Star Trek science advisors
Plain and Simple Cronan
Timothy Jones wrote
>> Fantasy technology does not mean better technology.
>
>Tell *that* to the star wars crowd. *I* argue strictly on Starfleet's
>*common* and everyday *standard* technology, not on the one-shot
>innovations used for only a single crisis...i.e., *NOT* on the so-called
>technobabble. {which BTW, as least *they* pass by real scientists! Feh!
>"Technobabble" my ass!.}
This is a "fucking lie".[as opposed to a "stupid lie," a "phuct up lie" and
a "presidential lie."] They do not pass it by real scientists. The science
advisors are told, "We are a going to do this." They say, "Fuck you!" Bragga
says, "Here's your money." They say, "Fuck you?" Taylor says, "Here's the
rest of your money." The science advisor says, "Fuck you." The science
advisor goes and buys a car. He cries all that night in guilt.
P&SC
...
JFulker985
>This is a "fucking lie".[as opposed to a "stupid lie," a "phuct up lie" and
>a "presidential lie."] They do not pass it by real scientists. The science
>advisors are told, "We are a going to do this." They say, "Fuck you!" Bragga
>says, "Here's your money." They say, "Fuck you?" Taylor says, "Here's the
>rest of your money." The science advisor says, "Fuck you." The science
>advisor goes and buys a car. He cries all that night in guilt.
>
>P&SC
>...
Cronan,
I am extremely impressed by your command of subtle nuances in the English
language, especially those involving biological functions.
JF
Timothy Jones
> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote
> >
> >> Fantasy technology does not mean better technology.
> >
> >Tell *that* to the star wars crowd. *I* argue strictly on Starfleet's
> >*common* and everyday *standard* technology, not on the one-shot
> >innovations used for only a single crisis...i.e., *NOT* on the so-called
> >technobabble. {which BTW, as least *they* pass by real scientists! Feh!
> >"Technobabble" my ass!.}
>
> a "presidential lie."]
And you've had this delusion how long? Or have you *personally*
interviewed these advisors. See folks, here it is again. He is presented
with something that damages his case. Ooo no, what to do? He ignores it.
He can't answer it, he can't disprive it, so he disingenuiously attempts
to discredit it. Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
*do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can. That
is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
[whereas, say, in star wars, precious little is explained, yet the errors
manage to be frequent and obvious in nature.] The effort-to-error ratio is
far better for Trek than I've seen for any other sci-fi series. This is
best seen in the TNG Technical Manual for the Enterprize - D. Given the
sheer amount of detail and work that went into researching and writing it
[given that it's for a tv show and not a classroom text!] the result is
remarkably informative, and yes *ACCURATE*, certainly plausible. It's not
just the errors a show may make; it's what kind, how often, why, and in
the environment of *what* level of detail and sheer hours of programming
output. On babalce, Trek comes out with a hefty lead, thanks ever so.
TJ
Franklin Hummel
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>He can't answer it, he can't disprive it, so he disingenuiously attempts
>to discredit it. Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
>*do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
>of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can. That
>is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
>they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
Two words: SOLAR SAILER.
(You don't know much -real- science, do you?)
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Brian Davis
I hope, in some ways, that this is only a troll I'm falling for. As
a participent on rec.arts.sf.science, I'll try to only comment on the
science-relevant points.
Timothy Jones (I think) wrote:
> the fact remains that Trek writers *do* consult with real scientists
> on what they write, and they *do* go out of their way to make
> *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
As a "real scientist", I can only say that if they do consult with
"real scientists", they certainly don't constrain themselves to use the
advice. They do use "technobabble" (use defined terms in incorrect ways,
for example).
> That is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do*
> occur, they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to
> discover.
Or can be "discovered" by a high-school student using their brain.
They regularly violate the speed of light (even under impulse),
conservation of energy, and basic orbital physics ("stationary orbits
over poles" for instance). Not to mention common sense - ever notice how
all the ships in a fleet are "right-side-up"? If these are the best
tactics they could come up with, they should hire one or two military
advisors for a few episodes - talk about not unserstanding the
enviroment you're moving in!
> [whereas, say, in star wars, precious little is explained, yet the
> errors manage to be frequent and obvious in nature.]
So? Just because trek is more detailed than star wars does not make
it scientificly 'better' - good science isn't the point of either one.
> The effort-to-error ratio is far better for Trek than I've seen for
> any other sci-fi series.
Doubtful - personally, B5 seemed to do a better job.
> This is best seen in the TNG Technical Manual... Given the sheer
> amount of detail and work that went into researching and writing it
> the result is remarkably informative, and yes *ACCURATE*, certainly
> plausible.
They try to make it self-consistant, and if that's what you mean be
accurate, OK. But it is not "accurate" (or even close) with science -
this is, after all, the subject of this thread.
> It's not just the errors a show may make; it's what kind, how often,
> why, and in the environment of *what* level of detail and sheer hours
> of programming output.
No - whether or not something is scientificly plausible has nothing
to do with the level of detail, or how often errors are made. In trek,
errors of basic science are committed frequently, and this make it
something other than science (or even in agreement with science) - it
makes it entertainment.
> On balance, Trek comes out with a hefty lead
In your opinion. And that's fine, in your opinion. but please do
not confuse opinions with facts.
-Brian Davis
PS- If you want sciece-credible science fiction that is still good
fiction (ie- good stories, etc), try reading. Hal Clement, Robert
Forward, or even David Weber (since I suspect big space battles and
'space opera' might be more for public comsumption on this thread).
There are many, *many* examples of good science in sience fiction - and
Star Trek doesn't come close.
Alpine
Timothy Jones wrote:
> is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
> they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
Ah hell. I was debunking ST science when I was in high school, even
the first two years before I began taking college physics. And you
know what? I could do it every week.
--
alp...@unm.edu KB5SZW
"There is a difference between pushing an old lady into the way of an
oncoming bus, and pushing an old lady out of the way of an oncoming
bus. It simply will not do that it can be said in both cases that you
are pushing an old lady around." -W. F. Buckley
Timothy J. Miller
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
> *do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
> of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
Yeah. Right. Sure.
ST:Generations. Let's shoot <insert magical material> into a
solar body and stop all fusion therein, causing the *instant* collapse of
the body and changing the course of the Nexus!
Never mind that it will take millions of years for the cessation
of fusion in the core of a star to become evident at the surface.
Never mind that it would take decades to start the processes
toward the nova that was shown resulting from the collapse.
Never mind that such a collapse doesn't result in a nova for a
star of that size.
Never mind that collapsing the star *doesn't change the local
gravitational geometry*, so the Nexus' course won't be altered.
Never mind all *those* blatant scientific errors that an infant
could catch.
No; never mind all those-- just look at the error of showing the
rocket taking off and observing (from the planet surface) the star begin
to collapse *seconds later*. It takes about 8 *minutes* for light to
cross 1 AU.
Yeah. Uh-huh. "Plausible" my ass.
Oh, and that's *ONE SCENE IN ONE FILM*. Shall we start to
document the errors in the *rest* of the ST:* genre?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Erik Max Francis
Timothy Jones wrote:
> And you've had this delusion how long? Or have you *personally*
> interviewed these advisors. See folks, here it is again. He is
> presented
> with something that damages his case. Ooo no, what to do? He ignores
> it.
> He can't answer it, he can't disprive it, so he disingenuiously
> attempts
> to discredit it. Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek
> writers
> *do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go
> out
> of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with science is crystal clear that
Star Trek contains very little of it.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm:+37.20.07/-121.53.38
\
"I've got the fever for the / flavor of a cracker"
/ Ice Cube
Troy_...@hotmail.com
In article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98033...@dante21.u.washington.edu>,
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
> *do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
> is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
> they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
The Trek folks consult ONE person: Okuda. He's a former engineer turned
technical advisor.
As for plausible, here's what the typical Trek script look like (as described
by the making of DS9):
Dax: "We need to re-align the [tech] to counter-act that field."
Sisko: "Are you sure it will cancel the [tech]?"
Dax: "Yes."
[tech] is later filled in by various fake-technical words like "positrons"
"chromatons" "inverse" and "phase" to name just a few. THAT'S technobabble.
Personally, I'd rather have NO technobabble ala TOS than technobabble spread
all over the place. The worst is when they use technobabble to solve their
problems rather than human ingenuity.
> [whereas, say, in star wars, precious little is explained, yet the errors
> manage to be frequent and obvious in nature.] The effort-to-error ratio is
> far better for Trek than I've seen for any other sci-fi series. This is
> best seen in the TNG Technical Manual for the Enterprize - D. Given the
> sheer amount of detail and work that went into researching and writing it
> [given that it's for a tv show and not a classroom text!] the result is
> remarkably informative, and yes *ACCURATE*, certainly plausible.
Yes, but that manual was done for fun and it was done about 4 YEARS into the
TNG series. They were flying blind before that, and since then, have often
ignored the technical manual.
> It's not
> just the errors a show may make; it's what kind, how often, why, and in
> the environment of *what* level of detail and sheer hours of programming
> output. On babalce, Trek comes out with a hefty lead, thanks ever so.
Trek does OK, with the qualifications I listed above.
Troy
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Philip Plait
In rec.arts.sf.science Troy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A41.3.96a.98033...@dante21.u.washington.edu>,
> Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
> > *do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
> > of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can. That
> > is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
> > they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
> The Trek folks consult ONE person: Okuda. He's a former engineer turned
> technical advisor.
This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
He is trained in physics and astronomy. He gave a talk at Goddard
Space Flight Centre recently that I attended. He understands that science
gets stretched to the breaking point in ST, and does his best to make
sure it doesn't go beyond that. However, he does not have veto power;
he is an advisor. He must have a very tough job!
> As for plausible, here's what the typical Trek script look like (as described
> by the making of DS9):
> Dax: "We need to re-align the [tech] to counter-act that field."
> Sisko: "Are you sure it will cancel the [tech]?"
> Dax: "Yes."
> [tech] is later filled in by various fake-technical words like "positrons"
> "chromatons" "inverse" and "phase" to name just a few. THAT'S technobabble.
> Personally, I'd rather have NO technobabble ala TOS than technobabble spread
> all over the place. The worst is when they use technobabble to solve their
> problems rather than human ingenuity.
True, but that is simply sloppy (or lazy) writing. The question is whether
the *science* is good. Sometimes it is, sometimes... it's no so is. ;-)
Anyone who has seen my website knows about my feelings dealing with
Hollywood and astronomy. Yet I freely admit that I grew up watching
bad 1950's rocketship movies, yet I managed to become a professional
astronomer. Those movies actually sparked my imagination, so I think
it's important that those movies get made. I just wish some producers
would do even a minimal amount of research...
