - like baby
bottles. Sucking stuff out draws the sides in - when you let go of the
straw, the sides go back out, sucking the fluid back into the container.

Paul "damage control ya us" Tomblin
--
Paul Tomblin, Freenet News screwup^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAdministrator
"The true AFUer...demonstrates his saVoir faire...by quoting from Peter van der
Linden's excellent book `Expert C PRogramming: Deep C Secrets'" - !snopes.

Bill Falkner

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:36:10 PM7/28/94
to
Michael Donnelly (donn...@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote:

> I see that Beavis and Butthead finally figured out how to use a computer
> and a cheap modem. Hey Snopes, why don't you go get a clue! What do
> you think a vacuum is, something you plug into the wall and clean carpets
> with?

Huh-huh. That was a good one. Huh huh huh, huh huh huh huh, huh huh huh
huh huh huh.

> If you had been awake during high school physics class (or looked
> in a dictionary) you would know that a vacuum is space entirely deviod
> of matter, similar to the space between your ears.

If the ears on your pinhead had worked, you would probably have learned
that there is no such thing as "space entirely devoid of matter". What
you describe is a *perfect* vacuum, which, as all non-pinheads know, does
not exist.



> Sound can travel through air, water, etc, but IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT
> TRAVEL THROUGH SPACE!

Oh, because you say so?

> Just because they have sound in space in Star Trek does not mean it
> happens in real life.

Just because you don't know what the hell you're talking about doesn't
mean you have a life.

> Sure any old molecules will do for sound travel, but you can't have
> sound travel if you don't have molecules.

As we have already established, there are indeed molecules even in
deepest space. In most cases, these molecules are not packed densely
enough to effectively convey sound. In the case cited, however, the
Enterprise and its shuttlecraft are brightly lit enough to cast shadows,
which means they must be in close proximity to a star. If you managed
to struggle through a basic science class, you probably know that objects
with a lot of mass (like stars) also have a lot of what we like to call
'gravity'. Gravity attracts things of lesser mass, like little
free-floating molecules. The nearby star would undoubtedly have
attracted enough molecules to produce a density of molecules capable
of conveying at least *some* sound. A starship exploding (which one
would assume produces a *very* loud sound), therefore, would make at
least *some* sound which could be picked up by other persons/things
in the vicinity.

You've already demonstrated your stupidity by falling for this blatant
troll in the first place. Don't compound the error by putting your
ignorance on display as well.

==> Bill Falkner

Mark Wojcik

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:19:05 AM7/28/94
to
In article <316ngt$b...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs) writes:
>Russell Stewart (dia...@mack.einet.com) wrote:
>: The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
>: every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
>As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
>people have found in it. The only one I have ever found is that while on
>the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.

Depends on what you consider a "technical flaw." I don't blame anyone, but
the predictions about computer hardware, for instance, look pretty odd today.
And I don't know if a computer will be able to perform lip-reading by 2001,
etc.

Haven't seen that movie in years, so I could also be missing some other stuff.

mike...@options.sgi.com

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 1:54:51 PM7/28/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
|> dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
|>
|> >The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
|> >every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
|> >sounds in a vacuum.
|>
|> What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to
|> vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.
|>
|> - snopes
|>
|>
|>

It's true sound does travel in outer space, since it's not a complete vaccuum.
It just doesn't travel very far.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Stegbauer - MikeS - stegbau...@tandem.com - formerly mikesteg
Tandem On-Line Support Center, Austin, TX - TNSC UNIX Support Analyst
1992 Laser RS AWD, Red - 1993 750 Nighthawk, Blue - trekkie(TOS,TNG,DS9,V)
"Walk softly and carry a big stick"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bill nelson

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 1:54:17 PM7/28/94
to
sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
: dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes:
:
: >The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
: >every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
: >sounds in a vacuum.

Hm, I don't recall any sound traveling through a vacuum, in the movie.

: What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to

: vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.

Funny how people do not realize that sound travels through liquids and
solids even better than through gases.

Bill

Russell Stewart

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 11:55:35 AM7/28/94
to
Christopher BIbbs (o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu) wrote:

: Russell Stewart (dia...@mack.einet.com) wrote:
: : The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in
: : every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
: As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
: people have found in it. The only one I have ever found is that while on
: the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
: down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.

I never noticed that one, but I guess that's something they can't really do
anything about (at least, not until Hollywood has a studio in orbit). As
far as I know, the only other sacrifice made in 2001 was when they got rid
of Discovery's cooling fins. Apparently, Clarke and Kubrick thought that
they would look too much like wings (which I find to be the ultimate irony
-- they made it less realistic by removing something that the audience might
find unrealistic).

