LV 426 - the aftrermath. AR is pointless
clink
I would like to focus on what happened on LV426 after the huge nuclear
explosion that put an end to the colony.
I don't know if that was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry) but
in the Aliens there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to the
colony as you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire planet
they had to built more than one.
So what happened with the other plants?
The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother ship,
where the eggs came from.
It couldn't be located in vicinity of Haddley's Hope cause if it had they
would have found it much earlier ( without any order from the earth) Just
imagine that a new colony is going to be built on some
remote planet. First they have to check if not whole planet then at least
close proximity of the future location of colony.
So if the mother ship ( the one from Alien) was distant from the colony it
couldn't be destroyed in that nuclear blast.
And finally if it wasn't destroyed (plenty of eggs inside) they didn't have
to clone Ripley in Alien Resurrection.
The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion, find
the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
And the whole third and fourth episode
were unnecessary. Ripley would no longer be so precious if they had acces to
thousands of eggs
spauldingae
> And the whole third and fourth episode
> were unnecessary. Ripley would no longer be so precious if they had acces
to
> thousands of eggs
I've felt the same way for years.
It seems to make sense of thinking of the series ending at the end of
Aliens, if for no other reasons then the massive contrivances they had to go
through to get ripley on F161 as the sole survivor and alien down with her.
Lets see.....
Unexplained(with no good explanation yet) Alien Presence on Sulaco(Two eggs,
no less)? Check.
Badly designed EEV that crash lands? Check.
Hicks killed by SAFETY Beam? Check. (Even though Hicks ageing would probably
not be noticed by the audience, as opposed to Newt's)
Covenant
"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message news:a8fbct$jrh$1...@news.onet.pl...
There y'go......
THE reason why the premise for ARes was totally pointless.
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Kocureq
news:a8fbct$jrh$1...@news.onet.pl...
> I don't know if that was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry)
but
> in the Aliens there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to
the
> colony as you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire
planet
> they had to built more than one.
> So what happened with the other plants?
Why do you think there were other plants ? THE processor could be the first
built there. I don't think that processor would be set somewehere in the
planet, without any men around. Maybe hadley's hope was the first colony of
many.
> The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother ship,
> where the eggs came from.
> It couldn't be located in vicinity of Haddley's Hope cause if it had they
> would have found it much earlier ( without any order from the earth) Just
> imagine that a new colony is going to be built on some
> remote planet. First they have to check if not whole planet then at least
> close proximity of the future location of colony.
I think the mother shuip wasn't destroyerd, Bishop says "with blast radius
of 30 km", and the ship couldn't be SO close.
> So if the mother ship ( the one from Alien) was distant from the colony it
> couldn't be destroyed in that nuclear blast.
Roger.
> And finally if it wasn't destroyed (plenty of eggs inside) they didn't
have
> to clone Ripley in Alien Resurrection.
But the question is DID the Company knew about what happened od LV 426.
> And the whole third and fourth episode
> were unnecessary. Ripley would no longer be so precious if they had acces
to
> thousands of eggs
I think that the third and fourth ARE unnecessary ;]
--
____________________Kocureq____________________
==== koc...@highshell.com = ICQ# 31547220 ====
========== http://www.puhatek.prv.pl ==========
============= IRC : #warhammerpl ==============
clink
First of all Ripley had told them about the mother ship at the beginning of
Aliens. There was an investigation, remeber?
She asked them to check the planet. They were told about the ship.
The order from the earth had been given to find this ship. after that the
contact with Hadley's Hope was lost. then the decision is made to send
soldiers. So it had to be some high rank official to give that order.
After the carnage of marines someone whould have come with the conclusion
that this may have been linked with Ripley's testimony.
Did the company know what had happened on LV 426, about the nuclear
explosion?
They must have been informed by the Sulaco spaceship. And of course there
were people in the Company who could add one to two and realize that
something went terribly wrong
So they must have been informed about demise of the entire colony and the
marines.
That's why they sent the second ship in Alien3 to pick up Ripley from Furia
161 - the prison planet. And that's my point - they didn't have to catch
Ripley in order to capture specimen. All they had to do was to find the
mother ship on LV 426
lucas.
Użytkownik "Kocureq" <koc...@puf.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:a8hr90$nef$1...@news.tpi.pl...
spauldingae
"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message news:a8hvj9$qp5$1...@news.onet.pl...
> the company had to know about what happened on LV 426 for many reasons.
>
> First of all Ripley had told them about the mother ship at the beginning
of
> Aliens. There was an investigation, remeber?
> She asked them to check the planet. They were told about the ship.
>
>
> The order from the earth had been given to find this ship. after that the
> contact with Hadley's Hope was lost. then the decision is made to send
> soldiers. So it had to be some high rank official to give that order.
> After the carnage of marines someone whould have come with the conclusion
> that this may have been linked with Ripley's testimony.
>
>
> Did the company know what had happened on LV 426, about the nuclear
> explosion?
>
> They must have been informed by the Sulaco spaceship. And of course there
> were people in the Company who could add one to two and realize that
> something went terribly wrong
>
> So they must have been informed about demise of the entire colony and
the
> marines.
>
> That's why they sent the second ship in Alien3 to pick up Ripley from
Furia
> 161 - the prison planet. And that's my point - they didn't have to catch
> Ripley in order to capture specimen. All they had to do was to find the
> mother ship on LV 426
Interestingly enough, the scriptwriters from Alien 3/4 didn't seem to
understand that.
*thinks there should be some kind of law that people who write film scripts
are required to research the universe they are writing the film for (ie
Alien Universe). Also thinks filmmakers should be forced to hire one of
those Film buffs/geeks/critics to go through the script and look for plot
holes/logic holes and things that just don't make sense (like an Mac being
compatible with an Alien computer).
Glen A. RITCHIE
spauldingae <spaul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:FG1r8.214060$702.33465@sccrnsc02...
> *thinks there should be some kind of law that people who
> write film scripts are required to research the universe they are
> writing the film for (ie Alien Universe).
Marvel and DC Comics maintained the *continuity* of their books by ensuring
writers familiarised themselves with the background details of all the
characters, even if it meant they had to read every issue of the books, from
the very first to the latest.
> Also thinks filmmakers should be forced to hire one of those
> Film buffs/geeks/critics
Perhaps you mean *aficionado*.
It's a more 'respectable' word.
And you're definitely right on that score:
The film studio for "Alien" could recruit most if not all of its 'Technical
Advisors' from this newsgroup alone.
As it stands right now, "Alien" aficionados here are already doing this for
free; I'm certain if they got paid for doing what they love, they'd scream
for joy at a dream come true.
> to go through the script and look for plot holes/logic
> holes and things that just don't make sense (like an Mac being
> compatible with an Alien computer).
Marvel Comics used to reward its readers *if* they could find such mistakes;
as it seldom happened, the Marvel Universe managed to remain coherent and
cohesive.
spauldingae
"Glen A. RITCHIE" <glenar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nU8r8.16147$iU6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> spauldingae <spaul...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:FG1r8.214060$702.33465@sccrnsc02...
>
> > *thinks there should be some kind of law that people who
> > write film scripts are required to research the universe they are
> > writing the film for (ie Alien Universe).
>
> Marvel and DC Comics maintained the *continuity* of their books by
ensuring
> writers familiarised themselves with the background details of all the
> characters, even if it meant they had to read every issue of the books,
from
> the very first to the latest.
I'm not really into the comic book scene(though that may change as I
recently ordered the first 3 aliens graphic novel volumes) but such accruacy
and attention to detail is indeed commendable.
> > Also thinks filmmakers should be forced to hire one of those
> > Film buffs/geeks/critics
>
> Perhaps you mean *aficionado*.
That's the word I was looking for.
> It's a more 'respectable' word.
>
> And you're definitely right on that score:
>
> The film studio for "Alien" could recruit most if not all of its
'Technical
> Advisors' from this newsgroup alone.
>
> As it stands right now, "Alien" aficionados here are already doing this
for
> free; I'm certain if they got paid for doing what they love, they'd scream
> for joy at a dream come true.
>
> > to go through the script and look for plot holes/logic
> > holes and things that just don't make sense (like an Mac being
> > compatible with an Alien computer).
>
> Marvel Comics used to reward its readers *if* they could find such
mistakes;
> as it seldom happened, the Marvel Universe managed to remain coherent and
> cohesive.
It's a shame hollywood can't be bothered to take similar steps. I hate it
when they screw up big details and will change things around in the sequels.
(saying the original movie was wrong).
>
Sandman
> hi I would like to focus on what happened on LV426 after the huge
> nuclear explosion that put an end to the colony. I don't know if that
> was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry) but in the Aliens
> there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to the colony as
> you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire planet they
> had to built more than one. So what happened with the other plants?
There was only one, that contained the 60-70 families mentioned.
Terraforming "takes decades" probably due to it only being one colony.
> The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother
> ship, where the eggs came from. It couldn't be located in vicinity of
> Haddley's Hope cause if it had they would have found it much earlier (
> without any order from the earth) Just imagine that a new colony is
> going to be built on some remote planet. First they have to check if not
> whole planet then at least close proximity of the future location of
> colony.
The derelict ship was far away from the colony.
> So if the mother ship ( the one from Alien) was distant from the colony
> it couldn't be destroyed in that nuclear blast.
It wasn't.
> And finally if it wasn't destroyed (plenty of eggs inside) they didn't
> have to clone Ripley in Alien Resurrection.
Nope
> The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion,
> find the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
That would have been a more interesting third installment of the Alien saga.
> And the whole third and fourth episode were unnecessary. Ripley would no
> longer be so precious if they had acces to thousands of eggs
Indeed.
--
Sandman[.net]
spauldingae
>> The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion,
>> find the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
>That would have been a more interesting third installment of the Alien
saga.
Please tell me that was in one of the 13 or so rejected scripts for Alien 3.
I'm gonna be real disappointed if the idea occurred to nobody during that
entire process.
Kocureq
>
> That's why they sent the second ship in Alien3 to pick up Ripley from
Furia
> 161 - the prison planet. And that's my point - they didn't have to catch
> Ripley in order to capture specimen. All they had to do was to find the
> mother ship on LV 426
I know.. I'm just trying to find a reasonable explaination for Alien^3 and
a:r.
Keith Hazelwood
> I don't know if that was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry) but
> in the Aliens there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to the
> colony as you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire planet
> they had to built more than one.
We don't know the capabilities of a single atmosphere processor.
There could easily have been just the one. Why not?
> The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother ship,
> where the eggs came from.
My money says it was destroyed, based on the fact that the company
(A3) and the military (AR) acted as if Ripley carried the only
remaining specimen.
> It couldn't be located in vicinity of Haddley's Hope cause if it had they
> would have found it much earlier ( without any order from the earth) Just
> imagine that a new colony is going to be built on some
> remote planet. First they have to check if not whole planet then at least
> close proximity of the future location of colony.
We're definitely given the impression that it was quite a distance
away from the colony.
> So if the mother ship ( the one from Alien) was distant from the colony it
> couldn't be destroyed in that nuclear blast.
Not directly, no.
> And finally if it wasn't destroyed (plenty of eggs inside) they didn't have
> to clone Ripley in Alien Resurrection.
>
> The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion, find
> the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
>
> And the whole third and fourth episode
> were unnecessary. Ripley would no longer be so precious if they had acces to
> thousands of eggs
But they were made. I have mixed feelings about A3 and loathe AR, but
we're stuck with them.
In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
Keith
spauldingae
"Keith Hazelwood" <keith_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119343d0.02040...@posting.google.com...
> "clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message
news:<a8fbct$jrh$1...@news.onet.pl>...
> > I don't know if that was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry)
but
> > in the Aliens there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to
the
> > colony as you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire
planet
> > they had to built more than one.
>
> We don't know the capabilities of a single atmosphere processor.
> There could easily have been just the one. Why not?
>
> > The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother
ship,
> > where the eggs came from.
>
> My money says it was destroyed, based on the fact that the company
> (A3) and the military (AR) acted as if Ripley carried the only
> remaining specimen.
There's another reason for this. It's called bad writing.
> > It couldn't be located in vicinity of Haddley's Hope cause if it had
they
> > would have found it much earlier ( without any order from the earth)
Just
> > imagine that a new colony is going to be built on some
> > remote planet. First they have to check if not whole planet then at
least
> > close proximity of the future location of colony.
>
> We're definitely given the impression that it was quite a distance
> away from the colony.
"The middle of nowhere", IIRC. Also took the Jordan family about a week,
IIRC.
> > So if the mother ship ( the one from Alien) was distant from the colony
it
> > couldn't be destroyed in that nuclear blast.
>
> Not directly, no.
>
> > And finally if it wasn't destroyed (plenty of eggs inside) they didn't
have
> > to clone Ripley in Alien Resurrection.
> >
> > The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion,
find
> > the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
> >
> > And the whole third and fourth episode
> > were unnecessary. Ripley would no longer be so precious if they had
acces to
> > thousands of eggs
>
> But they were made. I have mixed feelings about A3 and loathe AR, but
> we're stuck with them.
>
> In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
> ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
> the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
> bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton nuke
could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
long ways off.
B.) Sure, she may have nuked it from Orbit, but there's no evidence at all
that such a thing occured. (That's assuming she knew how. I would guess the
military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
to nukes).
> Keith
aaron.percival
"Keith Hazelwood" <keith_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119343d0.02040...@posting.google.com...
news:<a8fbct$jrh$1...@news.onet.pl>...
> > I don't know if that was mentioned here before ( if it was I'm sorry)
but
> > in the Aliens there is only one atmospheric plant mentioned (adjecent to
the
> > colony as you all know). I guess to provide enough oxygen for entire
planet
> > they had to built more than one.