* * * * * The Bad Astronomer * * * *
Phil Plait bada...@smart.net
The Bad Astronomy Web Page: http://smart.net/~badastro/bad.html
Timothy J. Miller
bada...@smart.net (Philip Plait) writes:
> He must have a very tough job!
Yeah-- give them advice, listen to them trample over it, collect
the check. Real tough. 8)
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
WWS
Timothy J. Miller wrote:
>
>
> Oh, and that's *ONE SCENE IN ONE FILM*. Shall we start to
> document the errors in the *rest* of the ST:* genre?
>
This is a pointless exercise, but I have to throw in the one scene
(among many) that ruined ST:First Contact for me and probably is the
point where I gave up on the franchise.
Established - Borg have living flesh on their bodies.
Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
But do they need helmets in space? Noooooo, its just a sunday stroll in
the park, must be about 70 or 80 degrees out there in that balmy vacuum
of space. No explanation, not even technobabble to explain this
ridiculous scene, like the producers never even thought there was
anything unusual about it. This didn't take a scientist to catch, it
would just have taken one teenager from a high school physics class to
say "Hey Dummies! You're screwing up!"
So where were the wonderful science advisers on this one? Or was this
the day they decided there was just no point in pulling their heads out
of their butts and coming up for air anymore?
--
_______________________________________________________WWS______________________
Franklin Hummel
In article <6fouhh$4pg$2...@news.smart.net>,
Philip Plait <bada...@smart.net> wrote:
>
>This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
>He is trained in physics and astronomy. He gave a talk at Goddard
>Space Flight Centre recently that I attended. He understands that science
>gets stretched to the breaking point in ST, and does his best to make
>sure it doesn't go beyond that. However, he does not have veto power;
Something like a prostitute.
GeneK
Actually, it was the warp core coolant that disintegrated the organic
material off the borg (and Data) when Data released it, not the cold.
It was the reason Picard and the crew were trying to fight their way
into Engineering in the first place. If you want to quibble about dumb
tech, ask why they'd use GLASS to contain such a hazardous material
(ok, it COULD have been "transparent aluminum," but it sure broke like
glass)
GeneK
Plain and Simple Cronan
Timothy Jones wrote
>> This is a "fucking lie".[as opposed to a "stupid lie," a "phuct up lie"
and
>> a "presidential lie."]
>
>And you've had this delusion how long? Or have you *personally*
>interviewed these advisors. See folks, here it is again. He is presented
>with something that damages his case. Ooo no, what to do? He ignores it.
>He can't answer it, he can't disprive it, so he disingenuiously attempts
>to discredit it. Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
>*do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
>of their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can. That
>is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
>they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
>[whereas, say, in star wars, precious little is explained, yet the errors
>manage to be frequent and obvious in nature.] The effort-to-error ratio is
>far better for Trek than I've seen for any other sci-fi series. This is
>best seen in the TNG Technical Manual for the Enterprize - D. Given the
>sheer amount of detail and work that went into researching and writing it
>[given that it's for a tv show and not a classroom text!] the result is
>remarkably informative, and yes *ACCURATE*, certainly plausible. It's not
>just the errors a show may make; it's what kind, how often, why, and in
>the environment of *what* level of detail and sheer hours of programming
>output. On babalce, Trek comes out with a hefty lead, thanks ever so.
Timmy Boy, you should have snipped the rec.arts.sf.science thread away. Now
there are approx 20 people telling you exactly how full of it you really
are.
Game Timmy Boy, Game.
WWS
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> Philip Plait <bada...@smart.net> wrote:
> >
> >This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
> >. He must have a very tough job!
>
>
> Something like a prostitute.
>
>
> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
I was thinking that it's nothing that a few belts of old redeye each day
couldn't help. Especially since that's how the scripts read sometimes!
____________________________________________________WWS________________
Brian Trosko
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
: Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
: their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
While Trek truly contains very little science, I think you misinterpreted
events; the Viscous Pink Goo of Death[tm] which Data unleashed was
supposed to be Warp Plasma. Well, some kind of plasma.
Whatever sort it was, it should have been fairly warm.
Timothy J. Miller
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> writes:
> Actually, it was the warp core coolant that disintegrated the organic
> material off the borg (and Data) when Data released it, not the cold.
> It was the reason Picard and the crew were trying to fight their way
> into Engineering in the first place. If you want to quibble about dumb
> tech, ask why they'd use GLASS to contain such a hazardous material
> (ok, it COULD have been "transparent aluminum," but it sure broke like
> glass)
Given Trek power sources and *established* force-field
technology, why use physical materials at all? But then, that's Trek.
And don't get me started on the ramifications of replicator
technology on starship construction, damage control, and repair...
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
GeneK
Because physical materials don't disappear when someone trips over a
power cord...?
GeneK
Wayne Throop
:: Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
:: Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers *do* consult
:: with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out of
:: their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
"Stationary orbit over the north pole."
"She was turned into a newt by introns gone wild."
(she got better!)
"We pass through ordinary matter; we're completely phased out"
(spoken while standing on a floor...)
And many more. You can usually tell when a starfleet vessel
has been damaged; it's listing, usually to starboard but sometimes
to port, aparently slowly sinking because it's taking on ether fast,
me hearties... abandon ship quick before we spiral in!
And that's not even mentioning particle-du-jour-ons and sheilds that are
about as useful as wet cardboard (but suddenly turn out to be quite
strong when convenient for the script) (except when everybody and their
aunt margaret knows the "nutation frequency"), and holodecks that
malfunction more often and more dangerously than a carnival tilt-n-whirl
with half the restraining bolts gone (I mean, you'd NEVER get ME into
one of those blasted gadgets!), and other incredibly-bad-but-not-
strictly-science infelicities.
If that is "as plausible as they can"... well, then my opinion of them
drops to a new low; I'd always thought they were just sloppy.
But if that's really the best they can do... yyeeeeeeesh.
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Tommy the Terrorist
Remember the time they had something going wrong with someone's DNA?
They put it up on the screen (nice simulation of two spiral helices with
five little spheres running back and forth in a line at each "rung" of
the "ladder"). They do a close-up of the individual atoms and find bar
codes on some of them, that cause the mutation...
I recall seeing part of a Voyager episode where somebody got "mutated"
into a giant salamander, then restored through the use of some physics
gadget to annihilate the wrong DNA... (I only stopped on the channel when
seeing that weirdness, I *do not* watch that program...)
There are more. Deep Space Nine is semi-OK, conventional Star Trek is
dumb and boring, and Voyager is absolutely awful in every conceivable
way, by every conceivable measurement, and it would be difficult indeed
for them to devise *any* method to make it worse, and I certainly don't
think their abilities are up to the attempt.
Babylon 5 is cool, and The Outer Limits is MUCH, MUCH better than that.
(Note: Outer Limits has some really dumb science episodes also, but
other people write episodes that make a lot of sense - and ALL the
episodes are beautifully produced, often with beautiful alien scenery and
excellent acting. Absolute Best: "The Quality of Mercy"; very close
runner up, "The Resurrection". Oddly, neither depends much on its
science.).
Timo S Saloniemi
>This is a pointless exercise, but I have to throw in the one scene
>(among many) that ruined ST:First Contact for me and probably is the
>point where I gave up on the franchise.
I don't know if this will change your life in any measurable way,
or bring you back to Trekdom, but... You Are Wrong Now (TM).
>Established - Borg have living flesh on their bodies.
>Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
>their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
Actually, neither of these is established. The latter is clearly in
error - Data used the corrosive nature of the coolant fluid to
destroy the Borg, not the low temperature. And the former is
questionable; when Data gets Borg-provided flesh, it's all pink
and lifelike, while actual Borg skin looks everything but. Why
the difference in appearance if there is no functional difference?
>But do they need helmets in space? Noooooo, its just a sunday stroll in
>the park, must be about 70 or 80 degrees out there in that balmy vacuum
>of space. No explanation, not even technobabble to explain this
>ridiculous scene, like the producers never even thought there was
>anything unusual about it. This didn't take a scientist to catch, it
>would just have taken one teenager from a high school physics class to
>say "Hey Dummies! You're screwing up!"
This is the part that justifies the YAWN(TM) comment. The teenager from
a high school physics class would be wrong. A bag of leather has no
problem in coping with the vacuum and temperature extremes of space.
A Borg skin can very well be approximated with such a bag of leather.
Even a normal human skin would probably make for a very good spacesuit
once you let it die on you (which the cybernetic Borg can very well
afford to do).
The only problematic areas would be the eyes and the various body
openings, and Borg prosthetics could probably deal with these
problems - there might be an extra lens over the one "natural"-looking
eye, and some protection in the mouth and the rectum, neither of
which would need to fulfil its original function. Ears would
either be sealed or then eardrums removed for pressure equalization.
>So where were the wonderful science advisers on this one? Or was this
>the day they decided there was just no point in pulling their heads out
>of their butts and coming up for air anymore?
This is just an indication how scientifically incorrect movies like
"Outland" or "Total Recall" mess up with the minds and physical
intuition of the moviegoers.
Timo Saloniemi
Erik Max Francis
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
> I recall seeing part of a Voyager episode where somebody got "mutated"
> into a giant salamander, then restored through the use of some physics
> gadget to annihilate the wrong DNA... (I only stopped on the channel
> when
> seeing that weirdness, I *do not* watch that program...)
There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
spider. He evolved from spiders?
James Battista
Troy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
: [tech] is later filled in by various fake-technical words like "positrons"
: "chromatons" "inverse" and "phase" to name just a few. THAT'S technobabble.
: Personally, I'd rather have NO technobabble ala TOS than technobabble spread
: all over the place. The worst is when they use technobabble to solve their
: problems rather than human ingenuity.
One of many things that will happen After The Revolution is that Star Trek,
in all its incarnations, will be required to substitute actual babble for
technobabble, so that even the dimmest person can tell why their eyes are
brown. This would result in lines like:
Try to fizzlewink the gobstopper to emit a series of hoohahs.
Captain, we've sustained damage to the primary doohickey.
One of the belts has gone out of skew on treadle.
The thingamabob won't take much more!
And they'll have to be consistent. If there's a 'whatsit' in an episode that
does X, it will always do X.
That and they'll have to explain why the starboard power coupling on the
Enterprise-D keeps failing. Can't they take care of that?