--

bill nelson

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 1:40:53 AM7/29/94
to
revl...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Bryan Thomas Beach) writes:
:
: Do you guys really have nothing better to do than to post the same #$%^
: bulletins on two (or more) different newsgroups? I mean this thread is
: not the most stimulating, and really has nothing to do with ST! Please
: stop wasting my time with these postings!

ST is more worthwhile? Sheesh!

Just use the 'k' key. Sooner or later, the people here will get tired of
the thread.

Bill

Brian Scearce

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 12:18:44 PM7/28/94
to
In article <27JUL199...@pavo.concordia.ca> dl_...@pavo.concordia.ca (DAN THE FUNKY MOOSE MAN) disputes Canadian literacy statistics with:
> Da Hell R U talkin about.. I don't mean to be rude.... but if objects
> don't cast shadows in a vacume... HOW THE HELL DOES AN ECLIPSE
> OCCUR?????????

j...@dixie.aiss.uiuc.edu (Jason R. Heimbaugh) responds:
> There's no reason to get upset, especially as you're making a fool out
> of yourself. An eclipse occurs when the Earth's moon is between the
> Earth and the sun.

For the sake of completeness, I should also point out the case that
Jason ignored: a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth is between the
Moon and the sun. In either case, an atmosphere is involved, so a
shadow is cast.

But this is all irrelevant to the technical gaffes on Trek. Even if we
grant the supposition that a shadow can "travel" through empty space, a
shuttlecraft still shouldn't cast a shadow: since it is traveling
faster than light, the photons can't "catch up" to it to blocked in the
first place! Like Peter Pan (the character upon whom the ever-young
James Roy Kirk is based, by the way), the shuttle should race through
the galaxy with no shadow.

Brian "even planets with no atmospheres travel in eclipses, with one
focus at the sun" Scearce
--
Brian Scearce b...@sector7g.eng.sun.com
The entire software industry runs on coffee just as much as it runs
on electricity. -- Dan Sorenson

dua...@viper.engr.scarolina.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 1:08:40 PM7/28/94
to
In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
>mhu...@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) writes:
>
>>Yes, light does travel in a vacuum, and yes, it can be blocked by
>>objects. So objects _do_ cast a shadow in a vacuum. That's what
>>a lunar eclipse is; the Earth casting a shadow on the moon.
>
>Duh, like there's not an atmosphere around the Earth or anything. I
>seriously doubt that we've been unknowingly living in a vacuum all this time.
>
>Of course Earth casts a shadow, because there's air all around it. I was
>talking about outer space, not Earth. Hard to tell the difference around
>here sometimes.
>
> - snopes
>

Naaaah, is this guy for real? He is just kidding, right?
Great sense of humor, or so I hope, otherwise.......

Tony

Casey Grimm

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 2:39:05 PM7/28/94
to
In article <940728112...@tnlls1b13d.eua.ericsson.se> Michael
Begley, eei...@tnll.eua.ericsson.se writes:
>Better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool, than to open it and
>remove all doubt.

Methinks thou shouldst educate thyself in the ways of foolishness,
Michael.


Like the multitudes of posters on this wearied thread, you have been
struck soundly on the temple by sarcasm, and yet proceeded through your
mundane existance as if nothing happened. *sigh* How human.

Steven Thornton

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 5:35:36 AM7/29/94
to
OK, does snopes have the all-time record here? What's the limit in these
waters? Does persistent overfishing really lead to extinction? (We can hope).

--
Steve Thornton | ste...@eskimo.com | http://www.eskimo.com/~stevet/
| "The thing I like best about playing in the Kingdome is
Seattle, WA | the conditions are always perfect" -- Ken Griffey, Jr.

Joe DiMaggio

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 10:35:27 AM7/29/94
to
Brian Scearce (b...@Eng.Sun.COM) spake thusly:
: In article <27JUL199...@pavo.concordia.ca> dl_...@pavo.concordia.ca (DAN THE FUNKY MOOSE MAN) disputes Canadian literacy statistics with:

: > Da Hell R U talkin about.. I don't mean to be rude.... but if objects
: > don't cast shadows in a vacume... HOW THE HELL DOES AN ECLIPSE
: > OCCUR?????????

: j...@dixie.aiss.uiuc.edu (Jason R. Heimbaugh) responds:
: > There's no reason to get upset, especially as you're making a fool out
: > of yourself. An eclipse occurs when the Earth's moon is between the
: > Earth and the sun.