>
> We don't know the capabilities of a single atmosphere processor.
> There could easily have been just the one. Why not?
>
> > The second issue I have on my mind is what happened with the mother
ship,
> > where the eggs came from.
>
> My money says it was destroyed, based on the fact that the company
> (A3) and the military (AR) acted as if Ripley carried the only
> remaining specimen.
because the planet yet again gets over ran they go to another planet with
aliens on.
clink
You opened my eyes on that explanation - the mother ship could have been
nuked from the orbit.
Ripley knew that the Weyland Yutani would get back on LV-426 to get the
eggs.
It really makes sense for A^3 to go on.
Well, as much as I hate AR I don't have a hostile attitude towards A^3.
This movie was a good attempt to end the alien saga ( Aliens begged for
continuation) It may have some flaws but I like the idea - back to
basics -no sophisticated weapons (that proved so insufficient), humans vs
alien. Once again Ripley is the sole survivor. People who have nothing to
loose, nobody gives a shit about them.
Uzytkownik "Keith Hazelwood" <keith_h...@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:119343d0.02040...@posting.google.com...
Animal Hour
keith_h...@hotmail.com (Keith Hazelwood) writes:
>> The company should get back on lv 426 immediately after the explosion, find
>> the ship and explore it thus Ripley was needless
>In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
>ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
>the 40 megaton explosion
You don't even need the explosion to explain it really. If you work from the
special edition, the derelict spacecraft was damaged by volcanic activity
between the first two movies. Based on that: Perhaps the derelict was buried
by lava after the second movie.
Animal Hour
>the company had to know about what happened on LV 426 for many reasons.
>
>First of all Ripley had told them about the mother ship at the beginning of
>Aliens. There was an investigation, remeber?
>She asked them to check the planet. They were told about the ship.
One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be. The
Narcissus logs probably had the coordinates, but it's possible only Burke knew
them. Someone erased the logs after reading them.
There was a record in Hadley's Hope of Burke's order to explore the ship. His
instructions included the coordinates. Since Burke needed to be sneaky, he may
have erased any records of his instructions from databases at Weylan-Yutani's
offices. Later the atmosphere processor exploded, destroying the colony, and
what might have been the only record of Burke's order and the derelict's
coordinates.
Finding the derelict without coordinates might be difficult for several
reasons.
First, the warning beacon probably malfunctioned (before the beginning of
ALIENS).
Second, the ship is probably covered, at least partially, by volcanic rock.
Third, the ship is probably constructed from exotic substances that are
difficult to detect. If the ship is some kind of warship, it may have been
designed as a stealth craft.
Fourth, Acheron has a turbulent atmosphere that may limit visibility and
interfere with electronic signals.
Animal Hour
>I think the mother shuip wasn't destroyerd, Bishop says "with blast radius
>of 30 km", and the ship couldn't be SO close.
I agree.
( For the metric impaired: I think that 30 km is about 18 miles. )
Some possibilities...
::: The derelict may have been destroyed by :::
1 - the rebellious androids mentioned in AR (Call's brethren)
2 - volcanic activity
3 - Ripley and Hicks
::: The eggs may have been destroyed by :::
1 - radiation from the explosion of the atmosphere processor (Although the
blast has a radius of only 30 km, the fallout may be carried by weather over
large distances. IIRC people in different *countries* were sickened by
radiation from Russia's Chernobyl meltdown.
2 - microbes introduced by the colonists
::: A competitor of the Company or a different military organization may have
already discovered and harvested the eggs :::
Animal Hour
<spaul...@home.com> writes:
>> In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
>> ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
>> the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
>> bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
>The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton nuke
>could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
>long ways off.
I agree with you. I don't think the nuclear explosion would cause a volcanic
eruption thousands of miles away.
The explosion of the plant probably caused greater tremors than a comparable
bomb, because the plant was on the ground while a bomb would be an airburst.
However, I still don't think distant volcanoes would erupt as a result.
>B.) Sure, she may have nuked it from Orbit, but there's no evidence at all
>that such a thing occured.
I probably wouldn't write a script that establishes Ripley's destruction of
the derelict with the Sulaco's weapons. (Like the laying of eggs by the queen
on the Sulaco...) Here is another example of a significant event that I would
expect to see in ALIENS if it had happened. I would consider it a cheat to add
this event to ALIENS during another sequel. (Remember Annie Wilkes in "Misery"
talking about cliffhangers and cheating?)
>(That's assuming she knew how.
Right. Ripley was a pilot, but she had no military training AFAIK and she had
missed the last 57 years.
>I would guess the
>military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
>to nukes).
Right. There would be passwords or keycards or biometric devices such as a
retinal scanner or fingerprint reader.
In the movie "Crimson Tide" the sub captain and the XO had to turn their two
keys simultaneously to authorize a nuclear strike. I believe that the US Navy
requires this in reality. Based on this, the fictional USCM would require some
kind of "key".
I would expect that only Lieutenant Gorman (or perhaps Sergeant Apone in
Gorman's absence) would have the authority to launch nuclear weapons.
(...although Corporal Hicks must have *thought* that he could do it since he
agreed with Ripley when Apone was MIA and Gorman unconscious.)
Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt anyone
would give authority over nuclear weapons to a synthetic (err....'artificial
person')
Maybe they could have combined Bishop's knowledge and Hicks' authority if the
two of them had been in better physical shape. Maybe Ripley waited for Hicks
to wake up and they *did* nuke the derelict. Or maybe Ripley was unaware of the
exact positions of the colony and the derelict and assumed that the explosion
of the processor had destroyed the ship. Or maybe Ripley just went into
hypersleep without remembering the ship!
-animalhour (impersonator of Brett)
Adam Cameron
>>could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
>>long ways off.
>
>I agree with you. I don't think the nuclear explosion would cause a volcanic
>eruption thousands of miles away.
It was interesting that the last two French nuclear tests at Mororoa
Atoll were followed - an uncannily uniform period of time later - by
eruptions of Mt Ruapehu in NZ.
Whilst Ruapehu is a known marginally active volcano (it puffs, but not
seriously, a lot of the time), it had been hanging around doing pretty
much nothing for quite a while before the tests.
I think it's mostly conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind. Not
least because I happened to see the second eruption first hand (albeit
from 26000' in an 737, but hey).
Adam
Keith Hazelwood
> > We're definitely given the impression that it was quite a distance
> > away from the colony.
>
> "The middle of nowhere", IIRC. Also took the Jordan family about a week,
> IIRC.
"Out past the Illium range," IIRC. The whole planet was *covered*
with middles of nowhere though, so that doesn't really establish much.
For all we know, the location of the derelict may have been
relatively nearby, simply difficult to reach by land because of the
terrain.
> > In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
> > ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
> > the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
> > bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
>
> The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton nuke
> could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
> long ways off.
The Tunguska event of 1908 caused seismic shockwaves that were felt as
far away as London, England. That was only 15 megatons.
> B.) Sure, she may have nuked it from Orbit, but there's no evidence at all
> that such a thing occured.
The only evidence is circumstantial, yes, but compelling nonetheless.
We know Ripley was aware of the derelict's location and definitely had
motivation to destroy it. We know the company was desperate to
retrieve the specimen she carried. We know the USM went to much
*greater* lengths to retrieve it from her. All of this strongly
suggests that the ship was destroyed BEFORE Alien 3 took place.
> (That's assuming she knew how.
Ripley's very resourceful. The films make this clear to us time and
again. Hell, she hotwired Bishop's broken carcass and plugged him
into the EEV's flight recorder just to find out what happened to the
Sulaco. I can imagine she'd have done something similar to get access
to the nukes before they left LV-426.
> I would guess the
> military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
> to nukes).
*Corporal* Hicks did.
Keith
Keith Hazelwood
> >The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton nuke
> >could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
> >long ways off.
>
> I agree with you. I don't think the nuclear explosion would cause a volcanic
> eruption thousands of miles away.
Thousands of miles? I have a hard time believing the derelict was
that far away. Sure, it took Newt's family a while to get there, but
they were traveling to its location in a slow-moving vehicle over
rocky terrain and through a *mountain range* under bad weather
conditions. I'd say it was a couple hundred miles away, at most.
> The explosion of the plant probably caused greater tremors than a comparable
> bomb, because the plant was on the ground while a bomb would be an airburst.
> However, I still don't think distant volcanoes would erupt as a result.
See Tunguska. A groundburst explosion of that magnitude would produce
shockwaves that could easily trigger distant seismic activity.
> >(That's assuming she knew how.
>
> Right. Ripley was a pilot, but she had no military training AFAIK and she had
> missed the last 57 years.
Did Ripley's IQ drop sharply while I was away? Visions of
powerloaders, APCs, pulse rifles and Bishop's carcass race through my
mind when anyone suggests that she wasn't highly adaptable and
resourceful.
> >I would guess the
> >military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
> >to nukes).
>
> Right. There would be passwords or keycards or biometric devices such as a
> retinal scanner or fingerprint reader.
>
> In the movie "Crimson Tide" the sub captain and the XO had to turn their two
> keys simultaneously to authorize a nuclear strike. I believe that the US Navy
> requires this in reality. Based on this, the fictional USCM would require
> some kind of "key".
I'd toss out the Crimson Tide analogy right away. Under current US
military protocols, no one on the Sulaco should have been able to
launch nukes (including Lt. Gorman), but that obviously wasn't the
case.
> I would expect that only Lieutenant Gorman (or perhaps Sergeant Apone in
> Gorman's absence) would have the authority to launch nuclear weapons.
You'd think so, but...
> (...although Corporal Hicks must have *thought* that he could do it since he
> agreed with Ripley when Apone was MIA and Gorman unconscious.)
Exactly. Kinda hard to get around that one... ;)
> Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt anyone
> would give authority over nuclear weapons to a synthetic (err....'artificial
> person')
Why not? He had access to every other damned thing, including armed
dropships.
> Maybe they could have combined Bishop's knowledge and Hicks' authority if the
> two of them had been in better physical shape.
I don't think "physical shape" is all that relevant in Bishop's case.
It may have only been a matter of getting him to supply her with the
codes and/or procedures for carrying out a missile launch. It's only
a problem if you decide it *is* one.
> Maybe Ripley waited for Hicks to wake up and they *did* nuke the derelict.
Six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. The result is the same... :)
> Or maybe Ripley was unaware of the
> exact positions of the colony and the derelict and assumed that the explosion
> of the processor had destroyed the ship.
She knew the "grid reference" for the derelict from the colony logs.
Regardless, if you drop enough nukes, you don't need the exact
location.
> Or maybe Ripley just went into hypersleep without remembering the ship!
I have a hard time believing it'd just slip her mind, especially since
she knew how badly the company wanted it.
At the very least, I'd say she would have sent a transmission back to
the ICC, Colonial Administration, and the USCM demanding that the
planet be placed under quarantine and that all company ships be
interdicted pending the outcome of a full investigation.
Keith
clink
retrieve the specimen she carried. We know the USM went to much
*greater* lengths to retrieve it from her. All of this strongly
suggests that the ship was destroyed BEFORE Alien 3 took place.
> "It's the only way to be sure"
> Ripley could have nuked the derelict without hesitation. But did she? She
may have still had some trust in the company men. She told Burke that he
wouldn't get away with that
>It's highly unlikely that the eggs would have been destroyed by a nuclear
fallout. This ship couln't be that close. They would have found much earlier
if it had been in close proximity to Hadley's Hope.
>It's also unlikely that the volcanic eruption could have such scope.
One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
> If the copmany didn't know the exact location of the mother ship they
couldn't be sure if it was destroyed or not.
Finding the derelict without coordinates might be difficult for several
reasons.
>I still think that after the failure on Fury 161 they would get back on
LV 426 and SPEND YEARS searching for the derelict.
First, the warning beacon probably malfunctioned (before the beginning of
ALIENS).
> right
Second, the ship is probably covered, at least partially, by volcanic rock.
>> Right . But I don't understand that volcanic theory. If the LV 426 had
been a volcanic eruption prone planet they wouldn't have built a colony
there
Third, the ship is probably constructed from exotic substances that are
difficult to detect. If the ship is some kind of warship, it may have been
designed as a stealth craft.
> We don't know what kind of ship that was. From the Alien we may only say
that it had huge cargo
Fourth, Acheron has a turbulent atmosphere that may limit visibility and
interfere with electronic signals.
>Right
> I would put my money on "the nuke from orbit" idea. It's only a shame that
it wasn't mentioned at the end of Aliens or in A^3
Keith Hazelwood
> Ripley could have nuked the derelict without hesitation. But did she? She
> may have still had some trust in the company men. She told Burke that he
> wouldn't get away with that
Yeah, because she was going to report him to the ICC, not the company.
> It's highly unlikely that the eggs would have been destroyed by a nuclear
> fallout. This ship couln't be that close. They would have found much earlier
> if it had been in close proximity to Hadley's Hope.
You're ignoring geography and weather, both of which could have easily
concealed the derelict from view indefinitely.
> It's also unlikely that the volcanic eruption could have such scope.
Ever heard of the Ring of Fire? Krakatoa? Mount St. Helens? The
ship was ravaged years earlier by a lava flow. The damage is visible
in Aliens SE. James Cameron himself explained that's why the beacon
was no longer active. It was sitting in the middle of a volcanically
active region. This is canon fact.
> One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
first place.
> First, the warning beacon probably malfunctioned (before the beginning of
> ALIENS).
That's how Cameron explained it.
> Second, the ship is probably covered, at least partially, by volcanic rock.
Yep.
> Right . But I don't understand that volcanic theory. If the LV 426 had
> been a volcanic eruption prone planet they wouldn't have built a colony
> there
*Earth* is a seismically active planet prone to volcanic eruptions.
Does that mean our own homeworld is unsuitable for human colonization?