Jim
James S. Coleman Battista
PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
james.b...@duke.edu
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man -- J. Springfield
Brian Davis
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
> Babylon 5 is cool, and The Outer Limits is MUCH, MUCH better than
> that.
Agree.
> (Note: Outer Limits has some really dumb science episodes also, but
> other people write episodes that make a lot of sense - and ALL the
> episodes are beautifully produced, often with beautiful alien scenery
> and excellent acting. Absolute Best: "The Quality of Mercy"; very
> close runner up, "The Resurrection". Oddly, neither depends much on
> its science.)
Not that odd. Science can support good writing, but does not replace
it. They are great stories, and are well produced, period. People are,
after all, what most shows/stories are about.
The only (succesful) exception I can think of are stories by Hal
Clement, where the physics, chemistry, and science are very important,
and (IMHO) can stand on it's own.
-Brian Davis
Timothy J. Miller
GeneK <ge...@genek.com> writes:
> Because physical materials don't disappear when someone trips over a
> power cord...?
When's the last time you saw a Trek power lead outside of a
laboratory scene?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Timothy J. Miller
tsal...@beta.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) writes:
> The only problematic areas would be the eyes and the various body
> openings, and Borg prosthetics could probably deal with these
> problems - there might be an extra lens over the one "natural"-looking
> eye, and some protection in the mouth and the rectum, neither of
> which would need to fulfil its original function. Ears would
> either be sealed or then eardrums removed for pressure equalization.
Why bother with all the machinations? Borg have personal
shields; use 'em.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Mdg
I always wondered why they depend on force fields to hold prisoners in the
brig. One slight power fluctuation and the evil villain is loose. It's
happened in a number of episodes. Besides it's a waste of power unless the
prisoner requires more exotic means of captivity.
Mdg
GeneK wrote in message <35209346...@genek.com>...
>Because physical materials don't disappear when someone trips over a
>power cord...?
>
Timothy J. Miller
wo...@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
> Details of specific episodes should be fun to take apart too,
> those are just the ever present nonsensical bits.
What was the one in ST:TOS *and* ST:TNG with the "polymerized
water" making people go all goofy?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Timothy J. Miller
"Mdg" <M...@nospam.com> writes:
> I always wondered why they depend on force fields to hold prisoners in the
> brig. One slight power fluctuation and the evil villain is loose. It's
> happened in a number of episodes. Besides it's a waste of power unless the
> prisoner requires more exotic means of captivity.
This is part of my point: inconsistent use of tech. If Trek
force fields are reliable enough to use as *WINDOWS* fer chris'sake, why
not employ them reasonably in other applications?
If they're not reliable enough, WTF are they being used as
*WINDOWS*?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Alpine
Brian Davis wrote:
>
> The only (succesful) exception I can think of are stories by Hal
> Clement, where the physics, chemistry, and science are very important,
> and (IMHO) can stand on it's own.
Being fully well aware that Hel Clemet is a god amoungst writers, I
don't think he alone fits into that category. If you ask me, that
ability to the very deffinition of science fiction, while the rest
of the stuff bearing that genre falls by the way-side.
Alpine
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
> Star Trek (any flavour) shouldn't really call itself science fiction.
Agreed.
Troy_...@hotmail.com
In article <6fouhh$4pg$2...@news.smart.net>,
bada...@smart.net (Philip Plait) wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.sf.science Troy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Trek folks consult ONE person: Okuda. He's a former engineer turned
> > technical advisor.
>
> Space Flight Centre recently that I attended. He understands that science
> gets stretched to the breaking point in ST, and does his best to make
> sure it doesn't go beyond that. However, he does not have veto power;
Really? That's news to me. It USED to be Okuda... the guy who wrote the tech
manual.
> Anyone who has seen my website knows about my feelings dealing with
> Hollywood and astronomy. Yet I freely admit that I grew up watching
> bad 1950's rocketship movies, yet I managed to become a professional
> astronomer. Those movies actually sparked my imagination, so I think
> it's important that those movies get made. I just wish some producers
> would do even a minimal amount of research...
Agreed. And less emphasis on special effects. The story is the important
thing.
Troy
Ann Zewen
Alpine wrote in message <352120BD...@unm.edu>...
>Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>
>> Star Trek (any flavour) shouldn't really call itself science fiction.
>
>Agreed.
>
Actually, Star Trek was never really intended to be science fiction. It was
supposed to be morality plays set in a science fiction setting. At it's
best, it still is.
Ann Zewen
an...@mindspring.com
WWS
> openings, and Borg prosthetics could probably deal with these
> problems - there might be an extra lens over the one "natural"-looking
> eye, and some protection in the mouth and the rectum, neither of
> which would need to fulfil its original function. Ears would
> either be sealed or then eardrums removed for pressure equalization.
>
I can accept this is all probably true. I was one of the first ones in
line for Star Trek: The Movie, for heavens sake. What happened to me
was that I had really wanted to like First Contact, but after seeing
everything I had thought about the Trek universe turned on its head for
a supposedly neat plot (hive mind, gratuitous time travel, instantaneous
borg conversion, how the hell does Cochran actually land a converted
ICBM? Picard does an early version of his Captain Ahab and calls Worf a
coward, Worf proves it by not killing him on the spot) I never could
stand to watch it a second time.
So a lot of my first impressions are probably in error. But I felt
betrayed, even more so than after Generations. (why the hell didn't he
save everyone the trouble and just fly a small ship into the Nexus,
which is how he got into it in the first place? He can blow up a star
but not rent a ship for the afternoon?)
--
_______________________________________________________WWS______________________
Alpine
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> This is the part that justifies the YAWN(TM) comment. The teenager from
> a high school physics class would be wrong. A bag of leather has no
> problem in coping with the vacuum and temperature extremes of space.
Not entierly true. While leather would hold a pressure against a vacuum
for a time, it'll shatter the moment you try to move it since it's
hovering around a 0.01 degree difference between freezeing and boiling.
Another problem is that I suspect that a leathery organic material would
sublimate in a vacuum in much the same fashion that alumunium and some
ceramics would. That would a constant weakening process beginning from
the instant of exposure.
The final problem is that while skin is a fairly decent pressure
container, it's not an impermiable gas bag. The moment the borg
setpped out into a vacuum and the surounding pressure reduced to
zero, all the fliuds in their organic members would begint to
boil out, and what was left would freeze, introducing the fragility
problem.
Since in the (ho-ho) climax, the borg were destroyed by liquifying
their organic components, it is clear that they cannot survive
with out them. I suggest that a vacuum is far to harsh an
enviornment for them to just 'take a stroll.'
However, it's useful to note that in more than one science fiction
novel (specifically, the Jupiter Theft by Donald Moffitt) all of
this was overcome by a transparent spay that coated the skin
preventing all these problems by providing the pressure barrier
and protection from direct exposure to vacuum. I find that to be
a plausiable solution, but it doen't involve enough wonder particles
for ST to have givien it a second thought.
GeneK
Gene Roddenberry sold TOS to NBC as an "action-adventure" series in
a futuristic setting, not an SF "genre" series. His constant mantra
to his writers was that they should be writing stories about PEOPLE,
and not about technology. The technology of Trek was supposed to be
portrayed as so ordinary to its characters that they never bothered
to talk much about the way it worked. Scotty never inundated Kirk
with long monologues about warp bubbles or frammistat particles, he
just said "My engines canna take much more," and Kirk never told
Scotty to reconfigure the warp power conduits to enhance the Feinberg
genrators, he just said "Hold it together, Scotty." Roddenberry once
wrote in his Writer's Guide, "If you say the characters behave the way
they do because it's science fiction, don't call us, we'll call you."
GeneK
GeneK
I taped FC off cable. My rewatching is pretty much limited to a small
part that begins when Data says, "To hell with our orders," and ends
with the explosion of the Borg cube.
GeneK
Brian Davis
Alpine wrote:
>
> Brian Davis wrote:
> >
> > The only (succesful) exception I can think of are stories by Hal
> > Clement, where the physics, chemistry, and science are very
> > important, and (IMHO) can stand on it's own.
>
> don't think he alone fits into that category.
What I was implying is that Clement, (and some others, such as
Anderson), have written stories in which the setting or planet is
esentially the main character - the interpersonal relationships between
human being (or vitual carbon copies, as are most of the aliens in Star
Trek) are not the focus of the stories.
> If you ask me, that ability to the very definition of science
> fiction, while the rest of the stuff bearing that genre falls by the
> way-side.
I also prefer "hard" SF, but obviously many don't consider it
neccessary or sufficient - witness Star Trek.
-Brian Davis
PS- Star Trek explores interpersonal relationships just fine - this is
why I enjoy it on occassion, and why it was originally produced ("wagon
train to the stars"). But it does not make it good science.
Philip Plait
In rec.arts.sf.science WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Established - Borg have living flesh on their bodies.
> Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
> their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
(someone already mentioned it's plasma, not some freezing agent)
> But do they need helmets in space? Noooooo, its just a sunday stroll in
> the park, must be about 70 or 80 degrees out there in that balmy vacuum
> of space.
Actually, since they are in Earth orbit, the temperature in
sunlight would be about the freezing point of water. When they are in
Earth shadow, they would have a serious radiative cooling
problem! ;-) But it's the pressure that's a problem, not the
temperature!
> So where were the wonderful science advisers on this one? Or was this
> the day they decided there was just no point in pulling their heads out
> of their butts and coming up for air anymore?
Like the awful movie "Asteroid", Star Trek has a science advisor, but
sometimes TPTB ignore their advice if the story demands it. Such
is Hollywood.
* * * * * The Bad Astronomer * * * *
Phil Plait bada...@smart.net
The Bad Astronomy Web Page: http://smart.net/~badastro/bad.html
atomic...@toast.net
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:11:41 -0800, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
wrote:
>Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
>
>> I recall seeing part of a Voyager episode where somebody got "mutated"
>> into a giant salamander, then restored through the use of some physics
>> gadget to annihilate the wrong DNA... (I only stopped on the channel
>> when
>> seeing that weirdness, I *do not* watch that program...)
>
>There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
>devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
>character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
>spider. He evolved from spiders?
>
How about the bonehead episode of Voyager called "The 37's,"
wherein the Voyager picks up a 30's vintage truck in deep space....not
only is there air in the tires (why didn't they blow in the
vacuum????) but Janeway whiffs the manure in the back of the truck bed
(which would have had all moisture leached out of it by said vacuum,
making it VERY difficult to smell) AND THE BATTERY IS CHARGED!!!