: For the sake of completeness, I should also point out the case that
: Jason ignored: a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth is between the
: Moon and the sun. In either case, an atmosphere is involved, so a
: shadow is cast.

Ummm, is this another troll? A lunar eclipse occurs when the sun passes
between the earth and the moon.

Joe D

Ares

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 4:26:09 AM7/29/94
to
tex...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Steve Patlan) writes:

> In article <craigeeC...@netcom.com>,
> Craige Kevin Howlett <cra...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >: [ Casting shadows in a vacuum on ST:TNG ]
> >:
> >
> > It would seem that you do know little about physics. Now here is
> >a basic lesson. Light traveling from an source (I.E. any local Sun will
> ^^^^
> Ummm, don't you mean "e.g."? (N.B.: lower case) I won't go into the
> spelling, usage, and verb tenses, though....
>
>
> >do) and strikes an object that is more dense then it is (I.E. a shuttle
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >craft) will stop the light. Thus creating a shadow on the opposite
> >side. You do however have a agruement in that the nearest Sun was
> >probably too far away to have created a shadow.
> >
> > That however does excuse you from thinking that shadow can't be
> >created in a vacuum. Are you sure you're old enough to be on the Net...
> >--
> >* "THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" cra...@netcom.com
> >
> > -Mac
> >
> >* Panatheism - Look it up and learn...
>
> Well, Physics 101 was 13 years ago, but I don't think that *density* is
> really the significant factor here. And what does "it" refer to? What is
> the density being compared to? Does light have density? And what about
> Transparent Alumin(i)um?
>
>
> Steve "What are they *teaching* these kids nowadays?" Patlan
> --
> tex...@starbase.neosoft.com
> Finger for PGP key. Heh, heh.

Yes, but even Glass (or transparent alumin) creates a shadow at least
some of the photons are stopped. Oh, and light does have mass, hover
minimal.

Ares.

gri...@uwyo.edu

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 12:50:24 AM7/29/94
to
>> <sniff> I am troll fodder. <sob> <grin>
>
>Which begs the question -- how long before people post stupidly and
>then later claim that they were trolling -- or people get hooked and
>then later claim they were double trolling?

Uhm, to clear up a minor point (Since you did quote MY post, after all)...
I was not claiming to be double trolling. I was claiming to be one of those
that got suckered. Schmoozed. Caught. Ya know? I was guilty of being a boob.
A target. A twit. The fall-guy. Okay. I feel better now. I think. Errr..

Garry --throw out yer line, and reel me in-- Bruse

bill nelson

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 2:06:17 AM7/29/94
to
: and a cheap modem. Hey Snopes, why don't you go get a clue! What do
: you think a vacuum is, something you plug into the wall and clean carpets
: with? If you had been awake during high school physics class (or looked
: in a dictionary) you would know that a vacuum is space entirely deviod
: of matter, similar to the space between your ears. Sound can travel

And, I see that someone else slept through bonehead physics in high school.
Otherwise he/she would know (even ignoring all the planets and dust out there,
that there are a fair number of hydrogen molecules in each cc of space.

: through air, water, etc, but IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRAVEL THROUGH SPACE!

See above.

: Just because they have sound in space in Star Trek does not mean it
: happens in real life. Sure any old molecules will do for sound travel,
: but you can't have sound travel if you don't have molecules.

See the above "see above".

Bill "ripples in the fabric of space" Nelson

Stephen Zatman

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 11:15:22 AM7/29/94
to
In article a...@giga.bga.com, jo...@bga.com (Joe DiMaggio) writes:
!>
!>Ummm, is this another troll? A lunar eclipse occurs when the sun passes
!>between the earth and the moon.
!>
!>Joe D

obviously.

Stephen "is it lunchtime yet?" Zatman

Ares

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 4:30:18 AM7/29/94
to
sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:

> cra...@netcom.com (Craige Kevin Howlett) writes:
>
> > Light traveling from an source and strikes an object that is more dense the
> > it is will stop the light.
>
> Replace the word 'light' with 'information', and I think we have a winner.
>
> - snopes
>
>
>

My, my are we not the one with the sharp tounge. (Even if it true [and
funny])

ares./

dua...@viper.engr.scarolina.edu

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 11:01:53 AM7/29/94
to
In article <clays-280...@clays.dialup.access.net>, cl...@panix.com (Clay Shirky) writes:
>In article <3192vs...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, donn...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
>(Michael Donnelly) wrote:
>
>> Sorry Jason, you just made a fool out of yourself! Don't worry, you're
>> not getting too technical because you don't know what the hell you're
>> talking about!
>
>You've really stepped in it now...
>
>> If light traveling through a vacuum can't make a shadow,
>> why is there a dark side of the moon?
>
>That's not a shadow, that's just a place where there's _no light_! Are you
>so dumb you don't understand the difference??? A shadow is the thing that
>extends away from an object to land _on another object_! Look at a
>half-moon some night; do you see an inky black cylindrical line following
>behind it blotting out the stars in its path, as a real shadow would do?
>No? Thats because shadows can only propagate in the atmosphere.