;P
> Third, the ship is probably constructed from exotic substances that are
> difficult to detect. If the ship is some kind of warship, it may have been
> designed as a stealth craft.
Fair enough. Doesn't really matter if they have the coordinates
though...
Keith
Animal Hour
keith_h...@hotmail.com (Keith Hazelwood) writes:
>Hell, [Ripley] hotwired Bishop's broken carcass and plugged him
>into the EEV's flight recorder just to find out what happened to the
>Sulaco.
This kinda bothers me because *Parker* is the one who hooked up Ash in the
first movie, IIRC.
Animal Hour
>anima...@aol.com (Animal Hour) wrote in message
>news:<20020410060056...@mb-bj.aol.com>...
>> I agree with you. I don't think the nuclear explosion would cause a
>>volcanic eruption thousands of miles away.
>Thousands of miles? I have a hard time believing the derelict was
>that far away.
Yeah, I was a little surprised when I re-read my own comment after I posted the
message.
I probably should have settled for "a thousand" rather than "thousands".
>Sure, it took Newt's family a while to get there, but
>they were traveling to its location in a slow-moving vehicle over
>rocky terrain and through a *mountain range* under bad weather
>conditions. I'd say it was a couple hundred miles away, at most.
It could be as much as 3,000 miles away based on the vehicle. 55mph for 8
hours per day for a week is over 3,000 miles. I don't know how much of the
terrain was rough. I haven't even seen the special edition footage yet.
I tend to estimate a few hundred to a thousand miles though. I don't know how
big LV-426 is, but I'm worried that a large distance such as 3000 miles might
be more than half the circumference. Which would be stupid -- they would have
just traveled in the opposite direction.
>> The explosion of the plant probably caused greater tremors than a
>comparable
>> bomb, because the plant was on the ground while a bomb would be an
>airburst.
>> However, I still don't think distant volcanoes would erupt as a result.
>See Tunguska. A groundburst explosion of that magnitude would produce
>shockwaves that could easily trigger distant seismic activity.
Do earthquakes *cause* eruptions?
Or do they accompany eruptions? (ie activity in the mantle sometimes causes an
eruption *and* some quakes)
>> >(That's assuming she knew how.
>> Right. Ripley was a pilot, but she had no military training AFAIK and she
>> had missed the last 57 years.
>Did Ripley's IQ drop sharply while I was away? Visions of
>powerloaders, APCs, pulse rifles and Bishop's carcass race through my
>mind when anyone suggests that she wasn't highly adaptable and
>resourceful.
I didn't suggest that.
Imagine freezing Einstein for 57 years and then thawing him out and dropping
him into the cockpit of a 747 and saying, "Hey, fly this."
Also, Ripley was trained at work to use the powerloader. We know she didn't
figure out the loader herself on the Sulaco. Who knows how long it took her to
learn just that?
>> Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt
>> anyone would give authority over nuclear weapons
>> to a synthetic (err....'artificial person')
>Why not?
Maybe because Ash went nuts and tried to kill Ripley and Parker.
>He had access to every other damned thing, including armed dropships.
True.
>> Or maybe Ripley was unaware of the
>> exact positions of the colony and the derelict and assumed that the
>explosion
>> of the processor had destroyed the ship.
>She knew the "grid reference" for the derelict from the colony logs.
Did she memorize them? This might seem like a stupid question, but I'm
supposedly pretty smart and I still repeat a new phone number in my head so
that I won't forget the damn thing before I start dialing :-) Ripley wanted
the marines to nuke the derelict but she probably expected a specialist to be
around to do it.
Also, she might never have bothered to learn the coordinates of the *colony*.
If she thinks the colony is closer to the ship than it is, she might assume the
processor destroyed both.
>Regardless, if you drop enough nukes, you don't need the exact location.
Good point. I have no idea how many missiles they had. Vasquez mentions the
exact amount of nerve gas but not the number of nukes. It's safe to assume
they had more than one missile. They could just pepper the whole mountain
range.
>> Or maybe Ripley just went into hypersleep without remembering the ship!
>I have a hard time believing it'd just slip her mind,
Me too. It's just one of several options that I had put out there.
I have to work around the movies as they are. I'm just trying to think of
something other than "the filmmakers screwed up" or even "they wanted to leave
an opening for the sequel".
It's hard to believe Ripley would go to sleep without checking the Sulaco for
eggs first too. :-)
>especially since she knew how badly the company wanted it.
Just to nitpick a little... In the timeframe of ALIENS *Burke* wanted the
aliens. We don't really know about the other executives of the company.
We know the weapons division wanted the alien during the timeframe of the
*first* movie, of course, but there might have been 100% turnover among the
executives during 57 years.
Animal Hour
>"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message news:<a91pij$a92$1...@news.onet.pl>...
>> It's highly unlikely that the eggs would have been destroyed by a nuclear
>> fallout. This ship couln't be that close. They would have found much
>earlier
>> if it had been in close proximity to Hadley's Hope.
>You're ignoring geography and weather, both of which could have easily
>concealed the derelict from view indefinitely.
He or she is also missing my distinction between the blast wave and the
fallout. The blast wave is just the force of the explosion. The fallout is
radioactive debris that is carried by 'normal' winds, possibly over very long
distances.
Also, he is missing my distinction between the destruction of the entire ship
and the destruction of the *eggs* alone. Radioactive fallout would not destroy
the ship. However, radiation could kill the eggs. Remember that the ship is
open to the environment. In ALIEN the portals were open when the human
expedition arrived. In ALIENS: SE, the side of the ship is ripped open. Any
spaceship's hull would be designed to block radiation, but radioactive dust
could be blown through the ships portals or through the rent in the hull into
the ship and possibly into the cargo hold, irradiatiating the eggs, possibly
damaging them.
>> One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
>
>Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
>first place.
Burke is dead and the colony's records are gone.
Animal Hour
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>I agree with you. I don't think the nuclear explosion would cause a
>volcanic
>>eruption thousands of miles away.
>It was interesting that the last two French nuclear tests at Mororoa
>Atoll were followed - an uncannily uniform period of time later - by
>eruptions of Mt Ruapehu in NZ.
Two points...
One, it probably makes a big difference if the tests were performed
*underground*.
Two, statistics are a pain. It's hard to differentiate between a
cause-and-effect relationship and a simple coincidence. The lower the number
of incidents the smaller the weight as evidence.
Animal Hour
> We know the company was desperate to
>retrieve the specimen she carried. We know the USM went to much
>*greater* lengths to retrieve it from her. All of this strongly
>suggests that the ship was destroyed BEFORE Alien 3 took place.
Someone in this group mentioned that the filmmakers of AR had an explanation
for the destruction of the LV-426 that never made it into the film. Anyone
remember what the explanation was?
They probably didn't want to commit to destroying the derelict. Fox wouldn't
want as many openings for a sequel as possible.
> >I still think that after the failure on Fury 161 they would get back on
>LV 426 and SPEND YEARS searching for the derelict.
I agree.
The only explanation I can come up with is that they were afraid a large search
effort would attract too much attention. They might fear an enemy would swoop
in and find the ship first.
>>> Right . But I don't understand that volcanic theory. If the LV 426 had
>been a volcanic eruption prone planet they wouldn't have built a colony
>there
They just wouldn't build the colony near a volcano. They can still build
*somewhere* on the world.
They can figure out where the volcanoes are. Also, lava doesn't move all that
fast, and there are usually warning tremors before eruptions.
If the natural resources of LV-426 were valuable enough, it would certainly be
worth building there.
>Third, the ship is probably constructed from exotic substances that are
>difficult to detect.
>
>If the ship is some kind of warship, it may have been
>designed as a stealth craft.
>> We don't know what kind of ship that was. From the Alien we may only say
>that it had huge cargo
Still, it was *alien* and, regardless of the purpose of the ship, it might be
built of alien materials that don't register well on conventional scanners.
clink
Użytkownik "Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:20020411063151...@mb-ma.aol.com...
> In article <119343d0.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> keith_h...@hotmail.com (Keith Hazelwood) writes:
>
> >"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message
news:<a91pij$a92$1...@news.onet.pl>...
>
> >> It's highly unlikely that the eggs would have been destroyed by a
nuclear
> >> fallout. This ship couln't be that close. They would have found much
> >earlier
> >> if it had been in close proximity to Hadley's Hope.
>
> >You're ignoring geography and weather, both of which could have easily
> >concealed the derelict from view indefinitely.
>
> He or she is also missing my distinction between the blast wave and the
> fallout. The blast wave is just the force of the explosion. The fallout
is
> radioactive debris that is carried by 'normal' winds, possibly over very
long
> distances.
>>>>He ( I'm a male) knows the difference between the blast wave and the
fallout.
>>>>But if the derelict was a warship it must have been built from some kind
of material that protects the crew form radioactivity.
> Also, he is missing my distinction between the destruction of the entire
ship
> and the destruction of the *eggs* alone. Radioactive fallout would not
destroy
> the ship. However, radiation could kill the eggs. Remember that the ship
is
> open to the environment. In ALIEN the portals were open when the human
> expedition arrived. In ALIENS: SE, the side of the ship is ripped open.
Any
> spaceship's hull would be designed to block radiation, but radioactive
dust
> could be blown through the ships portals or through the rent in the hull
into
> the ship and possibly into the cargo hold, irradiatiating the eggs,
possibly
> damaging them.
:>>>>I don't think that the eggs were so vulnerable to the fallout from some
remote nuclear explosion.To kill a lifeform that is so adaptable by some
weakened fallout........
>
>
> >> One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
> >
> >Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
> >first place.
>
> Burke is dead and the colony's records are gone.
>
>>>> What about the Company's records? They sent Nostromo to LV 426 knowing
the exact location.Yeah, he could have destroyed them before the mission
>
> >> Right . But I don't understand that volcanic theory. If the LV 426 had
> >> been a volcanic eruption prone planet they wouldn't have built a colony
> >> there
>
> >*Earth* is a seismically active planet prone to volcanic eruptions.
> >Does that mean our own homeworld is unsuitable for human colonization?
> >;P
>
>>>> If the derelict was so close to the volcano how come it hadn't been
destroyed during that 57 yrs when Ripley was asleep??
You are trying to convice me that:
1. The nuclear explosion could cause seismic or volcanic activity
that destroyed derelict
2. Fallout has finished them (aliens) off.
But the chances for that - in my opinion - are slim.
The problem is that we don't know what was the exact location of derelict.
That's why we CANNOT say for sure what happened to ship after the blast
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
"spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ArPs8.30031$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> "The middle of nowhere", IIRC. Also took the Jordan family about a week,
> IIRC.
In that context "middle of nowhere", meaning nothing of interest, would
probably mean not near any interesting geologic features or any facilities
made by the colonists. Which would pretty mean just about everywhere.
Which the audiance will subliminally translates into, "Fucking company, all
they do is fuck with us, and waste our time. And I've run out of beer!" and
since this is also intended to be an opening scene in a movie which has
horror elements, "Also I will be killed shortly, just let me walk alone into
the darkness and pull up the monster bait."
How much area does a grid reference encompass? 100 sq km. They had to
search the area, in poor visiblity, till they found something. They didn't
get longitute and latitude to a 6' margin of error. And that was a week
over rough terrain, so we can assume they probably weren't doing highway
speeds.
And it's pretty easy to make a lot of decent arguments about why it might
have taken a long time. Basically, the wreck had to be just far enough away
from the colony to avoid being in a well surveyed area. That need not be
100's of km away.
> > In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
> > ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
> > the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
> > bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
>
> The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton nuke
> could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
> long ways off.
The Big Mike test IIRC, was 30 Megatons, turned an island into an atol and
absolutely dwarfed huge ships. It's got to be on one of the many videos
that contain trinity footage from the US archives. Since I don't have
access to ASCI White or the like, I'll mearly speculate that varying the
atmospheric conditions greatly may greatly alter the properties of
shockwaves formed by large nuclear explosions. And as competent as bishop
was, it's probable that his estimations of the explosive yield had a margin
of error, which were of indeterminate size, since one can assume that the
company didn't detonate a couple of atmospheric processors to get hard
numbers on how big the blast would be. With such incomplete information,
who knows what the margin of error is on even a very good guess, a factor of
2? 3? But certainly within an order of magnitude?
> B.) Sure, she may have nuked it from Orbit, but there's no evidence at all
> that such a thing occured. (That's assuming she knew how. I would guess
the
> military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
> to nukes).
But Bishop may well have.
Most importantly. It's sci-fi, so there will be nits to pick. That's the
"fi" part. But why pick on nits that can have arguments made for them, even
if they are hand waving ones. Why not complain about the fact that in
Aliens there is superluminal travel. Which while a mainstay of science
fiction, is pretty much in the plot device box next to psychic powers and
time travel. Isn't that an easier target? After all, it's so blatant,
there's just no explaining around that. Or how about that fusion powered
plants need "coolant" or they'll detonate in a massive uncontrolled
reaction, rather that just loose confinement of the plasma and essentially
turn off? Ya know, at the end of the day, I know Superman can't really fly,
but I don't let that ruin the movie for me.
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
> > One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
>
> Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
> first place.
Which he found out from Ripley's debreifing. In the SE it's implied that
others at the company had tried the same thing as Burke without "success".
So she pretty clearly knew, at least generally, where it was.
> > Right . But I don't understand that volcanic theory. If the LV 426 had
> > been a volcanic eruption prone planet they wouldn't have built a colony
> > there
>
> *Earth* is a seismically active planet prone to volcanic eruptions.
> Does that mean our own homeworld is unsuitable for human colonization?
> ;P
Exactly why I'll be enjoying my new life of adventure in the off world
colonies.
> Fair enough. Doesn't really matter if they have the coordinates
> though...
With nuclear weapons they hardly need those.