Anybody who lives in an area that goes below freezing even
occasionally knows that batteries freeze and break even at 0 degrees
F, how about almost 0 degrees kelvin??
And then they fire up the truck's radio, powered by said battery,
which begins picking up AM broadcasts from a 'nearby' planet! Boy
they must a had some good receivers back in the thirties, to get
through the ionosphere of the planet, background radiation in space,
and through the hull of Voyager!
Then, crowning glory, they turn the key and the engine CRANKS.
Perhaps a Hollywood pinhead who's never been out of the valley
wouldn't realize what cold does to a car engine, but surely these
'science experts' would! This is the episode of Voyager that made me
kiss Star Drek goodbye.
Mr. Wonderful
tomlinson
atomic...@toast.net wrote:
: How about the bonehead episode of Voyager called "The 37's,"
: wherein the Voyager picks up a 30's vintage truck in deep space....not
: only is there air in the tires (why didn't they blow in the
: vacuum????)...
If a tire can withstand 14 psi (one atmosphere) of overinflation
here, in atmospheric pressure, then it won't explode in vacuum.
There's nothing magic about vacuum _per se_.
The question to ask is, could a rubber tire (probably vulcanised
natural rubber, at that) withstand bitter cold? exposure to UV
(if it were near a star)? the rapid heating to room temperature?
No, no, and no, of course.
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson | http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~et
-------------------------------------------------------
"Pone seram, cohibe." Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Cauta est, et ab illis incipit uxor. (Not exactly a high-
minded warning against political tyranny, is it?)
Timothy J. Miller
atomic...@toast.net writes:
> Then, crowning glory, they turn the key and the engine CRANKS.
> Perhaps a Hollywood pinhead who's never been out of the valley
> wouldn't realize what cold does to a car engine, but surely these
> 'science experts' would! This is the episode of Voyager that made me
> kiss Star Drek goodbye.
Perhaps we should send the science advisor email documentation on
the vapor pressure of 10W-40 motor oil.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Daniel Silevitch
In article <Pine.A41.3.96a.98033...@dante21.u.washington.edu>,
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>to discredit it. Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers
>*do* consult with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out
>is why their flaws are few and far between, and when they *do* occur,
>they're esoteric and typically take some physics student to discover.
Esoteric? Hah. Star Trek is the home of some of the most blatant science
errors that have ever appeared on TV or film. These errors range from
vaguely subtle to blatant, in-your-face wrongness.
Anyone who disagrees is hereby invited to watch "Threshold" and explain
the portrayal of the biology therein.
Star Trek's science is on the same level as season 2 Seaquest for realism.
-dms
Timothy J. Miller
dms...@eta.pha.jhu.edu (Daniel Silevitch) writes:
> Esoteric? Hah. Star Trek is the home of some of the most blatant science
> errors that have ever appeared on TV or film. These errors range from
> vaguely subtle to blatant, in-your-face wrongness.
>
> Anyone who disagrees is hereby invited to watch "Threshold" and explain
> the portrayal of the biology therein.
-300 degrees Celcius comes to mind ("Hotel <mumble>", IIRC,
ST:TNG).
(For those that don't know, -300C == -27 Kelvins; this is
impossible *by definition* as 0 Kelvin is AKA absolute zero.)
Isn't this the same one with the "geostationary orbit over the
pole"?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
John Trauger
> Esoteric? Hah. Star Trek is the home of some of the most blatant science
> errors that have ever appeared on TV or film. These errors range from
> vaguely subtle to blatant, in-your-face wrongness.
I mentioned in another post Voyager's depiction of a gas giant with a
class-M *ring* *system*...
You don't need to know more than the basics of astronomy to know what
complete crap this is.
Mr. Jones is, I'm afraid, fighting a VERY hopeless battle in trying to
convince us that Franchise Trek hews closely to science and plausability.
> Star Trek's science is on the same level as season 2 Seaquest for
realism.
There was a real pity. That season started out so well, went downhill so
fast.
Alan Exelby
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Oh. It doesn't take a physics student to spot the nonsense in:
>
> - the transporter
> - Warp drive
> - gravity inside space ships
> - the supposed need to use your ship's drive to keep in an orbit
> - "dilithium crystals"
> - human-looking aliens
Throughout history, serious and respectable scientists have said things
have been impossible, which others have then gone out and invented/
discovered. They said man could never fly, they said man could never fly
supersonic, they said man could never leave the earth's atmosphere, they
said man could never land on the moon. In all these cases, 'they' refers
to scientists or engineers; and in all these cases, they were wrong. It
is ludicrous arrogance to assume that something is impossible just
because we do not know at the moment how to do it. A form of
superluminal travel, a matter-transference technology, gravity fields:
all of these *might* indeed never be invented (or take much longer to
develop than the time-frame available in the ST universe), but only a
fool would say they never *will* be invented.
--
Alan Exelby. E-mail: a.ex...@uea.ac.uk
"... do as little harm as possible. We are creatures of a universe in
which entropy exists, and therefore see no way of escape, but we do not
have to help it".
GeneK
The very best episodes of Star Trek always seem to be kind of like
artichokes, you start out with a conventional looking action-adventure
or space opera sort of yarn, then peel away the layers to discover
that it talks to different issues on different levels. It's too bad
that so many people watching them see only what's obvious and don't
appreciate what's not, they're missing out on what it was that made
Star Trek such a phenomenon in the first place.
GeneK
Erik Curtis
One possibility beyond the spray coating is the use of a personal shield.
We have seen the borg adapt to phaser fire by activating a personal shield
strong enough to deflect it. Since we know that the ST universe also
contains shields that block the passage of air it is resonable to assume
that the borg could have (although there is no indication of this) adapted
to include a bubble of air for them to work in.
In contrast, when the borg are hit with the plasma coolant they are all
wiped out at once. They have no time to realize that they are in danger and
devise a defense against it. It seems that the borg require about 5-10
seconds to adapt to new dangers and they had much less time than that in the
final scene of ST:8
Alpine wrote in message:
[snip]
Alan D Kohler
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:49:45 GMT, atomic...@toast.net wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:11:41 -0800, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
>>There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
>>devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
>>character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
>>spider. He evolved from spiders?
>>
>
>
> How about the bonehead episode of Voyager called "The 37's,"
>wherein the Voyager picks up a 30's vintage truck in deep space....not
>only is there air in the tires (why didn't they blow in the
>vacuum????)
Let's see. If we inflate tires to 30 psid (d=differential), and
atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi, the total absolute pressure (and
hence, differential pressure in a vacuum) is about 45 psid. I find it
pretty credible that tires could remain inflated in space... at least
for a short time... especially if those tires were a little low to
begin with.
But in general, I must agree with you. The forerunner in the grand
Trek tradition in science tragedies has to be Voyager. I was
especially repulsed when I heard about (not watched; I had lost the
stomach to watch ST:V long before this episode...) the voyager
slipping through a "crack" in an event horizon...
Puh-lease. That one certain left any science credibility of the show
dead on the table.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages(3/6/98):
SAGE free net SFRPG system!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
SF: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/SFRPG.html
Alan D Kohler
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:39:40 +0000, Alan Exelby <A.Ex...@uea.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
>> Oh. It doesn't take a physics student to spot the nonsense in:
>>
>> - the transporter
>> - Warp drive
>> - gravity inside space ships
>> - the supposed need to use your ship's drive to keep in an orbit
>> - "dilithium crystals"
>> - human-looking aliens
>
>Throughout history, serious and respectable scientists have said things
>have been impossible, which others have then gone out and invented/
>discovered. They said man could never fly, they said man could never fly
>supersonic, they said man could never leave the earth's atmosphere, they
>said man could never land on the moon. In all these cases, 'they' refers
>to scientists or engineers; and in all these cases, they were wrong. It
>is ludicrous arrogance to assume that something is impossible just
>because we do not know at the moment how to do it. A form of
>superluminal travel, a matter-transference technology, gravity fields:
>all of these *might* indeed never be invented (or take much longer to
>develop than the time-frame available in the ST universe), but only a
>fool would say they never *will* be invented.
While in general I agree with this viewpoint (indeed, it is the one I
typically take whenever FTL debates pop up here,) I don't think this
is a plausible defence for ST in any way. I grew ill of the continuous
space anomolies-that-do-plot-convienient-things writing method common
in the newer ST titles. It is in no way "bold visionaries predicting
the future that ill informed scientists and engineers wrongly
dispute." It _is_ poor screenplay writers who write fantasy, put it in
a plastic-and-steel wrapping, and call it Science Fiction.
Merrick Baldelli
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:02:35 -0600, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>Franklin Hummel wrote:
>
>> Philip Plait <bada...@smart.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
>> >. He must have a very tough job!
>>
>>
>> Something like a prostitute.
>>
>>
>> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
>
>I was thinking that it's nothing that a few belts of old redeye each day
>couldn't help. Especially since that's how the scripts read sometimes!
Oh man!!! I thought for a second there I was in
alt.tv.star-trek.voyager.. It took me a little to realize that I was
actually reading alt.tv.babylon-5. I wonder whether I should
introduce the likes of some of the peeps here with the theory
involving monkeys banging on a keyboard in order to produce scripts or
not...
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 ` mbal...@mindspring.com
(\\\\ \_/ / http://www.mindspring.com/~mbaldelli
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/
/ /
Erik Curtis
Philip Plait wrote
> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>> Established - Borg have living flesh on their bodies.
>> Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
>> their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
>
>(someone already mentioned it's plasma, not some freezing agent)
Actually the substance was identified as "warp plasma coolant". Now, since
plasma is very very hot, I would assume that plasma coolant would have to be
very very cold. However, it is not the temperature that is the issue. It
is stated in the movie that the coolant is corrosive to living tissue.
>
>> But do they need helmets in space? Noooooo, its just a sunday stroll in
>> the park, must be about 70 or 80 degrees out there in that balmy vacuum
>> of space.
>
>Actually, since they are in Earth orbit, the temperature in
>sunlight would be about the freezing point of water. When they are in
>Earth shadow, they would have a serious radiative cooling
>problem! ;-) But it's the pressure that's a problem, not the
>temperature!
You are correct about the pressure being the problem, however we have seen
GeneK
Our definition of "absolute zero" is based on the extreme of what
we can now measure or theorize. While *highly* unlikely, it is not
utterly impossible that someday out in space a phenomenon will be
encountered that is colder than "0 Kelvin." In that event, we will
have 3 options: allow "negative" values on the Kelvin scale, devise
a totally new scale based on the revised "absolute zero," or
recalibrate the Kelvin scale so that "0 Kelvin" corresponds to the new
"coldest" (scientifically ridiculous, but if they can recalibrate the
warp factor scale, why not?), then cross our fingers and hope we don't
encounter something even colder...
GeneK
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <6fqvnd$hdq$1...@hirame.wwa.com> Mdg, M...@nospam.com writes:
>I always wondered why they depend on force fields to hold prisoners in the
>brig. One slight power fluctuation and the evil villain is loose. It's
>happened in a number of episodes. Besides it's a waste of power unless the
>prisoner requires more exotic means of captivity.
And while we're at it, how about SURVEILLANCE?
I mean, your average Star Trek episode includes people talking to each
other through a prison force field about how to escape, and nobody is
EVER listening, even in the most evil Kardassian captivity! It's not
just Star Trek, I might add - I've FREQUENTLY, even with my rather
sporadic observation of television, seen cases where I think, "If those
people at the evil spy headquarters had Caller ID, these people would be
TOAST..."
I cannot see a logical explanation, short of presuming that Hollywood
writers are literally PROHIBITED from writing about surveillance, in the
same way that they are not allowed to use drug humor any more.
Indeed, I think the main problem with Voyager is just that it's so chock
full of corporo-utopian super-law-slave-subservience type propaganda that
they don't have time for anything else.
By contrast, look at something I WISH WERE SCIENCE FICTION:
4 February 1998
Source: Hardcopy from STOA, Luxembourg
Thanks to Axel Horns, Ulf Möller and STOA
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT (STOA)
AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL
Working document
(Consultation version)
Luxembourg, 6 January 1998
PE 166 499
Directorate General for Research
Cataloguing data:
Title: An appraisal of technologies for political control
Publisher:
European Parliament
Directorate General for Research
Directorate B
The STOA Programme
Author: Mr. Steve Wright - Omega Foundation - Manchester
Editor:
Mr. Dick Holdsworth
Head of STOA Unit
Date: 6 January 1998
PE Number: PE 166 499
This document is a working document. The current version is being
circulated for consultation. It is not an official publication of STOA or
of the European Parliament.
This document does not necessarily represent the views of the European
Parliament.
4.4 National & International Communications Interceptions Networks
Modern communications systems are virtually transparent to the advanced
interceptions equipment which can be used to listen in. Some systems
even lend themselves to a dual role as a national interceptions network.
For example the message switching system used on digital exchanges like
System X in the UK supports an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
Protocol. This allows digital devices, e.g. fax to share the system with
existing lines. The ISDN subset is defined in their documents as
"Signalling CCITT1-series interface for ISDN access. What is not widely
known is that built in to the international CCITT protocol is the ability
to take phones 'off hook' and listen into conversations occurring near
the phone, without the user being aware that it is happening. (SGR
Newsletter, No.4, 1993) This effectively means that a national dial up
telephone tapping capacity is built into these systems from the start.
(System X has been exported to Russia & China) Similarly, the digital
technology required to pinpoint mobile phone users for incoming calls,
means that all mobile phone users in a country when activated, are
mini-tracking devices, giving their owners whereabouts at any time and
stored in the company's computer for up to two years. Coupled with System
X technology, this is a custom built mobile track, tail and tap system
par excellence.(Sunday Telegraph, 2.2.97).
Within Europe, all email, telephone and fax communications are routinely
intercepted by the United States National Security Agency, transferring
all target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub
of London then by Satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland via the crucial hub
at Menwith Hill in the North York Moors of the UK. The system was first
uncovered in the 1970's by a group of researchers in the UK (Campbell,
1981). The researchers used open sources but were subsequently arrested
under Britain's Official Secrets legislation. The 'ABC' trial that
followed was a critical turning point in researcher's understanding both
of the technology of political control and how it might be challenged by
research on open sources.(See Aubrey,1981 & Hooper 1987) Other work on
what is now known as Signals intelligence was undertaken by researchers
such as James Bamford, which uncovered a billion dollar world wide
interceptions network, which he nicknamed 'Puzzle Palace'. A recent work
by Nicky Hager, Secret Power, (Hager,1996) provides the most
comprehensive details to date of a project known as ECHELON. Hager
interviewed more than 50 people concerned with intelligence to document a
global surveillance system that stretches around the world to form a
targeting system on all of the key Intelsat satellites used to convey
most of the world's satellite phone calls, internet, email, faxes and
telexes. These sites are based at Sugar Grove and Yakima, in the USA, at
Waihopai in New Zealand, at Geraldton in Australia, Hong Kong, and
Morwenstow in the UK.
The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the
electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed
for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and
businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by
indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and
then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids
like Memex. to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US
as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada,
New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information
servicers.
Each of the five centres supply "dictionaries" to the other four of
keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged intercept is
forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much
information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of
economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries
participating in the GATT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the
main priorities of this system continued to be military and political
intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from
a"highly placed intelligence operatives" who spoke to the Observer in
London. "We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we
regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in
which we operate." They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three
charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. "At any
time GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target
request," the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure
is known as Mantis. With telexes its called Mayfly. By keying in a code
relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex
"fixes" on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it
is difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a
target.
In February, The UK based research publication Statewatch reported that
the EU had secretly agreed to set up an international telephone tapping
network via a secret network of committees established under the "third
pillar" of the Mastricht Treaty covering co-operation on law and order.
Key points of the plan are outlined in a memorandum of understanding,
signed by EU states in 1995.(ENFOPOL 112 10037/95 25.10.95) which remains
classified. According to a Guardian report (25.2.97) it reflects concern
among European Intelligence agencies that modern technology will prevent
them from tapping private communications. "EU countries it says, should
agree on "international interception standards set at a level that would
ensure encoding or scrambled words can be broken down by government
agencies." Official reports say that the EU governments agreed to
co-operate closely with the FBI in Washington. Yet earlier minutes of
these meetings suggest that the original initiative came from Washington.
According to Statewatch, network and service providers in the EU will be
obliged to install "tappable" systems and to place under surveillance any
person or group when served with an interception order. These plans have
never been referred to any European government for scrutiny, nor one
suspects to the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament,
despite the clear civil liberties issues raised by such an unaccountable
system. We are told that the USA, Australia, Canada, Norway and Hong Kong
are ready to sign up. All these bar Norway are parties to the ECHELON
system and it is impossible to determine if there are not other agendas
at work here. Nothing is said about finance of this system but a report
produced by the German government estimates that the mobile phone part of
the package alone will cost 4
billion D-marks.
Statewatch concludes that "It is the interface of the ECHELON system and
its potential development on phone calls combined with the
standardisation of "tappable communications centres and equipment being
sponsored by the EU and the USA which presents a truly global threat over
which there are no legal or democratic controls."(Press release 25.2.97)
Riboflavin
Alan Exelby wrote in message <352154...@uea.ac.uk>...
>Throughout history, serious and respectable scientists have said things
>have been impossible, which others have then gone out and invented/
>discovered. They said man could never fly, they said man could never fly
>supersonic, they said man could never leave the earth's atmosphere, they
>said man could never land on the moon. In all these cases, 'they' refers
>to scientists or engineers; and in all these cases, they were wrong.
So, if for the sake of argument, I'll assume that trek is really trying to
predict stuff (instead of just making things up). Then, why isn't it
consistent? Why is there a trick that is used to save the world in one
episode, but then never remembered? The most glaring example of this is the
time when they used transporter records to reconstruct a dead person, but
never did so again. And why do they never fully use their technology? They
can replicate any item (they can copy the biological molecules in food) yet
they use trade goods and build individual items.
Just the inconsistencies make the science impossible to take seriously, and
that's not even touching on the fact that most of the technology is in the
realm of fantasy, not science.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply.
"I have more money tied up in [computer] books I don't understand
than I have in my car." -Kanigit <key...@horizon.hit.net>
Alpine
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> > >this was overcome by a transparent spay
>
> screaming by now. :-)
You know, if there's one thing I'll be able to say from my gave, it's
that most of my typoes occured in the most entertaining places.
Nyrath the nearly wise
Timothy J. Miller wrote:
>
> GeneK <ge...@genek.com> writes:
> > Because physical materials don't disappear when someone trips over a
> > power cord...?
> When's the last time you saw a Trek power lead outside of a
> laboratory scene?
I remember an amusing scene in the ST:TOS episode "The Ultimate
Computer". The computer is drawing its power from some sort
of energy beam projector in a glorified wall socket.
Kirk tells a hapless technician to disconnect the M-5, and
the computer reacts by upping the amperage of the beam
several hundred times and vaporizing the technician.
Timothy J. Miller
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> writes:
> It's too bad
> that so many people watching them see only what's obvious and don't
> appreciate what's not, they're missing out on what it was that made
> Star Trek such a phenomenon in the first place.
I *love* Trek. I've been watching it as long as I can recall.
*BUT*--
The origination of this thread was the claim that Trek is a model
of hard science-- more to the point, that any science errors in Trek are
in "esoteric fields" that require "physics students" to detect.
It's not true. Never was true, except that in ST:TOS the writers
had the wit to keep the tech "explainations" to an absolute minimum. The
rest of the thread have been *rife* with blatant Trek science errors;
things as simple as not knowing the Celcius scale.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Timothy J. Miller
"Erik Curtis" <cur...@rhn.orst.edu> writes:
> Actually the substance was identified as "warp plasma coolant". Now, since
> plasma is very very hot, I would assume that plasma coolant would have to be
> very very cold.
Nope-- just have a *really* high heat capacity.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
WWS
Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:02:35 -0600, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
> >Franklin Hummel wrote:
> >
> >> Philip Plait <bada...@smart.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
> >> >. He must have a very tough job!
> >>
> >>
> >> Something like a prostitute.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
> >
> >I was thinking that it's nothing that a few belts of old redeye each day
> >couldn't help. Especially since that's how the scripts read sometimes!
>
> Oh man!!! I thought for a second there I was in
> alt.tv.star-trek.voyager.. It took me a little to realize that I was
> actually reading alt.tv.babylon-5. I wonder whether I should
> introduce the likes of some of the peeps here with the theory
> involving monkeys banging on a keyboard in order to produce scripts or
> not...
I remember the theory. But I think most of the wonderful scripts that have
been discussed here only involved one monkey banging on a keyboard.....
_________________________________________________________WWS__________
WWS
Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
> Timothy Jones wrote
> >. On balance, Trek comes out with a hefty lead, thanks ever so.
>
> Timmy Boy, you should have snipped the rec.arts.sf.science thread away. Now
> there are approx 20 people telling you exactly how full of it you really
> are.
>
> Game Timmy Boy, Game.
Oooh, I went back and looked up the headers. Plain and Simple Cronan did
something devious and diabolical.Timmy, have you figured it out yet?
As they say in Mortal Combat, "Flawless Victory!"
________________________________________________________WWS____________
WWS
GeneK wrote:
> Gene Roddenberry sold TOS to NBC as an "action-adventure" series in
> a futuristic setting, not an SF "genre" series. His constant mantra
> to his writers was that they should be writing stories about PEOPLE,
> and not about technology. The technology of Trek was supposed to be
> portrayed as so ordinary to its characters that they never bothered
> to talk much about the way it worked. Scotty never inundated Kirk
> with long monologues about warp bubbles or frammistat particles, he
> just said "My engines canna take much more," and Kirk never told
> Scotty to reconfigure the warp power conduits to enhance the Feinberg
> genrators, he just said "Hold it together, Scotty." Roddenberry once
> wrote in his Writer's Guide, "If you say the characters behave the way
> they do because it's science fiction, don't call us, we'll call you."
And this is a damn good set of guidelines for writing good drama in a
futuristic setting. The ironic part is that the current batch of Star Trek
writers ( and Braga is my personal bete noire) seem to have fogotten about
this entirely, while JMS over on B5 has embraced it.
______________________________________________________WWS______________
WWS
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
By contrast, look at something I WISH WERE SCIENCE FICTION:
> Five nations share the results with the US
> as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada,
> New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information
> servicers.
>
I'm offended. I can't believe we're sharing the data with 5 OTHER COUNTRIES.
I'm a taxpayer, I paid for that data fair and square.
Typical Brits, mooching off US tech again.
_____________________________________________________WWS_____________
Anduin
Wayne Throop wrote:
> :: Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
> :: Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers *do* consult
> :: with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out of
> :: their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
>
> "Stationary orbit over the north pole."
Couldn't you do that? Sure, it would take huge amounts of energy to keep
from falling, but other than that...
You were correct on everything else.
--
______________________________________________________________________
-Anduin http://home.earthlink.net/~anduin
"Face it, if crime did not pay,
there would be very few criminals."
-Laughton Lewis Burdock
______________________________________________________________________
Anduin
atomic...@toast.net wrote:
> How about the bonehead episode of Voyager called "The 37's,"
> wherein the Voyager picks up a 30's vintage truck in deep space....not
> only is there air in the tires (why didn't they blow in the
> vacuum????) but Janeway whiffs the manure in the back of the truck bed
> (which would have had all moisture leached out of it by said vacuum,
> making it VERY difficult to smell) AND THE BATTERY IS CHARGED!!!
> Anybody who lives in an area that goes below freezing even
> occasionally knows that batteries freeze and break even at 0 degrees
> F, how about almost 0 degrees kelvin??
Let's take it further -- Paris actually STARTED it! *I* couldn't have
started it _today_. I'd have lost my mind trying to find the keys or the
crankshaft, yet good ol' Paris starts it 400 years after it was made.
> And then they fire up the truck's radio, powered by said battery,
> which begins picking up AM broadcasts from a 'nearby' planet! Boy
> they must a had some good receivers back in the thirties, to get
> through the ionosphere of the planet, background radiation in space,
> and through the hull of Voyager!
The don't make 'em like they used to :)
> Then, crowning glory, they turn the key and the engine CRANKS.
> Perhaps a Hollywood pinhead who's never been out of the valley
> wouldn't realize what cold does to a car engine, but surely these
> 'science experts' would! This is the episode of Voyager that made me
> kiss Star Drek goodbye.
And, after being in the cold of space, would *you* sit in it and touch it
with your unprotected hand(s)?
Gharlane of Eddore
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
>
> I recall seeing part of a Voyager episode where somebody got "mutated"
> into a giant salamander, then restored through the use of some physics
> gadget to annihilate the wrong DNA... (I only stopped on the channel
> when seeing that weirdness, I *do not* watch that program...)
In <3520A53D...@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>
> There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
> devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
> character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
> spider. He evolved from spiders?
>
EMF is referring to the TNG episode, "GENESIS," which was "written," if
I might employ so grandiose a term for such a piece of garbage, by
Brannon Braga. Note that this turkey of a script was directed by
McFadden, the *only* script they allowed her to direct during her
years on the show, thus clearly demonstrating what kind of regard the
show's management had for a highly competent lady who could have given
them a topflight episode if they hadn't (apparently purposely) hamstrung
her by sticking her with crud scriptwork.
TTT is referring to the "VOYAGER" script, "THRESHOLD," which was "written,"
if I might employ so grandiose a term for such a piece of garbage, by
Brannon Braga, who seems to be as happy recycling his own work as he is
recycling that of other folks.
Both of these pieces of trash clearly demonstrate why Brannon Braga
should not be allowed near a set, a script, or a TV production; he
is unutterably ignorant of science, art, writing, and probably how
many toes he has, presuming he actually *has* legs and doesn't just
ooze along on a trail of slime. Braga and Taylor are the two worst
things to happen to the "TREK" Franchise in three decades, and I
find it highly amusing that with Taylor's departure, Braga appears
slated to become the show-runner on "VOYAGER."
The idea of making a 1.5-megabuck/episode TV series with someone
like Braga in the driver's seat is mind-bogglingly macabre, and
clear evidence that some studio honcho has an I.Q. that might not
measure as high as the double digits.
Note that Lolita Fatjo is on record as having stated, in public,
that she doesn't understand the antipathy toward Braga, since
"He's one of our *best* writers!" She is obviously not terribly
familiar with the concept of SF, or even just good writing.
My suggestion: Turn off anything with "TREK" in the title, and
watch tapes of first-year "TINY TOONS ADVENTURES." Superb
writing, excellent acting and direction. The FX are better, too.
N.B.: Concerning "arachnid DNA" .... you're quite right.. There
are NO spiders in the human family tree, and activation of
randomly selected introns or inactive DNA code would *NOT*
result in Barclay metamorphosing into a spider.
Frank Sinatra, perhaps; Dwight Schultz can do a *great*
Sinatra.
====================================================================
|| ||
|| " The VOYAGER pilot is *$23 million*?! ||
|| ||
|| With $23 million, we could make 1.3 SEASONS of B5. ||
|| ||
|| And have a bit of money left over for a wrap party. " ||
|| ||
|| --- Joseph Michael Straczynski, "BABYLON 5" ||
|| Producer/Writer, before he realized a friend ||
|| was producing "VOYAGER." ||
|| ||
====================================================================
Gharlane of Eddore
AL> Fantasy technology does not mean better technology.
Timothy Jones broggulated vleenishly:
>
> Tell *that* to the star wars crowd. *I* argue strictly on Starfleet's
> *common* and everyday *standard* technology, not on the one-shot
> innovations used for only a single crisis...i.e., *NOT* on the so-called
> technobabble. {which BTW, as least *they* pass by real scientists! Feh!
> "Technobabble" my ass!.}
>
Ha. Ha, I say, HAH.
(note: in subsequent entry, "<...>" denotes replaced adjective or adverb.
Verbs have been corrected to preserve numerical agreement with
subject pronouns. Minor spelling corrections have occurred.)
In <6fmrp0$sce$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
"Plain and Simple Cronan" <cro...@DeathsDoor.com> writes:
>
> This is a "<Nixoning> lie".
> [as opposed to a "stupid lie," a "<LBJ'd>-up lie" and a "presidential lie."]
> They do not pass it by real scientists.
> The science advisors are told, "We are going to do this."
> They say, "<Klinton> you!"
> Braga says, "Here's your money."
> They say, "<Klinton> you?"
> Taylor says, "Here's the rest of your money."
> The science advisors say, "<Klinton> you."
> The science advisors go and buy cars.
> They cry all that night in guilt.
>
Very close to reality; but what *actually* happens is, they say,
"Don't make waves, and we'll buy a script from you in addition
to your consultant's salary."
(Note how well this worked for Naren Shankar, who came up with
one of TNG's few actual-SF scripts.... and then blew his
respectablitity out of the water by getting a gig on "SinkQuest,"
writing schlock, and moving from there to a certain Canadian
production which shall remain nameless.)
(Andre Bormanis seems to have gotten the same deal; note the
thoroughly nonsensical "VOYAGER" script that recently appeared
with his name on it.... )
In Old Trek we heard about an amplifier that amplified by a
factor of "one to the tenth power;" and in TNG we heard about
temperatures in the negative numbers on the Kelvin scale, and
we heard a purported mathematician discussing "asymptomatic"
functions. In "VOYAGER," we heard about "breaking through"
a black hole's event horizon as though it were some kind
of penetrable barrier. In both TNG and "VOYAGER" we've
been gifted with incredible biological nonsense about
"de-evolution" and magical DNA that does whatever the
so-called "writer" wants, so he can turn the captain
into a monkey, or another captain into a Newt.
"TREK" is *FANTASY*. It's always *been* fantasy, since they
haven't got anyone around the operation who knows enough
science and engineering, or even basic physics and biology,
to help them stay out of the gutter.
It's been *THREE DECADES,* and the so-called writers still
think a ship has to be under power to remain in orbit....
It's *DEAD*, Jim; pull the plug, and ship Braga over to
do teen-angst G-rated sex stories on "BEVERLY HILLS 90210."
That, he could handle, since most of the audience is as
dumb and uneducated as he is. Taylor should be placed
under a court order restricting her from approaching any
keyboard, typewriter or computer, within 200 yards, and
forcibly retired to somewhere with a salubrious climate
and no TV production, no publishers, and no movie studios.
Dan Goodman
In article <352154...@uea.ac.uk>, Alan Exelby <A.Ex...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
>> Oh. It doesn't take a physics student to spot the nonsense in:
>>
>> - the transporter
>> - Warp drive
>> - gravity inside space ships
>> - the supposed need to use your ship's drive to keep in an orbit
>> - "dilithium crystals"
>> - human-looking aliens
>
>have been impossible, which others have then gone out and invented/
>discovered.
That does _not_ cover "need to use your ship's drive to keep in an orbit".
Or a whole lot of other scientific and technological errors. Repeat --
_errors_, not postulated new technology based on new science.
They said man could never fly, they said man could never fly
>supersonic, they said man could never leave the earth's atmosphere, they
>said man could never land on the moon. In all these cases, 'they' refers
>to scientists or engineers; and in all these cases, they were wrong. It
>is ludicrous arrogance to assume that something is impossible just
>because we do not know at the moment how to do it. A form of
>superluminal travel, a matter-transference technology, gravity fields:
>all of these *might* indeed never be invented (or take much longer to
>develop than the time-frame available in the ST universe), but only a
>fool would say they never *will* be invented.
>
>
>--
>Alan Exelby. E-mail: a.ex...@uea.ac.uk
>"... do as little harm as possible. We are creatures of a universe in
>which entropy exists, and therefore see no way of escape, but we do not
>have to help it".
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
T. shena Talese'drin
On 31 Mar 1998 08:49:28 -0600, tmi...@ibm.net (Timothy J. Miller)
wrote:
> What was the one in ST:TOS *and* ST:TNG with the "polymerized
>water" making people go all goofy? <
The one for TOS is called Naked Time. Don't know the TNG ep.
<*>
t...@world.std.com
jim...@acpub.duke.edu (James Battista) writes:
> One of many things that will happen After The Revolution is that Star Trek,
> in all its incarnations, will be required to substitute actual babble for
> technobabble, so that even the dimmest person can tell why their eyes are
> brown. This would result in lines like:
>
> Try to fizzlewink the gobstopper to emit a series of hoohahs.
> Captain, we've sustained damage to the primary doohickey.
> One of the belts has gone out of skew on treadle.
> The thingamabob won't take much more!
I love this idea!
> ... gobstopper ...
From Charlie and the Chocolate factory, which has probably never been
mistaken for science fiction. }:)
Tom
--
When you see a spam, just remember that a spammer is some fool who just
can't believe that if they bother a million people, they'll get fewer
than a dozen interested responses. (Copy this so more wannabe spammers see it)
t...@world.std.com
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
> There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
> devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
> character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
> spider. He evolved from spiders?
Yeah, that was _Genesis_, towards the end of the seventh season. Knowing
it would be the last ST:TNG season, in a gesture of disrespect for their
fans, Braga & company unleashed scripts that would otherwise never have
seen daylight IMO.
Worst part: Introns are real and could not behave like that. They are
basically a mishmash of genetic leftovers, not switches that could turn
you into fish.
st_...@popd.ix.netcom.com
In ST:TNG, there's an ep. devoted to "Quantum Universe", where thousands of
Federations shown up. I think it was about how every decision you make, you
create *another* universe. This "parallel universe" idea means that, if you
change one universe, it'd not necessarily influence or affect other universes
that are occurring at the same time. The question, therefore, is what universe
you enters when you makes a time travel in the ST universe? If you change the
past (ie First Contact) what universe(s) does that decision of time-travel
actually affect? I believe another ST:TNG ep. about time-travel brings another
concept of time-travel into the fray. Single Continuous Timeline, as proposed
by another ST:TNG episode, basically states that everything happens along the
same timeline and if you change the past, it *will* have percussion to its
futuristic events. I cannot provide the titles to the episodes that proposed
those ideas in the first place, but perhaps some die-hard Trekkers can work
their memory a little and know what I'm talking about? I'm not about to discuss
the scientific validality of those timeline theories, because it's safe to say
that they're in the realms of science fantasy. With the amount of
time-traveling done in ST series, these two ideas IMO provided contradictions
to one another. Can this qualifies as inconsistencies within ST universe?
Steven K.
-------------------
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but an habit."
-Aristotle
"There's only one truth about war. People die." -John Sheridan
"We are star-stuff. We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself
out." -Delenn
st_...@popd.ix.netcom.com
On 3/31/98 12:39PM, in message <352154...@uea.ac.uk>, Alan Exelby
<A.Ex...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
> > Oh. It doesn't take a physics student to spot the nonsense in:
> >
> > - the transporter
> > - Warp drive
> > - gravity inside space ships
> > - the supposed need to use your ship's drive to keep in an orbit
> > - "dilithium crystals"
> > - human-looking aliens
>
> Throughout history, serious and respectable scientists have said things
> have been impossible, which others have then gone out and invented/
> discovered. They said man could never fly, they said man could never fly
> supersonic, they said man could never leave the earth's atmosphere, they
> said man could never land on the moon. In all these cases, 'they' refers
> to scientists or engineers; and in all these cases, they were wrong. It
> is ludicrous arrogance to assume that something is impossible just
> because we do not know at the moment how to do it. A form of
> superluminal travel, a matter-transference technology, gravity fields:
> all of these *might* indeed never be invented (or take much longer to
> develop than the time-frame available in the ST universe), but only a
> fool would say they never *will* be invented.
Somehow, I *knew* you would say that. I guess even you cannot argue, using
science as support, that ST has stayed within the law of physics. Of course,
your argument that "just because it hasn't invented doesn't mean it ever will"
has certain merit in it. But if what you say is true, what's there to argue
that X is not scientific viable, if you are allowed to fallback on your
original argument? Just because something that looks and feels remotely like
science doesn't mean it is, even when it is supplied with the right
technobabbles and a thick volume of tech manuel? Teleporter, for instance,
which supposedly could deconstruct any object, living or not, and build an
exact replica on the other side of the planet? Of course, to break down human
body down to atoms and molecules is difficult enough, but to reconstruct it to
perfection, without missing a chromosome or other complex chemicals (including
last night's meal!), is just fantasy to me (to do it in a matter of seconds
notwithstanding). Even cloning sounds timid in comparison. Is this science?
>
>
> --
> Alan Exelby. E-mail: a.ex...@uea.ac.uk
> "... do as little harm as possible. We are creatures of a universe in
> which entropy exists, and therefore see no way of escape, but we do not
> have to help it".
--
DoeBoY2505
><m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>> There was a really awful Next Generation episode where the crew got
>> devolved into their ancestors. Barclay (a one-note, predictable, boring
>> character, but that's not a problem with science) started to turn into a
>> spider. He evolved from spiders?
>
>Yeah, that was _Genesis_, towards the end of the seventh season. Knowing
>it would be the last ST:TNG season, in a gesture of disrespect for their
>fans, Braga & company unleashed scripts that would otherwise never have
>seen daylight IMO.
>
>Worst part: Introns are real and could not behave like that. They are
>basically a mishmash of genetic leftovers, not switches that could turn
>you into fish.
>
>
I don't think that the writers like Humanity that much. In B5 we evolve into
beings of light and on Trek we turn into slugs.
"Well as my great grandfather used to say, cool"
Captain Sheridan War Without End Part I
Franklin Hummel
In article <6fr8h2$gi6$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
Ann Zewen <an...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Alpine wrote in message <352120BD...@unm.edu>...
>>Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>
>>> Star Trek (any flavour) shouldn't really call itself science fiction.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>Actually, Star Trek was never really intended to be science fiction. It was
>supposed to be morality plays set in a science fiction setting. At it's
>best, it still is.
The problem remains, however, that many Trekkies and the general
public believe recent STAR TREK -is- Science Fiction.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Franklin Hummel
>Brian Davis wrote:
>>
>> The only (succesful) exception I can think of are stories by Hal
>> Clement, where the physics, chemistry, and science are very important,
>> and (IMHO) can stand on it's own.
And Harry is a nice guy too.
Colin Campbell
.f...@ibm.net>:
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:
I agree that the inconsistencies are what drive me nuts. What
exactly is a "shield" able to withstand? It varies from episode to
episode depending on plot requirements. Same with ship's speed. I always
liked the way H. Beam Piper and Murray Leinster put some parameters on
their space drives: one light year per hour. It was just as much bullshit
as the Enterprise's warp drive, but at least it was a stable foundation.
Other things in ST:NG are even more screwy than the bad science,
though. In one two-part episode, Picard is captured by the Borg, who use
his knowledge and their technology to slug their way through every
warship of the Federation to within an AU or two of Earth before Our Guys
beat them, and then the next week the Enterprise crew is taking a
well-deserved R&R on Earth, and nobody on Earth remarks on the fact that
20,000 Star Fleet officers have been killed defending the planet. No,
it's just Jon Luc arguing with his relatives at the vineyard.
Dan Flanery
On 31 Mar 1998 07:40:34 GMT, tsal...@beta.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi)
wrote:
>>But do they need helmets in space? Noooooo, its just a sunday stroll in
>>the park, must be about 70 or 80 degrees out there in that balmy vacuum
>>of space. No explanation, not even technobabble to explain this
>>ridiculous scene, like the producers never even thought there was
>>anything unusual about it. This didn't take a scientist to catch, it
>>would just have taken one teenager from a high school physics class to
>>say "Hey Dummies! You're screwing up!"
>
>This is the part that justifies the YAWN(TM) comment. The teenager from
>a high school physics class would be wrong. A bag of leather has no
>problem in coping with the vacuum and temperature extremes of space.
>A Borg skin can very well be approximated with such a bag of leather.
>Even a normal human skin would probably make for a very good spacesuit
>once you let it die on you (which the cybernetic Borg can very well
>afford to do).
Actually, I just assumed the Borg were using their personal shields,
which we've seen in action in other Borg outings, to protect
themselves from the vacuum of space.
Of course, were that the case, why didn't they use those same shields
to protect themselves from the warp coolant?
YATI.
DF
= Remove the "x" from my email address to reply via email
------------------
= Acid,booze and ass
= Needles, guns and grass
= Lots of laughs
= Lots of laughs
=
= Joni Mitchell - Blue
Alpine
Dan Flanery wrote:
>
> Actually, I just assumed the Borg were using their personal shields,
> which we've seen in action in other Borg outings, to protect
> themselves from the vacuum of space.
>
> Of course, were that the case, why didn't they use those same shields
> to protect themselves from the warp coolant?
Just a thought: if those shields can exert enough force to contain
atmosphereic atoms moving at rifle bullet speeds, when why can
someone walk up to them with a bat and beat them to a pulp?
Alpine
WWS wrote:
>
> Oooh, I went back and looked up the headers. Plain and Simple Cronan did
> something devious and diabolical.Timmy, have you figured it out yet?
> As they say in Mortal Combat, "Flawless Victory!"
>
I also find it odd that someone who was so sure that he was right
has suddenly dissapeared from my reader. Not that I'm complaining,
but I guess forcing a quiet retreat is satisfactory.
Alpine
WWS wrote:
>
> And this is a damn good set of guidelines for writing good drama in a
> futuristic setting. The ironic part is that the current batch of Star Trek
> writers ( and Braga is my personal bete noire) seem to have fogotten about
> this entirely, while JMS over on B5 has embraced it.
Which brings to mind a point I've been wanting to make for some time
now.
One of the reasons I fell in love with watching B5 about half way
through the first season is that it finaly dawned on me that they
had absolutely streamed lined the technobabble. Sure it happens,
once in a blue moon, but not *every* episode. I don't think they've
ever once tried to explin how somthing as unignorable as a jumpgate
works. Oh sure, they ocasionally mention an odd detail of the baggage
the technology brings (like recharge time on the engines, warm up
time of the gates, ect...ect...) but not a peep about what it's
actually doing. Same with most of the capital weapons, PPGs,
telepaths, hell, just about everything. It's like they know that
most of their stuff centers on a doublespeak drive, so they're
not going to make a half-assed attempt to explain it. They know it's
beyond them. They know it's beyond us. So why bore us to death
with this wesley-particle or that (like some shows I could mention)?
I find that very cool.
Two thumbs up (and in someone else's face).
Alpine
WWS wrote:
>
> I'm offended. I can't believe we're sharing the data with 5 OTHER COUNTRIES.
> I'm a taxpayer, I paid for that data fair and square.
> Typical Brits, mooching off US tech again.
>
But there's an upside to that. Off every continent on Earth, there's
a giant, unsinkable, aircraft carrier that usually manifests iself
as a major island. We have a foothold on *ALL* of them. Mostly
because of things like this.
Oh, and...umm...Garabaldi's the Man! (B5 contient)
Gareth Wilson
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> >
> >This is incorrect. Andre Bourmanis is the science advisor for Trek.
> >Space Flight Centre recently that I attended. He understands that science
> >gets stretched to the breaking point in ST, and does his best to make
> >sure it doesn't go beyond that. However, he does not have veto power;
> >he is an advisor. He must have a very tough job!
>
>
> Something like a prostitute.
>
More like the fact-checker for the National Enquirer...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mdg
Alan D Kohler wrote in message <352172dc....@news.srv.net>...
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:49:45 GMT, atomic...@toast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>Let's see. If we inflate tires to 30 psid (d=differential), and
>atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi, the total absolute pressure (and
>hence, differential pressure in a vacuum) is about 45 psid. I find it
>pretty credible that tires could remain inflated in space... at least
>for a short time... especially if those tires were a little low to
>begin with.
>
>But in general, I must agree with you. The forerunner in the grand
>Trek tradition in science tragedies has to be Voyager. I was
>especially repulsed when I heard about (not watched; I had lost the
>stomach to watch ST:V long before this episode...) the voyager
>slipping through a "crack" in an event horizon...
That one really cracked me up and pissed me off. As I stated once before,
a FTL ship would have no problem with an event horizon. Star Trek acted as
if an event horizon was some kind of wall or shield akin to their
deflectors. Thanks to Star Trek and it's cousins most laymen have no idea
what the true realities of the universe are. It's true that Star Trek can
inspire the young into an interest or even a carreer in science, but for
adult's it usually just corrupts their knowledge. Just once I'd like to
see a Star Trek show that acknowledges the relativistic nature of the
universe.
Mdg
>
>Puh-lease. That one certain left any science credibility of the show
>dead on the table.
>
Mdg
Anduin wrote in message <3521E98...@earthlink.net>...
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> :: Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
>> :: Well, like it or not, the fact remains that Trek writers *do* consult
>> :: with real scientists on what they write, and they *do* go out of
>> :: their way to make *everything* they do as plausible as they can.
>>
>> "Stationary orbit over the north pole."
>
> Couldn't you do that? Sure, it would take huge amounts of energy to
keep
>from falling, but other than that...
>
> You were correct on everything else.
>
I agree, but you couldn't call it an "orbit". More like powered
stationkeeping.
Mdg
Uncle Fester
Normally, I don't comment about things like this - but this time my
curiosity is truly aroused.
The "recent work" about "Echelon" appears to be woefully behind the
times as far as what has been known (everything but the name at least)
about this for more than twenty years. It's pretty much common knowledge
for anyone in the USA with the will to dig through arcane publications
to find out that the NSA has been doing this. Maybe the technology used
to do the snooping (and the technology it, in turn, snoops on) has
changed, but the thing itself is certainly nothing new.
In other words -- it's been considered a "given" for so long now, that
any disposition described in this report is just updating what we
already know they (the NSA) do and have known for quite some time.
Why the sudden concern?
The only really "new" angle on this is the reluctance of the U.S.
Government to allow anyone to legally use highly encrypted
communications, be it phone, fax, computer data (email), etc. But we've
known that since long before Zimmerman's PGP encryption even.
Much ado about nothing new.
Uncle Fester
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
[snip]
> EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
> SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT (STOA)
>
> AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL
>
> Luxembourg, 6 January 1998
>
[MUNCH!]
> A recent work
> by Nicky Hager, Secret Power, (Hager,1996) provides the most
> comprehensive details to date of a project known as ECHELON.
[snip]
>
> The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the
> electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed
> for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and
> businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by
> indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and
> then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids
> like Memex. to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US
> as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada,
> New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information
> servicers.
>
> Each of the five centres supply "dictionaries" to the other four of
> keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged intercept is
> forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much
> information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of
> economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries
> participating in the GATT negotiations.
Johan Forsberg
Timothy J. Miller wrote:
>
> wo...@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
>
> > Details of specific episodes should be fun to take apart too,
> > those are just the ever present nonsensical bits.
>
> What was the one in ST:TOS *and* ST:TNG with the "polymerized
> water" making people go all goofy?
>
Well, in the old series it was actually some sort of disease, which
makes more sense (one of the best episodes in the old series, IMHO.
You get to see Spock break down and cry :-)
Timothy J. Miller
Alpine <alp...@unm.edu> writes:
> Just a thought: if those shields can exert enough force to contain
> atmosphereic atoms moving at rifle bullet speeds, when why can
> someone walk up to them with a bat and beat them to a pulp?
Orders of magnitude difference in momentum?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
John D. Gwinner
Anduin wrote in message <3521E98...@earthlink.net>...
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> :: Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
...
>> "Stationary orbit over the north pole."
>
> Couldn't you do that? Sure, it would take huge amounts of energy to
keep
>from falling, but other than that...
Well, a stationary orbit with an ship is just plain stupid, although any
Starship has enough energy to do it.
However, there is a concept called a "Statite" by Dr. Forward; its' detailed
in several of his books and possible on his web site (which I don't have
handy). A Statite is a satellite that 'hovers' above the poles through the
use of a solar sail to exactly counteract the force of gravity. It's in
orbit around the sun though of course.
So you can have a stationary orbit over the north pole with the right
construction.
== John ==
P.S. No, wouldn't work with the Enterprise, I'd hate to think how large of
a sail that would take.
Timothy J. Miller
"John D. Gwinner" <gwi...@northnet.org> writes:
> So you can have a stationary orbit over the north pole with the right
> construction.
Over the north pole of a star, yes.
Over the north pole of a *planet* (per the actual ST:TNG goof),
good luck.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
GeneK
B5 has (or at least had until it moved to TNT, I never seem to catch
it in its new home, so I don't know if it's still the same) one great
advantage over the current Trek series', and that is that its original
creator is alive and in control and can ensure that his concepts are
being fulfilled as he envisions them. If something were to happen to
cause control of the series to pass to someone else...
GeneK
Charles E Taylor IV
On 1 Apr 1998 10:44:46 GMT, wo...@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke)
wrote:
|But please explain how a space ship needs power to stay in orbit,
|or why alien creatures look human, when even most earth creatures
|don't. Those are blunders that a 5th former can spot.
With regards to the "aliens looking human" part of your assertion, I
suspect that things are this way due to the shortage of non-human
actors a television show could employ to make "alien" aliens.
--
Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV | We got the MRxL, and spammers
cha...@innova.nouce | got none!
------------------------------|------------------------------
Replace "nouce" with "net" to mail me, but not if it's UCE!
Alpine
Anduin wrote:
>
> Couldn't you do that? Sure, it would take huge amounts of energy to keep
> from falling, but other than that...
>
The ship would have to orient itself so that it could apply 1G (or
whatever) worth of thrust straight down, but then it's not really an
'orbit.' It's just a point.
Alpine
If I understand it correctly, sounds like a joe-average orbit of a
star that just happens to conencide with being x distance above the
pole of a planet. Interesting idea, but I wonder how far into the
planets sphere of influence before it stops working.
Alpine
GeneK wrote:
>
> B5 has (or at least had until it moved to TNT, I never seem to catch
> it in its new home, so I don't know if it's still the same) one great
> advantage over the current Trek series', and that is that its original
> creator is alive and in control and can ensure that his concepts are
> being fulfilled as he envisions them. If something were to happen to
> cause control of the series to pass to someone else...
True. But Gene was still alive when I stopped watching TNG becuase of
their flagrent use of technobabble.
equi...@mindspring.com
Alpine <alp...@unm.edu> wrote:
>True. But Gene was still alive when I stopped watching TNG becuase of
>their flagrent use of technobabble.
I stopped watching Voyager the day I flipped on the set, only to hear
Capt Janeway say, "Take the cheese to sickbay."
Alpine
Timothy J. Miller wrote:
>
> Orders of magnitude difference in momentum?
Well geeze. Just blow a hole bunch of daylight throgh my nit-pick
why don't you? :) I guess that's what I get for posting past
midnight.
Richard Van Fossan
> Given Trek power sources and *established* force-field
>technology, why use physical materials at all? But then, that's Trek.
>
Because power failures don't affect physical containers.
Richard Van Fossan
>Established - Borg have living flesh on their bodies.
>Established - absolute zero strips the flesh off their bodies, kills
>their organic parts and in the end is how Data destroys them.
It was established in the movie that warp-core coolant had a corrosive
effect on organic tissue. It wasn't the temperature.
Second, space isn't really "cold." Space is a vacuum, which has no real
temperature. Objects in space will radiate heat and gradually cool, unless
they are in direct sunlight, in which case they will heat rapidly. This is
one of the major problems of building a space station--components in direct
sunlight will absorb heat, expand, and cause some serious mechanical forces
on those parts that are in shadow.
Granted, long-term exposure to hard vacuum would be detrimental to Borg
organics, but, for short periods, they could survive it. Animal experiments
have shown that vacuum exposure kills by asphyxiation; the other damage
that's done is gradual. Equipping drones with an oxygen supply for short
space walks would be perfectly reasonable for space-faring Borg. They do
adapt to their environment, and exposure to hard vacuum is a constant risk
when operating in space. Since the Borg don't give a damn for individuals,
sending drones out on a suicide mission that advances the main goal would be
a no-brainer.
Rich