>
>> Why were shadows clearly visible
>> during the Apollo missions?
>
>There weren't. Go back and have a good look at the pictures. The astronauts
>didn't cast shadows on the moon's surface when they walked. Why? No
>atmosphere for the shadows to propagate through.
>
>Clay "me and my shadow" Shirky

This guy has an insistent sense of humor (I hope), ha, ha, ha, could you
please get me a couple of "grams" of your shadow please?.
He surely has read a lot of Mark Twain.

Tony

dua...@viper.engr.scarolina.edu

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 11:03:57 AM7/29/94
to
In article <31968e$9...@news.duke.edu>, dsi...@acpub.duke.edu (David Silbey) writes:

>In article <1994Jul28....@roper.uwyo.edu>, <jmi...@UWYO.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <snopesCt...@netcom.com>, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) writes:
>>> I saw an even worse gaffe in a ST:TNG episode, though: they launched a
>shuttlecraft to go recover a photon torpedo or something, and as it flew by the
>>>Enterprise it cast a shadow on the hull.
>>>
>>> Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>>>really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>>>but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>As someone has pointed out before, this, ladies and gentlemen, is a
>troll. Pretty good one at that.
>
>Troll, n, A post in which the poster makes an utterly moronic
>statement (or subtly moronic statement) in the hopes that hordes
>of innocents will rush to correct him and expose their inability
>to spot inanity. The (sad to say) highest form of USENET humor.
>
>This one did pretty well.
And it got you too, huh? Two grams of Enterprise shadow, please?
(oh... we have to wait till she flies in the atmosphere of a planet....)
Tony
:)

David Silbey

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 4:59:58 PM7/28/94
to

Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 4:02:35 PM7/28/94
to
bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: >every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)
>: >sounds in a vacuum.
>
>Hm, I don't recall any sound traveling through a vacuum, in the movie.

That was the point. The scene which comes to mind is when Bowman
re-enters Discovery from outside by blowing the hatch on his service
pod. The exploding puff of air blows him into the open airlock, and
then he shuts the door and repressurizes the airlock. You hear no
sound from the explosion, but you hear sound as the lock is
pressurized. It would have been more realistic to hear nothing at
first, then a growing sound as the pressure in the lock reached a
point where it could transmit sound.

>: What's wrong with that? Sound can travel in a vacuum. You don't need to
>: vibrate air molecules to produce sound; any old molecules will do.
>
>Funny how people do not realize that sound travels through liquids and
>solids even better than through gases.

Many don't, it is true. But solids and liquids are not vacuums
(vacua?). Sound travels better in them partly because of their
density, the nearness of molecules to each other. Space is not a
perfect vacuum, but it is close enough to one that the density of
matter does not allow sound waves to propagate. The molecules are
simply too far apart.

I read a book in my early years called "Rip Foster Rides the Gray
Planet." It was written in the 40s or 50s for kids, and consequently
was a little cheesy, but it was fantastically accurate when it came to
how things and people behave in space. Anyway, it had spacemen
pressing their helmets together to communicate when the radios broke
down.

ObTrek: When we look out of shuttle bays 2 and 3 (as we sometimes
do), why don't we see (a) the sloping part of the hull, since these
shuttle bays are located on the non-vertical part of the ship's spine;
and (b) the warp nacelle just outside.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Windley * University of Utah * Salt Lake City
jwin...@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel B Case

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 1:18:00 PM7/29/94
to
In article <315tlb$5...@mack.einet.com>, dia...@mack.einet.com (Russell Stewart) writes...
>snopes (sno...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Hello? Are there any technical advisors working on this show? Do they
>: really think that objects cast shadows in a vacuum? I know zip about physics,
>: but even *I* could spot that one.
>
>Well, as many people have already pointed out, that's not true.

Funny you use that word "pointed."

>The funny thing is, there is one error that has been consistently ignored in

>every sci-fi movie or TV show except for 2001. That is (You guessed it)

>sounsd in a vacuum. Personally, it doesn't bother me much, because I know
>they're put in for effect only. But it kind of worries me sometimes when I
>see so many people working so hard to point out technical errors in ST or any
>other SF product, and they consistently ignore that one. Have we become
>trained or something?