Adam Cameron
>Two, statistics are a pain. It's hard to differentiate between a
Hence me saying "it was interesting", as opposed ot "you're wrong,
cunt, this happened...".
I just meant that it was interesting.
(Interesting that it happened)
(Interesting that people made the connection)
(Interesting that I saw it)
(Interesting that a real life experience has some on-topicness)
(Interesting)
Adam
Adam Cameron
>hours per day for a week is over 3,000 miles. I don't know how much of the
>terrain was rough. I haven't even seen the special edition footage yet.
Neither agreeing nor refuting, but could someone check Alien and
recall for us whether the 1200 figure was radius, diameter, km or
miles?
Adam
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
"Adam Cameron" <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mitabuk244pqs7k7m...@4ax.com...
> Hence me saying "it was interesting", as opposed ot "you're wrong,
> cunt, this happened...".
Adam Cameron: Master of The Backhanded Compliment
Animal Hour
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Hence me saying "it was interesting", as opposed ot "you're wrong,
>cunt, this happened...".
>
>I just meant that it was interesting.
I know. I wasn't attacking you.
Animal Hour
"Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
>The Big Mike test IIRC,
Which one is Big Mike?
What type was it: A-bomb or H-bomb?
>was 30 Megatons,
Atom bombs create x kilotons.
Hydrogen bombs create y megatons
>turned an island into an atol and
>absolutely dwarfed huge ships. It's got to be on one of the many videos
>that contain trinity footage from the US archives.
>Most importantly. It's sci-fi, so there will be nits to pick. That's the
>"fi" part. But why pick on nits that can have arguments made for them, even
>if they are hand waving ones.
>Why not complain about the fact that in
>Aliens there is superluminal travel.
I did. :-)
>Which while a mainstay of science
>fiction, is pretty much in the plot device box next to psychic powers and
>time travel.
I also jumped on time travel.
>Isn't that an easier target? After all, it's so blatant,
>there's just no explaining around that.
>Or how about that fusion powered
>plants need "coolant" or they'll detonate in a massive uncontrolled
>reaction, rather that just loose confinement of the plasma and essentially
>turn off?
I don't have a problem with this one. Fission powerplants do need coolant.
Although atmosphere processing is a *fusion* process not a fission one, you
would probably need fission to generate enough heat to drive the fusion
reaction.
The hydrogen bomb explosion isn't just fusion. AFAIK there's a chemical bomb
which triggers a fission bomb which in turn triggers the fusion reaction.
The sun may use pure fusion but that is possible because the sun is so massive.
Gravity helps drive the reaction.
BTW: I also attacked the idea of controlled fusion. (I'm a killjoy.)
Animal Hour
"Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
>"Keith Hazelwood" <keith_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:119343d0.02041...@posting.google.com...
>> "clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message
>news:<a91pij$a92$1...@news.onet.pl>...
>> > One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
>> Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
>> first place.
>Which he found out from Ripley's debreifing.
Or from records on the Narcissus.
>In the SE it's implied that
>others at the company had tried the same thing as Burke without "success".
Interesting.
Animal Hour
>Użytkownik "Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
>news:20020411063151...@mb-ma.aol.com...
>> In article <119343d0.02041...@posting.google.com>,
>> keith_h...@hotmail.com (Keith Hazelwood) writes:
>>
>> >"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message
>news:<a91pij$a92$1...@news.onet.pl>...
>But if the derelict was a warship it must have been built from some kind
>of material that protects the crew form radioactivity.
That wouldn't help if the radioactive debris blew into the ship.
>> Remember that the ship is open to the environment.
>> In ALIEN the portals were open when the human
>> expedition arrived. In ALIENS: SE, the side of the ship is ripped open.
>> Any spaceship's hull would be designed to block radiation, but radioactive
>dust
>> could be blown through the ships portals or through the rent in the hull
>into
>> the ship and possibly into the cargo hold, irradiatiating the eggs,
>possibly
>> damaging them.
>I don't think that the eggs were so vulnerable to the fallout from some
>remote nuclear explosion.To kill a lifeform that is so adaptable by some
> weakened fallout........
The fallout wouldn't be weakened. Distance wouldn't weaken the fallout. The
radioactivity of the debris would weaken over *time* (calculate using
half-life).
>> >> One thing: they may not have known *where* the ship was supposed to be.
>> >Burke's the one who dispatched Newt's family to that location in the
>> >first place.
>> Burke is dead and the colony's records are gone.
> What about the Company's records? They sent Nostromo to LV 426 knowing
>the exact location.
The Company may have know which planet/moon the transmission was coming from,
but they wouldn't have known the location on the surface. How could they have
determined that from a different solar system?
> Yeah, he could have destroyed them before the mission
They could even have been deleted during the 57 years before Burke found out.
> If the derelict was so close to the volcano how come it hadn't been
>destroyed during that 57 yrs when Ripley was asleep??
It *was* smashed up during those 57 years -- because of the volcano. This is
according to James Cameron and the SE.
Keith Hazelwood
> It could be as much as 3,000 miles away based on the vehicle. 55mph for 8
> hours per day for a week is over 3,000 miles. I don't know how much of the
> terrain was rough. I haven't even seen the special edition footage yet.
Better see the SE first. It's key to the discussion.
> I tend to estimate a few hundred to a thousand miles though. I don't know how
> big LV-426 is, but I'm worried that a large distance such as 3000 miles might
> be more than half the circumference. Which would be stupid -- they would have
> just traveled in the opposite direction.
When there's a search for a missing person/vehicle/aircraft in a
relatively confined area like a mountain, it can take dozens of rescue
workers days or weeks to find anything. Since the Jordens were
*searching* a "grid reference" without the derelict's beacon to home
in on, THAT could account for much of the time elapsed.
Consider one other thing: Newt's dad was facehugged. They had to get
him back to the colony within a reasonable amount of time in order to
account for its infestation.
> Do earthquakes *cause* eruptions?
They can.
> Or do they accompany eruptions? (ie activity in the mantle sometimes causes
> an eruption *and* some quakes)
They can.
Seismic activity isn't predictable. I live in southern California and
we've been expecting "the big one" for as long as I can remember, but
it still hasn't happened.
Have you ever heard of the Ring of Fire? It's a system of volcanic
arcs and oceanic trenches that partly encircle the Pacific basin--a
zone of frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This is usually
where the tsunamis that threaten Japan and other Pacific islands are
generated as well.
> >Did Ripley's IQ drop sharply while I was away? Visions of
> >powerloaders, APCs, pulse rifles and Bishop's carcass race through my
> >mind when anyone suggests that she wasn't highly adaptable and
> >resourceful.
>
> I didn't suggest that.
>
> Imagine freezing Einstein for 57 years and then thawing him out and dropping
> him into the cockpit of a 747 and saying, "Hey, fly this."
Was Einstein a pilot? Just because someone's brilliant doesn't mean
they have an aptitude for EVERYTHING.
> Also, Ripley was trained at work to use the powerloader. We know she didn't
> figure out the loader herself on the Sulaco. Who knows how long it took her
> to learn just that?
(sigh) Do you really want to start a tangent discussion about THIS?
> >> Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt
> >> anyone would give authority over nuclear weapons
> >> to a synthetic (err....'artificial person')
>
> >Why not?
>
> Maybe because Ash went nuts and tried to kill Ripley and Parker.
"It's common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
They'd obviously been doing so for quite some time prior to Ripley
showing up with her story about crazy Ash. Didn't the exchange
between Bishop and Burke explain this sufficiently for you?
> >She knew the "grid reference" for the derelict from the colony logs.
>
> Did she memorize them? This might seem like a stupid question, but I'm
> supposedly pretty smart and I still repeat a new phone number in my head so
> that I won't forget the damn thing before I start dialing :-) Ripley wanted
> the marines to nuke the derelict but she probably expected a specialist to be
> around to do it.
You're right. It makes more sense that she simply gave up on the idea
because she MAY have forgotten the grid reference and went to bed with
a smile of relief on her face knowing the ship was still down there
ready to be plundered by the company...
> Also, she might never have bothered to learn the coordinates of the *colony*.
> If she thinks the colony is closer to the ship than it is, she might assume
> the processor destroyed both.
See above. You're right. All points conceded. We'll assume from now
on that she either forgot this key information or simply made bad
assumptions.
> Just to nitpick a little... In the timeframe of ALIENS *Burke* wanted the
> aliens. We don't really know about the other executives of the company.
She assumed they did, according to her own words in Alien 3.
> We know the weapons division wanted the alien during the timeframe of the
> *first* movie, of course, but there might have been 100% turnover among the
> executives during 57 years.
You're right. Burke was probably just blowing smoke when he told
Ripley that the two facehugger specimens were worth millions to the
bio-weapons division...
Keith
clink
>>>>>>>>>>>But I must tell that the fallout could be weakened by time and
distance. Since we don't know where the derelict was we CANNOT even say that
the fallout reached the derelict.
The fallout wouldn't be weakened. Distance wouldn't weaken the fallout.
The
> radioactivity of the debris would weaken over *time* (calculate using
> half-life).
>>>>>>>>>>That all depended on the wind direction and distance. Listen
DISTANCE EQUALS TIME. The more remote derelict was from the Hadleys
Hope the more time the fallout needed to reach it
(assuming that it has reached that ship)
>>>>>>>>>> The most deadly isotopes have very "short"( I don't know it
that's the right word ) half life
> The Company may have know which planet/moon the transmission was coming
from,
> but they wouldn't have known the location on the surface. How could they
have
> determined that from a different solar system?
>>>>>>>>>>>Somebody wrote here (maybe it was you) that after the Nostromo
failure the people who were responsible for that fatal order 937 erased
every
evidence of LV 426. That's very plausible
eplanation for 57 yrs of silence about aliens
Uzytkownik "Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:20020411101832...@mb-fa.aol.com...
Neale Roberts
along the lines of "about 20 Kilotonnes, no fallout of course" with regard
to the impending explosion of the atmosphere processor.
"clink" <cl...@onet.pl> wrote in message news:a94cvs$lp7$1...@news.onet.pl...
spauldingae
"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020410060056...@mb-bj.aol.com...
The "Deus Ex Machina" discussion.
> >(That's assuming she knew how.
>
> Right. Ripley was a pilot, but she had no military training AFAIK and she
had
> missed the last 57 years.
>
> >I would guess the
> >military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have
access
> >to nukes).
>
> Right. There would be passwords or keycards or biometric devices such as
a
> retinal scanner or fingerprint reader.
>
> In the movie "Crimson Tide" the sub captain and the XO had to turn their
two
> keys simultaneously to authorize a nuclear strike. I believe that the US
Navy
> requires this in reality. Based on this, the fictional USCM would require
some
> kind of "key".
Unless they've gotten real lax with their control of nukes in the next 179
years.
> Maybe they could have combined Bishop's knowledge and Hicks' authority if
the
> two of them had been in better physical shape. Maybe Ripley waited for
Hicks
> to wake up and they *did* nuke the derelict. Or maybe Ripley was unaware
of the
> exact positions of the colony and the derelict and assumed that the
explosion
> of the processor had destroyed the ship. Or maybe Ripley just went into
> hypersleep without remembering the ship!
Good points. I can imagine Ripley Waking up on F-161( or as she intended,
Earth), and saying "Oh ****. I forgot to nuke the ship before we left". The
best thing I can think of is that fight with the queen(or any of the other
perils of surviving) made her forget about nuking the ship.
Another possibility is that James Cameron wanted to leave a big door open
for the possibility of a sequel.
> -animalhour (impersonator of Brett)
Right.
spauldingae
"Neale Roberts" <pim...@notquiteblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iukt8.4120$Oi2.25...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I seem to recall that in the novelisation of Aliens, Bishop said something
> along the lines of "about 20 Kilotonnes, no fallout of course" with regard
> to the impending explosion of the atmosphere processor.
Which contradicts of the film of "40 megatons". I'm not sure if a fusion
explosion would create fallout though.
spauldingae
"Keith Hazelwood" <keith_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119343d0.02041...@posting.google.com...
news:<ArPs8.30031$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > > We're definitely given the impression that it was quite a distance
> > > away from the colony.
> >
> > "The middle of nowhere", IIRC. Also took the Jordan family about a week,
> > IIRC.
>
> "Out past the Illium range," IIRC. The whole planet was *covered*
> with middles of nowhere though, so that doesn't really establish much.
> For all we know, the location of the derelict may have been
> relatively nearby, simply difficult to reach by land because of the
> terrain.
True, but I get the idea that "Middle of Nowhere" and "within 30 kilometers"
would be fairly exclusive.
> > > In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
> > > ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
> > > the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
> > > bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
> >
> > The only problem I have with this is A.) I wasn't aware a 40 megaton
nuke
> > could have that much of a sizemiec impact on somethat that is decidely a
> > long ways off.
>
> The Tunguska event of 1908 caused seismic shockwaves that were felt as
> far away as London, England. That was only 15 megatons.
How much damage was caused?
> > B.) Sure, she may have nuked it from Orbit, but there's no evidence at
all
> > that such a thing occured.
>
> The only evidence is circumstantial, yes, but compelling nonetheless.
> We know Ripley was aware of the derelict's location and definitely had
> motivation to destroy it. We know the company was desperate to
> retrieve the specimen she carried. We know the USM went to much
> *greater* lengths to retrieve it from her. All of this strongly
> suggests that the ship was destroyed BEFORE Alien 3 took place.
or Bad scriptwriting.
> > (That's assuming she knew how.
>
> Ripley's very resourceful. The films make this clear to us time and
> again. Hell, she hotwired Bishop's broken carcass and plugged him
> into the EEV's flight recorder just to find out what happened to the
> Sulaco. I can imagine she'd have done something similar to get access
> to the nukes before they left LV-426.
I have the feeling getting access to nukes is gonna be a lot harder then
jurying rigging an andriod to act as an interface for a flight recorder.
Unless standreds regarding such has dropped a bit in the next 177 years.
> > I would guess the
> > military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have
access
> > to nukes).
>
> *Corporal* Hicks did.
Hicks was pretty much out of it after the point he gets exposed to acid in
the basement. Other then that "Dwayne, Ellen" exchange, he's either
unconcious or very near it.
> Keith
spauldingae
It was 1200 meters, IIRC. "Within walking distance" The Nostromo was a lot
closer then the colony.
> Adam
Adam Cameron
>> recall for us whether the 1200 figure was radius, diameter, km or
>> miles?
>
>It was 1200 meters, IIRC. "Within walking distance" The Nostromo was a lot
>closer then the colony.
That's not ther reference I meant... when they were first analysing
the planetoid, Ash game a [diamter / radius] and Kane said "it's
*Tiny*].
Adam
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
> In article <fdet8.23481$QC1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
>
> >The Big Mike test IIRC,
>
> Which one is Big Mike?
>
> What type was it: A-bomb or H-bomb?
Americas biggest H-bomb
> >was 30 Megatons,
>
> Atom bombs create x kilotons.
>
> Hydrogen bombs create y megatons
> >Most importantly. It's sci-fi, so there will be nits to pick. That's
the
> >"fi" part. But why pick on nits that can have arguments made for them,
even
> >if they are hand waving ones.
>
> >Why not complain about the fact that in
> >Aliens there is superluminal travel.
>
> I did. :-)
>
> >Which while a mainstay of science
> >fiction, is pretty much in the plot device box next to psychic powers and
> >time travel.
>
> I also jumped on time travel.
What? No bitching about psychic powers in sci-fi? Hypocrite :)
> >Isn't that an easier target? After all, it's so blatant,
> >there's just no explaining around that.
>
> >Or how about that fusion powered
> >plants need "coolant" or they'll detonate in a massive uncontrolled
> >reaction, rather that just loose confinement of the plasma and
essentially
> >turn off?
>
> I don't have a problem with this one. Fission powerplants do need
coolant.
> Although atmosphere processing is a *fusion* process not a fission one,
you
> would probably need fission to generate enough heat to drive the fusion
> reaction.
> The hydrogen bomb explosion isn't just fusion. AFAIK there's a chemical
bomb
> which triggers a fission bomb which in turn triggers the fusion reaction.
Fusion warheads are also surrounded by a lot of low grade uranium which is
fissible with the assist from the fusion, and contributes as much as 2/3rd's
of a H-bombs power. And assuming sustainable fusion, which is a pretty good
assumption espesially since it's sci-fi, the only fission would be a very
small reactor to provide the initial power for plasma confinement.
Oh. And not all fissionable powerplant designs require coolant. Sure
without coolant, in some fashion, you're probably not going to have an easy
time getting the energy out, but they don't all melt down or spontaniously
detonate.
> The sun may use pure fusion but that is possible because the sun is so
massive.
> Gravity helps drive the reaction.
>
> BTW: I also attacked the idea of controlled fusion. (I'm a killjoy.)
Engineering will eventually prove you the fool in this one, I expect. We're
pretty close to this one in the number of hurdles left, though perhaps not
in time, and there are more than a few areas where great strides can be
made. Why only recently a new generation of vastly more powerful permanent
magnets has been made, to say nothing of the slow yet steady improvement in
superconductors, or even lasers if you fancy an alternative method for your
Mr. Fusion.
Given your ... unwillingness to accept the rules a movie lays out for
itself, why are you wasting your money watching anything other than
documentaries? Not that I think you should. On occasion it can be pretty
amusing. When I went to see Mulan, an animated Disney flick, during the
avalanche scene, a girl behind me said, and I quote, "That is *so* fake."
Even if there are some embellishments, they don't contradict any other
elements of the story, and they certain don't rise to the level of Batman:
The Movie, where they keep the Bat-Shark Repellant in the front seat of the
Bat-Copter, just in case.
Covenant
"There's a layer of MIst, covering the eggs that reacts when broken..."
;' )))
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Vigil
--
.
spauldingae
> elements of the story, and they certain don't rise to the level of Batman:
> The Movie, where they keep the Bat-Shark Repellant in the front seat of
the
> Bat-Copter, just in case.
Well, Batman: the movie also has a ray that dehydrates people by stealing
their water, but not killing them.
The movie is pure camp.
>
spauldingae
Okay. Didn't catch that. Will have to rewatch the film.
> Adam
Neale Roberts
"spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uElt8.2418$CH1.523@sccrnsc02...
spauldingae
> I was paraphrasing - I could be wrong about the exact value :)
Okay.
Animal Hour
keith_h...@hotmail.com (Keith Hazelwood) writes:
>> >She knew the "grid reference" for the derelict from the colony logs.
>> Did she memorize them? This might seem like a stupid question, but I'm
>> supposedly pretty smart and I still repeat a new phone number in my head so
>> that I won't forget the damn thing before I start dialing :-) Ripley
>wanted
>> the marines to nuke the derelict but she probably expected a specialist to
>be
>> around to do it.
>You're right. It makes more sense that she simply gave up on the idea
>because she MAY have forgotten the grid reference and went to bed with
>a smile of relief on her face knowing the ship was still down there
>ready to be plundered by the company...
The ending of ALIENS is a no-win situation. Either Ripley made a huge mistake
or the filmmakers neglected to show us something that happened and was
extremely important.
Animal Hour
In article <tElt8.2416$CH1.359@sccrnsc02>, "spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com>
writes:
>"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020410060056...@mb-bj.aol.com...
>> In article <ArPs8.30031$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "spauldingae"
>> <spaul...@home.com> writes:
>> (Remember Annie Wilkes in "Misery"
>> talking about cliffhangers and cheating?)
>The "Deus Ex Machina" discussion.
Is that Act of God?
I was referring to the cliffhangers where the opening scene of the next
installment revises the final scene of the previous installment.
Covenant probably remembers.
>Another possibility is that James Cameron wanted to leave a big door open
>for the possibility of a sequel.
Yeah, notice how the endings of the movie and novel versions of "Jurassic Park"
differ. In the book, the whole island is nuked. In the movie, everybody just
leaves. They look at the pretty waterfall and just take off. Dr. Grant bonds
with the children and the movie just ends.
Three points:
1) Ripley definitely should have tried to nuke the ship at the end of ALIENS.
2) If Ripley did try, they should have SHOWED the attempt regardless of whether
she failed or the derelict actually got destroyed.
3) The marines should have nuked the derelict at the BEGINNING of the movie.
I would have at least confirmed the existence of the derelict before I even
explored the colony. If there's an alien ship there, then the marines should
trust that the rest of Ripley's story is true and they should be extra careful.
Also, I would have sent a very cautious scout to confirm the presence of eggs.
Then I would have either napalmed the eggs or nuked the entire ship.
-animalhour
roy_e...@yahoo.com
padded...@juno.com
Animal Hour
"Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
>"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020411101830...@mb-fa.aol.com...
>> In article <fdet8.23481$QC1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
>> >Which while a mainstay of science
>> >fiction, is pretty much in the plot device box next to psychic powers and
>> >time travel.
>> I also jumped on time travel.
>What? No bitching about psychic powers in sci-fi? Hypocrite :)
Well, I would bitch if the ALIEN series had some psychics :-)
(Come to think of it, I am a little irked by the idea that the alien queen
communicates with her eggs.)
>> >Or how about that fusion powered
>> >plants need "coolant"
Maybe the coolant should be in the residential buildings rather than in the
reactor :-)
You want the fusion reactor to be hot in order to sustain the reactions. But
wouldn't the intense heat affect a large area around the processor? If you
don't cool the living quarters you will have some pretty sweaty colonists.
BTW: the coolant thing is in ALIEN too, not just in the sequel.
>> >or they'll detonate in a massive uncontrolled
>> >reaction, rather that just loose confinement of the plasma and essentially
>> >turn off?
>> I don't have a problem with this one. Fission powerplants do need
>coolant.
>> Although atmosphere processing is a *fusion* process not a fission one,
>you
>> would probably need fission to generate enough heat to drive the fusion
>> reaction.
>
>> The hydrogen bomb explosion isn't just fusion. AFAIK there's a chemical
>bomb
>> which triggers a fission bomb which in turn triggers the fusion reaction.
>Fusion warheads are also surrounded by a lot of low grade uranium which is
>fissible with the assist from the fusion, and contributes as much as 2/3rd's
>of a H-bombs power.
So the fusion triggers fission... Interesting.
>And assuming sustainable fusion, which is a pretty good
>assumption espesially since it's sci-fi, the only fission would be a very
>small reactor to provide the initial power
>for plasma confinement.
And for heat. The fission provides the initial spark, so to speak
>Oh. And not all fissionable powerplant designs require coolant.
I thought they all required water at least. (I mean aside from the water for
making steam for electric turbines.)
>Given your ... unwillingness to accept the rules a movie lays out for
>itself,
I'm not necessarily attacking the movies. However, I want to make sure that
people don't apply what they see in the movie to reality. There was a
discussion in this group about faster than light travel. I jumped in -- not so
much because movies should never use it but because some readers of the group
thought FTL travel might someday be possible in real life. Same with time
travel.
>why are you wasting your money watching anything other than
>documentaries? Not that I think you should.
>Even if there are some embellishments, they don't contradict any other
>elements of the story,
A lot of what this group is about, I think, is pointing out the contradictions
within each movie and across movies. There's a lot of inconsistency within the
Alien series.
Animal Hour
writes:
>I'm not sure if a fusion explosion would create fallout though.
I think it should release stable elements such as helium if the only nuclear
reaction is fusion.
Animal Hour
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>"There's a layer of MIst, covering the eggs that reacts when broken..."
>
>;' )))
Does the mist protect the eggs?
Animal Hour
>But I must tell that the fallout could be weakened by time and
>distance. Since we don't know where the derelict was we CANNOT even say that
>the fallout reached the derelict.
That's true. I was just making guesses about why two sequels ignored the
derelict.
>>The fallout wouldn't be weakened. Distance wouldn't weaken the fallout.
>>The radioactivity of the debris would weaken over *time* (calculate using
>> half-life).
>>That all depended on the wind direction and distance. Listen
>>DISTANCE EQUALS TIME. The more remote derelict was from the Hadleys
>>Hope the more time the fallout needed to reach it
>>(assuming that it has reached that ship)
Yes, but some radioactive substances have half-lives of thousands of years,
IIRC.
>> The most deadly isotopes have very "short"( I don't know it
>>that's the right word ) half life
That's true. Rapid decay is what makes them more deadly. But there are many
isotopes that have long half-lives and are still quite deadly (to humans, at
least).
Animal Hour
>anima...@aol.com (Animal Hour) wrote in message
>news:<20020411063140...@mb-ma.aol.com>...
>> It could be as much as 3,000 miles away based on the vehicle. 55mph for 8
>> hours per day for a week is over 3,000 miles. I don't know how much of the
>> terrain was rough. I haven't even seen the special edition footage yet.
>Better see the SE first. It's key to the discussion.
I have the script. It has all the special edition stuff in it.
>> I tend to estimate a few hundred to a thousand miles though.
>When there's a search for a missing person/vehicle/aircraft in a
>relatively confined area like a mountain, it can take dozens of rescue
>workers days or weeks to find anything. Since the Jordens were
>*searching* a "grid reference" without the derelict's beacon to home
>in on, THAT could account for much of the time elapsed.
I understand: most of the time may be spent searching the region rather than
getting to that region in the first place.
>Consider one other thing: Newt's dad was facehugged. They had to get
>him back to the colony within a reasonable amount of time in order to
>account for its infestation.
Excellent point.
Although, I'm not sure the rescue team arrived by land. They might have used a
helicopter or something.
In that case, why not use the helicopter in the first place?
A. The Jorden's were stupid, or
B. They were greedy. They wanted to claim ownership of whatever they found.
The helicopter would not have belonged to the family. They would have had to
spill the beans to get permission to use it.
C. Bad weather when the family set out (which had improved in time for the
rescue days later)
BTW: The issue of the timeframe could also inspire some interesting scenarios
to replace the one in the SE.
Here's one suggestion: At first, only one person in the survey team is
facehuggered. But in this scenario the chestbursting occurs before the rescue
team arrives. The chestburster reaches maturity while the rest of the survey
team is stranded. The alien warrior attacks the rest of the survey team and
drags them into the derelict to expose them to the eggs. They are all
facehuggered.
The rescue team arrives. They kill the only adult alien. They retrieve the
members of the survey team while the huggers are still on them. Everyone
returns to the colony where several chestbursters emerge from the survey team
at about the same time.
(Of course this contradicts the SE and it even depends on Newt not accompanying
the surveyors.)
>> >Did Ripley's IQ drop sharply while I was away? Visions of
>> >powerloaders, APCs, pulse rifles and Bishop's carcass race through my
>> >mind when anyone suggests that she wasn't highly adaptable and
>> >resourceful.
>> I didn't suggest that.
>> Imagine freezing Einstein for 57 years and then thawing him out and
>dropping
>> him into the cockpit of a 747 and saying, "Hey, fly this."
>Was Einstein a pilot? Just because someone's brilliant doesn't mean
>they have an aptitude for EVERYTHING.
I know. That was *my* point. :-)
Yes, Ripley is a pilot, but nuking the derelict requires an aptitude for
WEAPONS too.
>> >> Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt
>> >> anyone would give authority over nuclear weapons
>> >> to a synthetic (err....'artificial person')
>> >Why not?
>> Maybe because Ash went nuts and tried to kill Ripley and Parker.
>"It's common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
>
>They'd obviously been doing so for quite some time prior to Ripley
>showing up with her story about crazy Ash. Didn't the exchange
>between Bishop and Burke explain this sufficiently for you?
Just because they have him on board doesn't mean they trust him with nuclear
weapons. Maybe they're willing to risk having Bishop go nuts and choke someone
with a porno magazine, but maybe they're not willing to risk a nuclear assault
that kills a million people.
Bishop said "The A2s always were a bit twitchy." This means Ash isn't the only
synthetic that had caused problems. (Of course, Bishop is a different model,
but the Company or the military might still be a little bit cautious.)
Covenant
Who knows??
But it may keep them *in stasis*.
Covenant
> ( Ending contains SPOILER for JURASSIC PARK -- book and movie )
>
>
> In article <tElt8.2416$CH1.359@sccrnsc02>, "spauldingae"
<spaul...@home.com>
> writes:
>
> >"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020410060056...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >> In article <ArPs8.30031$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"spauldingae"
> >> <spaul...@home.com> writes:
>
> >> (Remember Annie Wilkes in "Misery"
> >> talking about cliffhangers and cheating?)
>
> >The "Deus Ex Machina" discussion.
>
> Is that Act of God?
Literally, The God in the MAchine.
Short (or long-hand) for a Cop Out.
Something which just suddenly happens that alters an outcome that was
neither alluded to, nor seemed possible to happen, just at the right moment
to either prevent or cause something.
> I was referring to the cliffhangers where the opening scene of the next
> installment revises the final scene of the previous installment.
>
> Covenant probably remembers.
Probably...
;' )))
Volt
kind
> of material that protects the crew form radioactivity.
Well, warship or civillian vessel, any space ship needs big radiation
shielding as it spends its time constantly out of any protective atmosphere,
which without shielding exposes the ship and crew to constant irradiation
from any nearby suns. Look at the manned Mars missions (if they ever
happen) - it highly likely the crew will all get cancer later on in their
lives from spending so long in an uinshielded spacecraft.
-Dave
clink
That's true. Rapid decay is what makes them more deadly. But there are
many
> isotopes that have long half-lives and are still quite deadly (to humans,
at
> least).
That's what is all about. We don't know if aliens were as vulnerable to
radiation as humans. But I must say that the seismic and volcanic theory
seems more and more possible to me
Thanks God that after four episodes there is so much we can figure out.
Użytkownik "Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:20020413012904...@mb-fr.aol.com...
spauldingae
> ( Ending contains SPOILER for JURASSIC PARK -- book and movie )
>
>
> In article <tElt8.2416$CH1.359@sccrnsc02>, "spauldingae"
<spaul...@home.com>
> writes:
>
> >"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020410060056...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >> In article <ArPs8.30031$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"spauldingae"
> >> <spaul...@home.com> writes:
>
> >> (Remember Annie Wilkes in "Misery"
> >> talking about cliffhangers and cheating?)
>
> >The "Deus Ex Machina" discussion.
>
> Is that Act of God?
>
> I was referring to the cliffhangers where the opening scene of the next
> installment revises the final scene of the previous installment.
>
> Covenant probably remembers.
As someone as already mentioned, it's a greek term for "God in the Machine".
Basically refers to when an author/scriptwriter has written himself/herself
into a corner and needs to bring something totally out of left field to save
the day.
In Misery, The example was Flash Gorden suddenly finding a Jet Pack under
his set and flying away to saftey.
A more used example would be the in westerns, the caverly would all of a
sudden arrive to save the day.
>
> >Another possibility is that James Cameron wanted to leave a big door open
> >for the possibility of a sequel.
>
> Yeah, notice how the endings of the movie and novel versions of "Jurassic
Park"
> differ. In the book, the whole island is nuked. In the movie, everybody
just
> leaves. They look at the pretty waterfall and just take off. Dr. Grant
bonds
> with the children and the movie just ends.
The Book ending to Jurassic Park is a Perfect Example of Deus Ex Machina. I
can't remember if they even had a chance to get to a radio before that, but
all of a sudden, the Costa Rican Military arrives and firebombs the island,
rescuing the survivors. This also ignores the small fact that the Cost Rican
Military does not have the capability to do this.
> Three points:
>
> 1) Ripley definitely should have tried to nuke the ship at the end of
ALIENS.
>
> 2) If Ripley did try, they should have SHOWED the attempt regardless of
whether
> she failed or the derelict actually got destroyed.
>
> 3) The marines should have nuked the derelict at the BEGINNING of the
movie.
>
> I would have at least confirmed the existence of the derelict before I
even
> explored the colony. If there's an alien ship there, then the marines
should
> trust that the rest of Ripley's story is true and they should be extra
careful.
>
> Also, I would have sent a very cautious scout to confirm the presence of
eggs.
> Then I would have either napalmed the eggs or nuked the entire ship.
Agreed. Totally.
> -animalhour
> roy_e...@yahoo.com
> padded...@juno.com
Glen A. RITCHIE
>IIRC people in different *countries* were sickened by
> radiation from Russia's Chernobyl meltdown.
I remember reading that, in the late 80s, even the wildlife in Scandinavia
were being found to have an abnormally high amount of radiation in their
system (e.g., in the horns of reindeer).
Glen A. RITCHIE
> I live in southern California and we've been expecting "the big
> one" for as long as I can remember, but it still hasn't
> happened.
And I hope it *NEVER* happens, either -
I have friends down there!
(Not to mention, of course, the fact that we wouldn't be able to read your
contributions to this newsgroup anymore.)
Glen A. RITCHIE
> > "There's a layer of MIst, covering the eggs that reacts when
> > broken..."
> >
> > ;' )))
>
> Does the mist protect the eggs?
The mist is a high tech security system designed by the Space Jockey race,
which has encrypted songs by The Who to lullaby the eggs to sleep.
Vigil
downed transmitter, until they discover the presence of aliens. Until
then, Ripley's story is just that to them.
"Animal Hour" <anima...@aol.com> had the audacity to claim:
> 3) The marines should have nuked the derelict at the BEGINNING of the
> movie.
>
> I would have at least confirmed the existence of the derelict before I
> even explored the colony. If there's an alien ship there, then the
> marines should trust that the rest of Ripley's story is true and they
> should be extra careful.
>
> Also, I would have sent a very cautious scout to confirm the presence of
> eggs. Then I would have either napalmed the eggs or nuked the entire
> ship.
--
.
Vigil
other dense materials in order for the gravity to be around the same as
the Earth's.
"Adam Cameron" <da_ca...@hotmail.com> had the audacity to claim:
> That's not ther reference I meant... when they were first analysing the
> planetoid, Ash game a [diamter / radius] and Kane said "it's *Tiny*].
--
.
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
> In article <p9nt8.18418$Rw2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Thomas S. McDonald esquire" <tsmcdonald$worldnet,att,net $=@ ,=.> writes:
> >What? No bitching about psychic powers in sci-fi? Hypocrite :)
>
> Well, I would bitch if the ALIEN series had some psychics :-)
>
> (Come to think of it, I am a little irked by the idea that the alien queen
> communicates with her eggs.)
Pretend its pherimones.
> >> >Or how about that fusion powered
> >> >plants need "coolant"
>
> Maybe the coolant should be in the residential buildings rather than in
the
> reactor :-)
> You want the fusion reactor to be hot in order to sustain the reactions.
But
> wouldn't the intense heat affect a large area around the processor? If you
> don't cool the living quarters you will have some pretty sweaty colonists.
>
> BTW: the coolant thing is in ALIEN too, not just in the sequel.
The magnetic field ionizes the gas and squeezes it to high temperature and
pressure. The only thing that needs cooling are the magnets, and should the
cooling fail, the reaction ends as the very small amount of gas disperses,
harmlessly.
The "heat" of the gas is small, even though its temperature is high. That
might not make a lot of sense, but heat and temperature are actually pretty
different things, though related.
> >Fusion warheads are also surrounded by a lot of low grade uranium which
is
> >fissible with the assist from the fusion, and contributes as much as
2/3rd's
> >of a H-bombs power.
>
> So the fusion triggers fission... Interesting.
Why waste all the neutrons when they can be blowing stuff up?
> >And assuming sustainable fusion, which is a pretty good
> >assumption espesially since it's sci-fi, the only fission would be a very
> >small reactor to provide the initial power
> >for plasma confinement.
>
> And for heat. The fission provides the initial spark, so to speak
It's not exactly like trying to make a big fireball. It's more like a very
wispy, but very high temperature fireball. It's part of the reason we need
vastly higher temperatures than the center of the sun to achive fusion, we
can't achive the same density, and pressures.
Really just need the electricity.
> >Oh. And not all fissionable powerplant designs require coolant.
>
> I thought they all required water at least. (I mean aside from the water
for
> making steam for electric turbines.)
Nope. A least one reactor design would use helium gas. Granted, that isn't
a full scale, what's with those huge ass towers, reactor design, but they
would provide electricity. In fact the reason water is seperated using a
heat exchanger is just to avoid pollution.
> I'm not necessarily attacking the movies. However, I want to make sure
that
> people don't apply what they see in the movie to reality. There was a
> discussion in this group about faster than light travel. I jumped in --
not so
> much because movies should never use it but because some readers of the
group
> thought FTL travel might someday be possible in real life. Same with time
> travel.
It's the internet, there's not a lot you can do about the kooks. But an
admirable cause none the less. Good luck with that.
> >why are you wasting your money watching anything other than
> >documentaries? Not that I think you should.
>
> >Even if there are some embellishments, they don't contradict any other
> >elements of the story,
>
> A lot of what this group is about, I think, is pointing out the
contradictions
> within each movie and across movies. There's a lot of inconsistency
within the
> Alien series.
I have a feeling we're about to start debating what the meaning of is is.
Obviously there will have to be some contradictions, caseless weapons
ejecting cases for example, but one has to grant the movies a little slack.
It's not exactly practical to demand they perfect a new generation of
assault weapons and make a movie while spending less than the US Army does
to investigate a new generation of assault weapons. Plot devices like
artificial gravity are just going to be, as building sound studios in space
sounds like a job for Bill Gates pocket book. So those will just exist.
Now, more subtle things, like the "contradiction" about the Aliens life
cycle. It's only a contradiction if one has some sort of completely
irrational British attachment to one or the other. If a reasonable
explanation exists that could explain all the observations, then it can't
really be called a contradiction. That said, consistency is a bitch, and
all movies fail at it at some level. And I'm of the opinion that as far as
movies go, especially movie trilogies, the Aliens saga does a pretty good
job. Which might be even more remarkable because just the fact that sequels
are involved puts them in generally poor company.
$= Thomas S. McDonald esquire
> In article <a94cvs$lp7$1...@news.onet.pl>, "clink" <cl...@onet.pl> writes:
> Yes, but some radioactive substances have half-lives of thousands of
years,
> IIRC.
Even billions. Plutonium, checks in at around 23,000, iirc, and that's
pretty toxic.
spauldingae
"Glen A. RITCHIE" <glenar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:LR2u8.17368$rp4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Who songs can be used to put things to sleep? They can do lots of things,
but making people sleep was never one I considered(well, maybe some).
>
>
Glen A. RITCHIE
> Who songs can be used to put things to sleep? They can do
> lots of things, but making people sleep was never one I
> considered(well, maybe some).
Actually, I *LOVE* The Who -
I was trying (one might say reaching) to make reference to The Who, since
the mist *was* one of the special effects they used in their concerts.
Glen A. RITCHIE
> Hence me saying "it was interesting", as opposed ot "you're
> wrong, cunt, this happened...".
Hey, there's nuthin' wrong with cunt:
Most people came out of a cunt when they were born, and most men spend all
their lives just to get back into a cunt.
(Sorta sounds like the *original* alien lifecycle, wot?)
spauldingae
>
> spauldingae <spaul...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:bjau8.18054$G72.11923@sccrnsc01...
>
> > Who songs can be used to put things to sleep? They can do
> > lots of things, but making people sleep was never one I
> > considered(well, maybe some).
>
> Actually, I *LOVE* The Who -
I'm quite a fan as well. I was commenting that I've never felt like falling
asleeping listening to any of their music.
> I was trying (one might say reaching) to make reference to The Who, since
> the mist *was* one of the special effects they used in their concerts.
That's it. Now I get the joke. Never thought of the two being connected
like that, but now that you point it out...
>
>
David Thomas
>> where the eggs came from.
>
>My money says it was destroyed, based on the fact that the company
>(A3) and the military (AR) acted as if Ripley carried the only
>remaining specimen.
Indeed, it was far away from Hadley's Hope, but, given Bishop's comment about
'a dust cloud the size of Nevada' (have I got the right state?), I can see how
it would have still been blown to smithereens. Also, there's plenty of room in
there for Alien 5 to prequelize Alien 4 and sequel Alien 3 and explain that
something *did* happen there if indeed it wasn't destroyed. Also, now that
they've explored the 'Ripley Clone' idea... they still have the 'Ripley Droid'
and 'Ripley-mysterious-resurrection...' and... well, you get the point.
>But they were made. I have mixed feelings about A3 and loathe AR, but
>we're stuck with them.
I loved Resurrection! Alien 3 was a bit... well... not so good. Maybe it was
just hard to top Aliens? (Which, consequently, is my favorite...)
>In an attempt to reconcile them with logic, my opinion is that the
>ship was destroyed by either seismic/volcanic activity triggered by
>the 40 megaton explosion and/or Ripley nuked it from orbit before
>bedtime ("It's the only way to be sure").
>
>Keith
I wouldn't put it past her to be dropping extra nukes... In fact, I can see
her using every single one.
Je veux m'enfuir, ne jamais dire au revoir; connaitre la verite, au lieu de me
demander pourquoi.
Je veux connaitre les reponses, ne plus de mensonges.
Je veux fermer la porte et ouvrir mon esprit; je vais m'en aller. - Linkin
Park, "Run Away"
- Vae
David Thomas
>that such a thing occured. (That's assuming she knew how. I would guess the
>military wouldn't let just anyone who walked on board the ship have access
>to nukes).
I can easily see any survivor willingly handing over whatever firepower she
asked for.
David Thomas
>
>Or do they accompany eruptions? (ie activity in the mantle sometimes causes
>an
>eruption *and* some quakes)
Same difference. Earthquakes, no matter their cause, usually also cause
effects of the same types that originated them. Thus, an earthquake caused by,
say, a nuke, might also cause fractures that might stimulate eruptions... and
so on...
>I didn't suggest that.
>
>Imagine freezing Einstein for 57 years and then thawing him out and dropping
>him into the cockpit of a 747 and saying, "Hey, fly this."
>
>Also, Ripley was trained at work to use the powerloader. We know she didn't
>figure out the loader herself on the Sulaco. Who knows how long it took her
>to
>learn just that?
Even given the amount of time she spent becoming obselete, I can imagine her
learning how to use those nukes quick. Notice how she learned to use that gun
she later wielded so well.
>>> Bishop might have the technical knowledge of the weaponry but I doubt
>>> anyone would give authority over nuclear weapons
>>> to a synthetic (err....'artificial person')
>
>>Why not?
>
>Maybe because Ash went nuts and tried to kill Ripley and Parker.
Nah... This is the *future,* guy. Androids don't hurt people. That NEVER
happens. Heh heh.
>Did she memorize them? This might seem like a stupid question, but I'm
>supposedly pretty smart and I still repeat a new phone number in my head so
>that I won't forget the damn thing before I start dialing :-) Ripley
>wanted
>the marines to nuke the derelict but she probably expected a specialist to be
>around to do it.
Like learning how to, I doubt she'd waste much time in figuring it out so that
she could.
>Also, she might never have bothered to learn the coordinates of the *colony*.
>
>If she thinks the colony is closer to the ship than it is, she might assume
>the
>processor destroyed both.
I had always thought this was what she had done, and thus assumed similarly,
since she'd probably know better than I.
>Good point. I have no idea how many missiles they had. Vasquez mentions the
>exact amount of nerve gas but not the number of nukes. It's safe to assume
>they had more than one missile. They could just pepper the whole mountain
>range.
I can imagine quite a few. ::::)
>Just to nitpick a little... In the timeframe of ALIENS *Burke* wanted the
>aliens. We don't really know about the other executives of the company.
>
>We know the weapons division wanted the alien during the timeframe of the
>*first* movie, of course, but there might have been 100% turnover among the
>executives during 57 years.
I can imagine the same little group of simply evil people wanting them all the
way up until Ripley toasted herself.
David Thomas
>>
>> Is that Act of God?
>
>Literally, The God in the MAchine.
'God *from* the Machine'
Old plays had people lowered from above by large mechanical constructs. They
usually played deities, who would resolve the plot in one swift, divine move.
David Thomas
>
> 1. The nuclear explosion could cause seismic or volcanic activity
>that destroyed derelict
>
> 2. Fallout has finished them (aliens) off.
>
>
>But the chances for that - in my opinion - are slim.
>
>The problem is that we don't know what was the exact location of derelict.
>That's why we CANNOT say for sure what happened to ship after the blast
But, since the location is unknown, we can arbitrarily assume that it's
anywhere. Considering that, it's essentially equaprobably that the ship was
destroyed or not. (Add into this equation the time it took for Newt's family
to get to the ship, plus the hard terrain.) Thus, this is only a continuity
error, or 'bad writing,' if one chooses for it to be.
David Thomas
>along the lines of "about 20 Kilotonnes, no fallout of course" with regard
>to the impending explosion of the atmosphere processor.
Personally, I don't like to use the novelizations. For one, they *do* tend to
make things a little more continuous, I think, but that ruins half the fun!
That, and also, I consider the movies to be the best reflection of the author's
intent.
David Thomas
>radiation as humans. But I must say that the seismic and volcanic theory
>seems more and more possible to me
I'd say they were quite vulnerable, given their reaction to flame and its
accompanying heat.
David Thomas
>much because movies should never use it but because some readers of the group
>thought FTL travel might someday be possible in real life. Same with time
>travel.
And what makes you think it never will be?
Heh heh.
Animal Hour
David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamao> wrote in message
news:20020421212655...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> >I jumped in -- not so
> >much because movies should never use it but because some readers of the
group
> >thought FTL travel might someday be possible in real life. Same with time
> >travel.
>
> And what makes you think it never will be?
Faster than light travel? Or time travel?
> Heh heh.
FTL will never be possible because *nothing* can travel faster than light.
A ship certainly couldn't. The energy that propels a ship can only travel
at light speed. You can't travel faster than the energy that provides
thrust for the ship.
Also, the ship is made of atoms and there are electrons in the atom moving
relative to the nucleus. The electrons wouldn't always be traveling in the
same direction as the ship. If an electron is moving in the opposite
direction you're going to loose it.
Covenant
"Animal Hour" <anima...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eutXDKP7BHA.1208@cpimsnntpa03...
>
> David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamao> wrote in message
> news:20020421212655...@mb-cp.aol.com...
>
> > >I jumped in -- not so
> > >much because movies should never use it but because some readers of the
> group
> > >thought FTL travel might someday be possible in real life. Same with
time
> > >travel.
> >
> > And what makes you think it never will be?
>
> Faster than light travel? Or time travel?
>
> > Heh heh.
>
> FTL will never be possible because *nothing* can travel faster than light.
That we are aware of.
David Thomas
Either is both.
>FTL will never be possible because *nothing* can travel faster than light.
This is, of course, a completely improvable statement. What you men, of
course, is that nothing we know of can.
>A ship certainly couldn't. The energy that propels a ship can only travel
>at light speed. You can't travel faster than the energy that provides
>thrust for the ship.
Of course, this isn't very detailed, but it's still not wholly correct. The
energy 'propelling' a ship need not move FTL.
>Also, the ship is made of atoms and there are electrons in the atom moving
>relative to the nucleus. The electrons wouldn't always be traveling in the
>same direction as the ship. If an electron is moving in the opposite
>direction you're going to loose it.
No, because of inertia. Once you accelerate the entire atom, the electron also
is accelerated. There's no sort of 'air resistance' effect by which the
electrons would fly off.
FTL travel or time travel, both really the same thing, aren't necessarily
impossible, they're just not possible right now. We know plenty of ways to
travel FTL that are perfectly plausible, assuming what we know of the universe
won't be soon contradicted. We just don't have the technology to test these
things IRL, or the theories to test them on paper.
Animal Hour
David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamao> wrote in message
> >Faster than light travel? Or time travel?
> Either is both.
> >FTL will never be possible because *nothing* can travel faster than
light.
> This is, of course, a completely improvable statement. What you mean, of
> course, is that nothing we know of can.
Hmm... what I should say is that the matter and the energy that we are
familiar with could never travel faster than light-speed.
> >A ship certainly couldn't. The energy that propels a ship can only
travel
> >at light speed. You can't travel faster than the energy that provides
> >thrust for the ship.
> Of course, this isn't very detailed, but it's still not wholly correct.
The
> energy 'propelling' a ship need not move FTL.
It does need to if the *ship* is supposed to move faster than light.
> >Also, the ship is made of atoms and there are electrons in the atom
moving
> >relative to the nucleus. The electrons wouldn't always be traveling in
the
> >same direction as the ship. If an electron is moving in the opposite
> >direction you're going to loose it.
> No, because of inertia. Once you accelerate the entire atom, the electron
also
> is accelerated.
Not past light speed.
AFAIK it's not the thrust that moves the electron but rather the
electromagnetic force of the proton pulling the electron along.
You can't accelerate an electron mechanically. It's either pulled by the
"postive" force of a proton or cation, or it's pushed along by magnetic
lines of force created by the repulsive force of other electrons.
> There's no sort of 'air resistance' effect by which the
> electrons would fly off.
I know, but an electron is not a particle in the sense that, say, a pebble
is a particle. It's a wave-particle, which has a miniscule mass and
functions a bit like a photon.
The electron has an absolute speed limit below light speed. Imagine that a
nucleus is somehow moving at exactly light speed. There is no way for an
electron to move properly in its orbit in this case. A proper orbit would
require the electron to 'circle' around the nucleus in the direction of
travel (of the nucleus) at times. But to do this in an atom traveling at
light speed, the electron would have to travel faster than light -- which it
can never do. Electrons have an absolute maximum speed -- just as photons
do.
I think that either the electron would be left behind or it would collapse
into the nucleus.
> FTL travel or time travel, both really the same thing, aren't necessarily
> impossible, they're just not possible right now. We know plenty of ways
to
> travel FTL that are perfectly plausible,
No we don't. It's impossible for matter to travel at light speed.
Therefore, it is impossible to travel faster than light -- because at some
point you would have to travel *at* light speed to get to a speed *above*
light-speed.
Einstein's theorems 'proved' that matter can not travel at light speed.
Ever hear of E=mc^2 ??? :-)
> assuming what we know of the universe
> won't be soon contradicted. We just don't have the technology to test
these
> things IRL, or the theories to test them on paper.
IRL ???
David Thomas
>> course, is that nothing we know of can.
>
>Hmm... what I should say is that the matter and the energy that we are
>familiar with could never travel faster than light-speed.
Same difference.
>> Of course, this isn't very detailed, but it's still not wholly correct.
>The
>> energy 'propelling' a ship need not move FTL.
>
>It does need to if the *ship* is supposed to move faster than light.
Net force is proportional to the product of mass and net acceleration. Tiny
forces (ie, those of particles traveling STL) can add to produce an accleration
FTL, or could, if it didn't seem to require infinite energy.
>Not past light speed.
>
>AFAIK it's not the thrust that moves the electron but rather the
>electromagnetic force of the proton pulling the electron along.
>
>You can't accelerate an electron mechanically. It's either pulled by the
>"postive" force of a proton or cation, or it's pushed along by magnetic
>lines of force created by the repulsive force of other electrons.
If a whole atom is accelerated, it's the electrons being accelerated by a
negative EMF and the nucleus being pulled along. If we could get an atom FTL,
it wouldn't fly apart.
>I know, but an electron is not a particle in the sense that, say, a pebble
>is a particle. It's a wave-particle, which has a miniscule mass and
>functions a bit like a photon.
Um, that's inaccurate, but doesn't matter. The whole atom would remain.
>The electron has an absolute speed limit below light speed. Imagine that a
>nucleus is somehow moving at exactly light speed. There is no way for an
>electron to move properly in its orbit in this case.
The problem with this is that you think that the nucleus will be accelerated.
If any *atom* (not ion) is acclerated, it's by the electrons.
>A proper orbit would
>require the electron to 'circle' around the nucleus in the direction of
>travel (of the nucleus) at times. But to do this in an atom traveling at
>light speed, the electron would have to travel faster than light -- which it
>can never do. Electrons have an absolute maximum speed -- just as photons
>do.
You're selectively applying QM and Rel. An atom isn't made up of individual
pieces, but is a whole waveform entity in and of itself. It has no pieces to
fall off. There are no internal stresses. Electrons don't 'circle' around the
nucleus. That's simply a mental simplification of the fact that their De
Broglie waves inhabit that space.
>I think that either the electron would be left behind or it would collapse
>into the nucleus.
If the atom did fall apart, the nucleus would be left behind.
>No we don't. It's impossible for matter to travel at light speed.
>Therefore, it is impossible to travel faster than light -- because at some
>point you would have to travel *at* light speed to get to a speed *above*
>light-speed.
You are confusing average and instantaneous speed. Of course, no natural
velocity can have an instantaneous magnitude greater than light's. *Average*
velocity, however, can.
>Einstein's theorems 'proved' that matter can not travel at light speed.
>
>Ever hear of E=mc^2 ??? :-)
Einstein rejected QM. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that SR and GR
are not complete theories.
>We just don't have the technology to test
>these
>> things IRL, or the theories to test them on paper.
>
>IRL ???
In Real Life.
Here's an FTL proposal... Naturally, we don't know how to do it, but, if we
could, we could.
Hop forward in space a certain interval, skipping the space between. Say that
you could hop a foot forward. Simply do this a whole lot, and you're going
FTL, on average, but not instantaneously. Indeed, your instantaneous speed
would be discontinuous and, for the most part, nonexistant.
Covenant
> Einstein's theorems 'proved' that matter can not travel at light speed.
Now *there's* an oxymoron !
;' )
David Thomas
>
>
>Now *there's* an oxymoron !
Well, an example of a passing knowledge of physics, but still a little too
classically biassed.
Animal Hour
Covenant <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aahu7s$4n$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Animal Hour" <anima...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ebhc29r7BHA.1652@cpimsnntpa03...
>
> > Einstein's theorems 'proved' that matter can not travel at light speed.
>
> Now *there's* an oxymoron !
>
> ;' )
Notice that I put 'proved' in single quotes.
Also, a mathematical proofs is a different animal than a scientific proof.
Einstein used a series of equations not just a hypothesis and an experiment.
Animal Hour
David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamao> wrote in message
> >> Of course, this isn't very detailed, but it's still not wholly correct.
> >The
> >> energy 'propelling' a ship need not move FTL.
> >It does need to if the *ship* is supposed to move faster than light.
> Net force is proportional to the product of mass and net acceleration.
>Tiny forces (ie, those of particles traveling STL) can add to produce an
accleration FTL,
Where did you come up with this?
> or could, if it didn't seem to require infinite energy.
As a ship goes faster, the energy reaching it from behind is red-shifted to
a longer wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less energetic.
As the speed of the ship increased toward light-speed, the electromagnetic
wave behind it would stretch out. Even if the source energy was gamma
radiation, the radiation would reach the ship as long, low-energy radio
waves. As the ship's velocity gets closer and closer to the speed of light,
the energy meant to provide thrust becomes infinitely small. When the
vehicle is traveling at just below light-speed, creating even a tiny
increase in the ship's speed would require infinite energy.
> >You can't accelerate an electron mechanically. It's either pulled by the
> >"postive" force of a proton or cation, or it's pushed along by magnetic
> >lines of force created by the repulsive force of other electrons.
> If a whole atom is accelerated, it's the electrons being accelerated by a
> negative EMF and the nucleus being pulled along. If we could get an atom
FTL,
> it wouldn't fly apart.
> >I know, but an electron is not a particle in the sense that, say, a
pebble
> >is a particle. It's a wave-particle, which has a miniscule mass and
> >functions a bit like a photon.
> Um, that's inaccurate,
The photon (I don't mean "proton") has properties of both a wave and a
particle. Same with an electron. They produce a similar result
(interference) during a two-slit experiment.
Of course, there are differences. A photon has a different 'spin' than an
electron. A photon has no mass while an electron has a small mass.
Photons have various energy levels independent of location while electrons
have different energy levels depending on their distance from the nucleus
(and from other electrons).
> but doesn't matter. The whole atom would remain.
...in a hypothetical atom that can travel faster than light.
But my point is that an atom *can't* travel faster than light because it's
components have complicated movements.
> >The electron has an absolute speed limit below light speed. Imagine that
a
> >nucleus is somehow moving at exactly light speed. There is no way for an
> >electron to move properly in its orbit in this case.
> The problem with this is that you think that the nucleus will be
accelerated.
No, I don't. It's a hypothetical case -- notice the phrasing "Imagine that
a nucleus is somehow". I just wanted to shift the focus to the electrons
to show another reason why FTL is impossible for anything as large as an
atom.
> If any *atom* (not ion) is acclerated, it's by the electrons.
True, but you can't accelerate the electrons within their orbitals
**relative to the nucleus**.
> >A proper orbit would
> >require the electron to 'circle' around the nucleus in the direction of
> >travel (of the nucleus) at times. But to do this in an atom traveling at
> >light speed, the electron would have to travel faster than light -- which
it
> >can never do. Electrons have an absolute maximum speed -- just as
photons
> >do.
> You're selectively applying QM and Rel. An atom isn't made up of
individual
> pieces, but is a whole waveform entity in and of itself.
What are electrons and quarks if not pieces of an atom?
> It has no pieces to
> fall off. There are no internal stresses. Electrons don't 'circle'
around the
> nucleus.
AFAIK, they do move within their orbitals. They don't literally move in
circles but they do move from one point to another and sometimes that
movement is parallel to the direction of movement of the entire atom. And I
think that they *need* to do this in order to keep the atom intact.
> That's simply a mental simplification of the fact that their De
> Broglie waves inhabit that space.
You don't think that the speed of travel of the atom affects the
configuration of the waves?
> >I think that either the electron would be left behind or it would
collapse
> >into the nucleus.
> If the atom did fall apart, the nucleus would be left behind.
> >No we don't. It's impossible for matter to travel at light speed.
> >Therefore, it is impossible to travel faster than light -- because at
some
> >point you would have to travel *at* light speed to get to a speed *above*
> >light-speed.
> You are confusing average and instantaneous speed. Of course, no natural
> velocity can have an instantaneous magnitude greater than light's.
*Average*
> velocity, however, can.
How so?
> >Einstein's theorems 'proved' that matter can not travel at light speed.
> >
> >Ever hear of E=mc^2 ??? :-)
> Einstein rejected QM. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that SR and
GR
> are not complete theories.
The prohibition on FTL still holds. Only special cases such as the big bang
and black holes require a more complete theory.
> >We just don't have the technology to test
> >these
> >> things IRL, or the theories to test them on paper.
> >IRL ???
> In Real Life.
> Here's an FTL proposal... Naturally, we don't know how to do it, but, if
we
> could, we could.
> Hop forward in space a certain interval, skipping the space between.
This is called *magic* :-)
This sort of thing may occur at the quantum level but not at the macroscopic
level.
Covenant
I know bud, I know... I was...joking !!!
;' )
Hench smiley...
David Thomas
>accleration FTL,
>
>Where did you come up with this?
From our own space shuttle. Do you really think that each particle shooting
out one end has the same force as the shuttle itself?
>As a ship goes faster, the energy reaching it from behind is red-shifted to
>a longer wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less energetic.
Semantically wrong, but generally right. As I said, 'if it didn't seem to
require infinite energy.'
What I'm saying is this: if we could travel FTL under regular circumstances,
then it would be easy to construct an engine that would do so. The problem
isn't that we can't get the proper ship, but that spacetime doesn't normally
bend that way.
>creating even a tiny
>increase in the ship's speed would require infinite energy.
If you're trying to disagree with me, you're doing it in a very agreeable way.
>
>The photon (I don't mean "proton")
Didn't think you did.
>> If a whole atom is accelerated, it's the electrons being accelerated by a
>> negative EMF and the nucleus being pulled along. If we could get an atom
>FTL,
>> it wouldn't fly apart.
>
>> >I know, but an electron is not a particle in the sense that, say, a
>pebble
>> >is a particle. It's a wave-particle, which has a miniscule mass and
>> >functions a bit like a photon.
>
>> Um, that's inaccurate,
>
>The photon (I don't mean "proton") has properties of both a wave and a
>particle. Same with an electron. They produce a similar result
>(interference) during a two-slit experiment.
>
>Of course, there are differences. A photon has a different 'spin' than an
>electron. A photon has no mass while an electron has a small mass.
>Photons have various energy levels independent of location while electrons
>have different energy levels depending on their distance from the nucleus
>(and from other electrons).
Okay, yes, true, but where does the atom fly to pieces?
>> but doesn't matter. The whole atom would remain.
>
>...in a hypothetical atom that can travel faster than light.
::nodnod::
>But my point is that an atom *can't* travel faster than light because it's
>components have complicated movements.
Naw, it can't travel FTL in spacetime as we know it because it would require an
infinite amount of energy.
>No, I don't. It's a hypothetical case -- notice the phrasing "Imagine that
>a nucleus is somehow". I just wanted to shift the focus to the electrons
>to show another reason why FTL is impossible for anything as large as an
>atom.
But that doesn't matter. It's impossible for anything with rest mass in
natural space. It doesn't matter what it's made of.
>> If any *atom* (not ion) is acclerated, it's by the electrons.
>
>True, but you can't accelerate the electrons within their orbitals
>**relative to the nucleus**.
Point being? The electrons can't be accelerated because they're not electrons,
but standing waveforms. There's nothing to accelerate. You either accelerate
the entire atom, or you don't. To do anything to individual pieces, you must
break it apart.
>> You're selectively applying QM and Rel. An atom isn't made up of
>individual
>> pieces, but is a whole waveform entity in and of itself.
>
>What are electrons and quarks if not pieces of an atom?
But they're only particles when broken out. Inside the atom, they are part of
the whole. When they are actually in an atom, they are waveforms interacting
as a total waveform.
>AFAIK, they do move within their orbitals. They don't literally move in
>circles but they do move from one point to another and sometimes that
>movement is parallel to the direction of movement of the entire atom. And I
>think that they *need* to do this in order to keep the atom intact.
::shakes head:: That's the classical model of the atom. In reality, he
electrons are no longer particular--they can't 'circle' anything like the
planets circle the sun. They've become standing waveforms around the nucleus.
>> That's simply a mental simplification of the fact that their De
>> Broglie waves inhabit that space.
>
>You don't think that the speed of travel of the atom affects the
>configuration of the waves?
Not with respect to the nucleus. From outside, the total atom would appear to
be smushed in the direction of motion, but from the atom's point of view
nothing internal would be different.
>*Average*
>> velocity, however, can.
>
>How so?
Suppose I can somehow jump 1 meter ahead of myself, instantaneously. Of course
I cannot, but let's play. If I did this 23984702937092309820291 times each
second, I'd be traveling at no real speed at any one point of my existence
(because I actually would not be 'moving' in the traditional sense), but my
average speed would be huge.
>> Einstein rejected QM. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that SR and
>GR
>> are not complete theories.
>
>The prohibition on FTL still holds. Only special cases such as the big bang
>and black holes require a more complete theory.
But these hint at oddities that can be explored and used. Later, it might be
standard technology to travel FTL.
>This is called *magic* :-)
>
>This sort of thing may occur at the quantum level but not at the macroscopic
>level.
And how do you know we won't be able to do it in the future? "Any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The man wasn't crazy.
Do you think we've really reached the limits of science's powers in technology?
One cannot say what we'll be able to do in the future. And my proposal is
only one of many, and one of the less-feasible at that.
Animal Hour
David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamao> wrote in message
> >>Tiny forces (ie, those of particles traveling STL) can add to produce an
> >accleration FTL,
> >Where did you come up with this?
> From our own space shuttle. Do you really think that each particle
shooting
> out one end has the same force as the shuttle itself?
No, but they have to travel as quickly as the shuttle does (when moving
toward the shuttle, not away). The thrust comes from the particles hitting
the shuttle.
> >creating even a tiny
> >increase in the ship's speed would require infinite energy.
> If you're trying to disagree with me, you're doing it in a very agreeable
way.
I was elaborating. Not every comment I make is meant to contradict another
person's statement.
> >But my point is that an atom *can't* travel faster than light because
it's
> >components have complicated movements.
> Naw, it can't travel FTL in spacetime as we know it because it would
require an
> infinite amount of energy.
I agree with that. What I meant was that even if that was wrong and
accelerating a particle to light speed did not require infinite energy, we
still couldn't make large objects travel at that speed. We've both agreed
that, say, a neutron can't travel faster than light. But even if it could,
an atom still couldn't because we can't control all the components
individually. (We've been haggling over a moot point.)
> >No, I don't. It's a hypothetical case -- notice the phrasing "Imagine
that
> >a nucleus is somehow". I just wanted to shift the focus to the
electrons
> >to show another reason why FTL is impossible for anything as large as an
> >atom.
> But that doesn't matter. It's impossible for anything with rest mass in
> natural space. It doesn't matter what it's made of.
Again, I was just throwing a backup reason out there in case someone
insisted that the "infinite energy" theory is wrong.
> >> If any *atom* (not ion) is acclerated, it's by the electrons.
> >True, but you can't accelerate the electrons within their orbitals
> >**relative to the nucleus**.
> Point being? The electrons can't be accelerated because they're not
electrons,
> but standing waveforms. There's nothing to accelerate.
Right. You can't control the behavior of the electron within the atom.
> You either accelerate
> the entire atom, or you don't. To do anything to individual pieces, you
must
> break it apart.
> >> That's simply a mental simplification of the fact that their De
> >> Broglie waves inhabit that space.
> >You don't think that the speed of travel of the atom affects the
> >configuration of the waves?
> Not with respect to the nucleus. From outside, the total atom would
appear to
> be smushed in the direction of motion, but from the atom's point of view
> nothing internal would be different.
I agree -- as long as the atom is moving slower than light-speed.
> >*Average*
> >> velocity, however, can.
> >How so?
> Suppose I can somehow jump 1 meter ahead of myself, instantaneously. Of
course
> I cannot, but let's play. If I did this 23984702937092309820291 times
each
> second, I'd be traveling at no real speed at any one point of my existence
> (because I actually would not be 'moving' in the traditional sense), but
my
> average speed would be huge.
> >This is called *magic* :-)
> And how do you know we won't be able to do it in the future?
In the future, you may be able to change form and travel 1 meter ahead in
your new form but you can't just skip that distance totally. *Something*
has to exist in the space between your starting point and your destination.
>"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
The man wasn't crazy.
Arthur C. Clarke, I think. I don't think he's crazy, but it may be
impossible for any creature to create technology that is "sufficiently
advanced" enough to be "indistinguishable from magic" for 21rst century
scientists.
> Do you think we've really reached the limits of science's powers in
technology?
No, not overall. But in certain areas we've probably hit the wall.
David Thomas
>shooting
>> out one end has the same force as the shuttle itself?
>
>No, but they have to travel as quickly as the shuttle does (when moving
>toward the shuttle, not away). The thrust comes from the particles hitting
>the shuttle.
In other words, they each have the same acceleration. That also isn't
necessarily true.
>I was elaborating. Not every comment I make is meant to contradict another
>person's statement.
Not very common a method of discourse on Usenet. :)
>Again, I was just throwing a backup reason out there in case someone
>insisted that the "infinite energy" theory is wrong.
Ah. Well, again, I never said that anything could travel FTL in normal space
under any conditions that we can think of, or with technology that we possess.
But it's not proven impossible.
>> Point being? The electrons can't be accelerated because they're not
>electrons,
>> but standing waveforms. There's nothing to accelerate.
>
>Right. You can't control the behavior of the electron within the atom.
But why would you have to in order to accelerate the atom itself to c or
beyond?
>
>I agree -- as long as the atom is moving slower than light-speed.
What would change at c or FTL?
>In the future, you may be able to change form and travel 1 meter ahead in
>your new form but you can't just skip that distance totally. *Something*
>has to exist in the space between your starting point and your destination.
Of course something must exist in space--there must be space there to skip in
the first place! Heh heh.
>Arthur C. Clarke, I think. I don't think he's crazy, but it may be
>impossible for any creature to create technology that is "sufficiently
>advanced" enough to be "indistinguishable from magic" for 21rst century
>scientists.
I don't think so. There are plenty of things that might as well be magic for
us. The EPR effect, for instance. Why people watch Seinfeld...
>> Do you think we've really reached the limits of science's powers in
>technology?
>
>No, not overall. But in certain areas we've probably hit the wall.
That's still pretty closed-minded. I mean, knowledgewise, we've only begun.