What really annoys me is *theme music* in space. Like, where does the orchestra
sit? And how could a woodwind make sound in space? I suppose at the end of
"Star wars" the orchestra sat on the outside of the Death Star with all those
fighters going past, but they would still need oxygen for the wind instruments.
Not to mention trying to keep a cello bow on the strings without gravity.

Dan "In space, nobody can hear you play 'Stairway to Heaven'" Case

"'My country right or wrong' is like saying,
'My mother drunk or sober'"-G.K. Chesterton
Daniel Case
State University of New York at Buffalo Prodigy:WDNS15D
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu

Daniel B Case

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 1:29:00 PM7/29/94
to
In article <316tov$6...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, lin...@positive.eng.sun.com (Peter van der Linden) writes...
>From: o...@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu (Christopher BIbbs)

>> As long as you're mentioning 2001 I have to ask what techincal flaws
>> the space ship he takes a sip out of a straw and the fluid goes back
>> down, rather than stay in place. Minor, but there.
>
>Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!
>What about that scene right at the end of 2001, when they discover the
>big thing buried under the sand is really the torch of the Statue of
>Liberty? And that means that the planet must be Earth, right?

And the depiction of the Star Gate has a few technical flaws (mainly to
make it more exciting), as anybody who has traveled through one knows.
Between the depiction of the transquantum hyperfield interface and the
Z-emissions zone, there should be a long period of near-total blackness
as the c-regulator reconfigures the standard oscillation. However, Kubrick
chose to omit this to speed up the sequence.

Dan "It is much more accurately depicted in the novel by Clarke" Case

Daniel B Case

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 1:36:00 PM7/29/94
to
In article <318d9u$7...@narnia.ccs.neu.edu>, volc...@ccs.neu.edu (Mark Wojcik) writes...
>There are scenes when the ship goes to warp, or whatever, and you hear a
>whooshing sound effect, but I assumed that we were watching from outside the
>ship but hearing the sounds audible *inside* the ship. I can think of a few
>occasions on the old show where a ship exploded on the view screen but there
>was no explosion sound effect (admirable restraint).

And it saved money...

Dan "Scientific realism *is* cheaper, after all" Case

What a long strange trip it's been

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 1:52:14 PM7/29/94
to
Joe DiMaggio (jo...@bga.com) wrote:
: Brian Scearce (b...@Eng.Sun.COM) spake thusly:

: : For the sake of completeness, I should also point out the case that


: : Jason ignored: a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth is between the
: : Moon and the sun. In either case, an atmosphere is involved, so a
: : shadow is cast.

: Ummm, is this another troll? A lunar eclipse occurs when the sun passes
: between the earth and the moon.

: Joe D

Humm. Looks like one to me. Give it a nibble and see.

Lars " That looks like a dandy Krocadile, to me" Allen

pri...@maple.circa.ufl.edu

unread,
Jul 29, 1994, 2:42:08 PM7/29/94
to
Look, snopes, the answer is incredibly simple! You are sitting in your
living room, where there is most certainly an atmosphere, and thus you
see the shadow!!! If you were floating in space without a space suit,
you wouldn't see it, OK??!?!?!? (Besides, you would blow up!)

James Meriwether

Paul Phillips

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 6:46:58 PM7/28/94
to
In article <3192sr$1...@magus.cs.utah.edu> jwin...@sal.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Many don't, it is true. But solids and liquids are not vacuums
>(vacua?). Sound travels better in them partly because of their
>density, the nearness of molecules to each other.

Common misconception. Density actually slows the propagation of
a wave -- it is the high resistance to compression of solids and
liquids that make them better mediums for sound than gases. For
two materials with the same resistance to compression, the one with
higher density will transmit sound waves more slowly.

-Paul "will compress longitudinal waves for food" Phillips

--
"In the mean time, lets hope that Keegan turns himself into psycho meat, so
he is too ill to post the same old shit all of the time!"
-- Andrew Beckwith,
alt.usenet.kooks

gri...@uwyo.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1994, 5:58:28 PM7/28/94
to
>As someone has pointed out before, this, ladies and gentlemen, is a
>troll. Pretty good one at that.
>
>Troll, n, A post in which the poster makes an utterly moronic
>statement (or subtly moronic statement) in the hopes that hordes
>of innocents will rush to correct him and expose their inability
>to spot inanity. The (sad to say) highest form of USENET humor.
>
>This one did pretty well.
>

<sniff> I am troll fodder. <sob> <grin>

/=====================================================\

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages