E2 is great SF
Chuck
perspective would have to admit that the scientific premises for E2 are much
much more plausible than any ST show or Bab5. These people will not be warping
or hyperspacing their way back to Earth, and Earth can't get more resources
there for the same reason.
True, we've found a lot of Earth influences on the planet, but they have been
internally consistent. It's been used as a penal planet to get rid of undesir-
ables, and give said undesirables opportunity to encounter the Terrians. The
Z.E.D.s were then let loose to prey upon the penal colonists and gather any and
all information the colonists would have on the Terrians. That's it.
Yes, it is basically a wagon train, except they have access to VR, they have to
keep moving to meet the rest of the colonists when they arrive, and the most
hostile things in this land they are exploring are things put there by their
own people. The natives seem quite friendly, mostly.
Another nice SF twist is that these people, except for Beth, have lived their
entire lives aboard sterile, man-made stations. They should be consistently
succumbing to agoraphobia, but I suppose they could spend enough time in VR on
the stations that they think they've been outside enough to colonize a planet.
We really don't see enough of this.
Another nice touch is the fact that many members of the Eden Project were never
supposed to land on the planet. They were just supposed to ferry them there
then return to the stations. These people should not be coping well at all.
Alonzo, the pilot, should probably be freaking out because he's actually going
to grow old on this planet. As a starship pilot he's slept in stasis enough
that he's easily the technically oldest member of the group. Surely he's got
at least a tiny Peter Pan syndrome.
Anyway, the practical upshot is that the conflicts and the characters created
by the show are incredible, and there's still a lot of untapped potential for
other conflicts as yet unseen, all of this in a fairly believable, fairly
simple SF universe.
This is what so many SF show have forgotten. Kepp it simple, and don't forget
that your actions have consequences.
Chuck
Alan D. Earhart
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Chuck) wrote:
> E2 is one of the greatest SF shows around.
*lots of other stuff deleted...refer to the original article for the rest*
E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
They use science in the plot just as magic might be used. (waiting for
someone to use the ol' "but advanced science appears to be magic to lesser
tech races"...)
It is decent Speculative Fiction. I enjoy the character interactions.
Heck, even the creators say it is not Science Fiction and I agree with
them.
Add imho as necessary.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Wilbur S. Peng
: In article <17336CF2S8...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
: CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Chuck) wrote:
: > E2 is one of the greatest SF shows around.
: *lots of other stuff deleted...refer to the original article for the rest*
: E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
: do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
: They use science in the plot just as magic might be used.
Uh, what exactly would you have them do? Publish a report on tech
feasibility for every technology they use?
(waiting for
: someone to use the ol' "but advanced science appears to be magic to lesser
: tech races"...)
Weelllll, after a lot of thought about the role of science in SF,
let's get a few definitions straight here. What is the difference
betwen "speculative fiction" and "science fiction"? I know what
I think, but I want to hear your opinion.
E2 misses on many details but often gets the tone right. I can
explain away almost everything except for the atrocious biological
"explanations."
There's nothing on E2 nearly as magical as the holodeck on Trek, and
most of the elements in E2 have been used (and more fully explained)
elsewhere.
: It is decent Speculative Fiction. I enjoy the character interactions.
: Heck, even the creators say it is not Science Fiction and I agree with
: them.
So, what do the creators know? If they inadvertently stumbled onto
good science fiction, they wouldn't even know it.
: Add imho as necessary.
: --
: alan "not-Bob"
: aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
>aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
If they prefer the term Speculative Fiction, then fine. Realize, though, that
E2 is on the science side of speculative fiction. These people are on _another
planet_. They come from a society that exists on space stations orbitting what
is left of Earth. An easily controllable society, by its nature. They are in
conflict with those who would continue to control them on this new planet.
The premises of the show are scientific and well thought out. The characters
and conflicts are all soundly based on these premises. And the science is so
much more plausible than any SF show out there that I am honestly surprised
anyone is even bothering to nitpick it. Not that it's error-free or anything,
but it's towering above the rest of the herd when it comes to science, plot,
character, conflict, consequences, continuity, etc.
Show me any problem with E2 that's not horribly magnified on the other current
shows, and I'll shut up about it.
Chuck
Todd Perry
>Alan D. Earhart (aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
>: do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
>: They use science in the plot just as magic might be used.
>
> Uh, what exactly would you have them do? Publish a report on tech
>feasibility for every technology they use?
Well, they do, actually. The E2 page on www.mca.com has a pointer
to a technology page describing most of the toys used on E2.
Note for nitpickers: I make no claims about how scientifically VALID
the page is. In fact, I think several fans on the net have done a
better job while speculating about (for example) how the gear works,
and I prefer their explanations to the ones on the web site, which read
a bit like treknobabble with a bit of random pop science thrown in.
--
Todd Perry
to...@vt.edu
Frank McNeil
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:
: In article <aearhart-300...@slip2-16.acs.ohio-state.edu>
: aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alan D. Earhart) writes:
:
: >In article <17336CF2S8...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
: >CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Chuck) wrote:
: >
: >
: >E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
: >do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
: >They use science in the plot just as magic might be used. (waiting for
: >someone to use the ol' "but advanced science appears to be magic to lesser
: >tech races"...)
: >
: >It is decent Speculative Fiction. I enjoy the character interactions.
: >Heck, even the creators say it is not Science Fiction and I agree with
: >them.
: >
: >Add imho as necessary.
: >
: >alan "not-Bob"
: >aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
: If they prefer the term Speculative Fiction, then fine. Realize,
: though, that E2 is on the science side of speculative fiction. These
: people are on _another planet_. They come from a society that exists
: on space stations orbitting what is left of Earth. An easily
: controllable society, by its nature. They are in conflict with those
: who would continue to control them on this new planet.
Note, that many scientific statements made in the show can be
considered bogus (and perhaps revealing--VR Reilly talking about the
Pineal Gland). They can be considered bogus, because they are not
uttered by an expert. A repaiman or a Pilot IMO is not a scientific
expert; especially when they have all that AI to rely on.
: The premises of the show are scientific and well thought out. The
: characters: and conflicts are all soundly based on these premises.
: And the science is so much more plausible than any SF show out there
: that I am honestly surprised anyone is even bothering to nitpick it.
: Not that it's error-free or anything, but it's towering above the
: rest of the herd when it comes to science, plot, character, conflict,
: consequences, continuity, etc.
I found the above comments refreshing. I never read the scientific
nitpicking comments until after experiencing the "Water" episode.
Since then I've formed the opinion that commentators may be experts in
Science Fiction, but for the most part don't have graduate-level
training in the science areas they nitpick. Its just my opinion.
Anyway I think it is more challenging to create scientific
exlpanations to explain what goes on in the show than to implicitly
plead ignorance by nitpicking (e.g., how does did the DNA cocktail get
to Julia's Third Ventricle anyway).
: Show me any problem with E2 that's not horribly magnified on the
: other current shows, and I'll shut up about it.
I agree. On the other hand, I find my current Earth 2 fan mentality
kind of irrational, so I don't find the irrationality of Fans of other
shows irrating. Comical, yes.
However one thing bothers me, since I believe "Earth 2" technology and
science is more similar to ours.
Is it posible to travel 22 light years and be in suspended animation
for 22 years? I remember that the equations to compute this were
quite simple (Lorenz Transforms), however I don't have Physics book
to look this stuff up.
--Frank
Alan D. Earhart
> Note, that many scientific statements made in the show can be
> considered bogus (and perhaps revealing--VR Reilly talking about the
> Pineal Gland). They can be considered bogus, because they are not
> uttered by an expert. A repaiman or a Pilot IMO is not a scientific
> expert; especially when they have all that AI to rely on.
Hmm....I haven't given much thought to this. I do think that the writers
(not just on E2...I'm grabbing a bigger field) consider the sources like
this to be "scripture", though. If they didn't then there would be many
cases in which someone in the script would later utter (possibly in a
later episode) "What BS!". I can't think of any examples of this but I
would love to hear some.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Alan D. Earhart
Peng) wrote:
> Alan D. Earhart (aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> : In article <17336CF2S8...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
> : CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Chuck) wrote:
>
> : > E2 is one of the greatest SF shows around.
> : *lots of other stuff deleted...refer to the original article for the rest*
>
> : E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
> : do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
> : They use science in the plot just as magic might be used.
>
> Uh, what exactly would you have them do? Publish a report on tech
> feasibility for every technology they use?
No. How about-
1. Consistant use of the VR tech. The way they have used it seems to show
that they just 'whip' it out it some form that suits them at the moment. I
don't expect them to explain it in depth but for me to call E2 SF I would
like some ground rules and I would like them to stick to them.
2. The magic animal-maker. Nuf' said about this?
3. The worm-projectile-device. Other people who are knowledg. about this
have already discussed this.
4. Possibly some others that I can't think of at the moment...
#1 irritates/d me. #2 was a bit silly. #3 I thought "well, OK".
Their uses of 1-3 implies that they (the creators) are only interested in
tech so long as it furthers the plot. I would like to see a *little*
background to even begin to consider E2 as SF and not as SpecF. Note that
I am not requesting a complete tech write-up. That's just plain silly to
sarcastically suggest.
>
> (waiting for
> : someone to use the ol' "but advanced science appears to be magic to lesser
> : tech races"...)
>
>
> Weelllll, after a lot of thought about the role of science in SF,
> let's get a few definitions straight here. What is the difference
> betwen "speculative fiction" and "science fiction"? I know what
> I think, but I want to hear your opinion.
A more encompassing field than SF. I think of SF as more towards hard-SF.
I also toss Fantasy into the pot along with SF to get SpecF. I'm not going
to debate anyone on the *actual* definitions for SF and the rest because
it's pointless. Just cruise into rec.arts.sf.written and ask the question
if you don't believe me. However, they are my defs and I realize we need
to understand what the baseline is to discuss this.
>
> E2 misses on many details but often gets the tone right. I can
> explain away almost everything except for the atrocious biological
> "explanations."
I, also. As I said I enjoy the show. I just object to calling it SF. Just
because I can explain it away doesn't mean that certain things don't
irritate me about the way they use the science.
>
> There's nothing on E2 nearly as magical as the holodeck on Trek, and
> most of the elements in E2 have been used (and more fully explained)
> elsewhere.
I'm not going to toss Trek into this because I only responded to the idea
of E2 as SF. I hate comparison wars because they end up turning into silly
flamefests where nothing gets accomplished except for people *yelling* at
each other.
>
> : It is decent Speculative Fiction. I enjoy the character interactions.
> : Heck, even the creators say it is not Science Fiction and I agree with
> : them.
>
> So, what do the creators know? If they inadvertently stumbled onto
> good science fiction, they wouldn't even know it.
And, to me, another reason why not to refer to E2 as SF.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Alan D. Earhart
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:
> In article <aearhart-300...@slip2-16.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alan D. Earhart) writes:
>
> >In article <17336CF2S8...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
> >CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Chuck) wrote:
> >
> >
> >E2 is not Science Fiction. Their use of tech is simply black-box or "what
> >do we need to come up with this week...get out the magic bag of tricks".
> >They use science in the plot just as magic might be used. (waiting for
> >someone to use the ol' "but advanced science appears to be magic to lesser
> >tech races"...)
> >
> >It is decent Speculative Fiction. I enjoy the character interactions.
> >Heck, even the creators say it is not Science Fiction and I agree with
> >them.
> >
> >Add imho as necessary.
> >
> >alan "not-Bob"
> >aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>
> If they prefer the term Speculative Fiction, then fine. Realize, though, that
> E2 is on the science side of speculative fiction. These people are on
_another
> planet_. They come from a society that exists on space stations
orbitting what
> is left of Earth. An easily controllable society, by its nature. They are in
> conflict with those who would continue to control them on this new planet.
No arguments from me, here. However, it is not enough, for me, to toss
some people on a different planet and have them use tech to call it SF.
>
> The premises of the show are scientific and well thought out. The characters
> and conflicts are all soundly based on these premises. And the science is so
> much more plausible than any SF show out there that I am honestly surprised
> anyone is even bothering to nitpick it. Not that it's error-free or anything,
> but it's towering above the rest of the herd when it comes to science, plot,
> character, conflict, consequences, continuity, etc.
Except for the magic-animal maker and possibly the worm-projectile I
believe I don't disagree. I am not sure if I agree with you but I'll have
to think about it.
>
> Show me any problem with E2 that's not horribly magnified on the other current
> shows, and I'll shut up about it.
But that's not the point. The point was E2 and whether (sp?) it is SF.
Just because it possibly has fewer flaws than other shows in this kind of
genre is beside the point.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Gharlane of Eddore
I've just been viciously hassled by mail over my last posting.
Without getting into personalities, no, I do *not* have any
gastro-intestinal malfunctions that cause me to emit entries
which are fabrications, but thank you for your concern.
The challenge:
"Okay mister smartie <sic> pants, you say there are only three stars
22 liiht <sic> years from us. Name them and say where they are,
or shut up."
Sure thing, since you've been so courteous and civil about it.
Of course, if you knew how to use a library, you could pull out
any of several standard texts on the subject, and simply look
up the answers.
From a book printed in 1970:
At distance 22.0 light years:
p Eridani A, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
p Eridani B, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
HR 753 A, 2'30.6" R.A., +6d25m decl; about 6th magnitude, K3.
K2 and K3 stars are really putrid choices for having habitable planets.
If we back the distance down to 21.3 light years, there's a better
candidate, Beta Hydri, a type G1 star.
B Hydri, 0h20.5m R.A., -77d49m decl; about 3rd magnitude, G1.
And at about 20.9 light years, we have
82 Eridani, 3h15.9m R.A., -43d27m decl; about 4th magnitude, G5.
We have to pull back to 19.2 light years' distance to find another
G-type star, a G7 named Delta Pavonis.
Without going into a lot of details of the technical variety that
readers of this topic seem to be really allergic to, K-type
stars are so dim and reddish by comparison to our own sun that
you have to park a planet really close to assure sufficient
insolation ("incoming solar energy") to support life; and that
close to the primary, the planet tends to go into some form of
tidal lock, which means either a long term harmonic resonance
rotation rate like our own inner planet, Mercury, or else it
always keeps one face toward the sun.
So planet G-889 really can't exist, and anyone on the staff of
E-2 could have looked it up in a popularized introductory
Astronomy text. (No math, simple words, illuminating pictures.)
OR they could have just asked Greg Bear; if he didn't know the
answer offhand, and was too busy to look it up, a phone call
to his father-in-law would have gotten the info instantly,
since Poul Anderson knows the skies the way I know my keyboard.
In other words, there's no danged excuse for the "G-8 system,
22 light years away."
It can't exist, because we can't see it!
(Folks who don't know diddly about basic science seem to think
that we don't know anything about our own immediate neighborhood.
This is simply not the case.)
=======================================================================
|| Vir: Ah! He has become one with his inner self. ||
|| Garibaldi: He's passed out. ||
|| Vir: That too! ||
=======================================================================
|| "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical competence on the ||
|| the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen." ||
|| --- John W. Campbell, Jr. ||
=======================================================================
Wilbur S. Peng
: Peng) wrote:
: > Uh, what exactly would you have them do? Publish a report on tech
: > feasibility for every technology they use?
: No. How about-
: 1. Consistant use of the VR tech. The way they have used it seems to show
: that they just 'whip' it out it some form that suits them at the moment. I
: don't expect them to explain it in depth but for me to call E2 SF I would
: like some ground rules and I would like them to stick to them.
Yes, but it is difficult to set up ground rules in a TV show.
Suppose the writers *already* had all this stuff in mind. Would it be
better to introduce the technological capabilities one by one, using
them as required for the plot, or to try and work it in throughout
the episodes? There are benefits either way.
TV, unlike written fiction, cannot easily have asides where the background
is explained and mulled over.
Moreover, there are a number of ground rules which _have_ been
established and adhered to. Clearly they live in a relativistic
universe (despite the annoying fact that the writers ignored time
dilation during relativistic travel) They have pretty
advanced AI, as exhibited in the robot, but no sentient robots. They do
have a lot of computing power, manifested in VR, although it would
be more consistent if we saw them using their computing power for
something else as well. These assumptions are pretty good, and I am
willing to give them credit for that.
: 2. The magic animal-maker. Nuf' said about this?
This falls into my "lame biology" category. These people need a
consultant on biology.
: 3. The worm-projectile-device. Other people who are knowledg. about this
: have already discussed this.
Including me. I came to the conclusion that this might have
actually been a useful device, but that the writers hadn't fully
thought things through.
: 4. Possibly some others that I can't think of at the moment...
: #1 irritates/d me. #2 was a bit silly. #3 I thought "well, OK".
: A more encompassing field than SF. I think of SF as more towards
hard-SF.
Well, the "hardness" of SF is often a matter of tone, intent and
content, not the quality or accuracy of the science. Science in "Hard
SF" may take more of a central stage than in softer SF, but the distinction
is pretty artificial in my book.
What you seem to be saying is that E2 should be internally
*consistent* to be called science fiction. My argument is that this is
desirable *regardless* of what genre one might stuff the show into.
No matter what your aim is, unless you're doing magical realism
(an oxymoron if I ever heard one) or something where inconsistency
becomes part of the game, you *should* be consistent. This is a more
general complaint about any TV show.
: Just cruise into rec.arts.sf.written and ask the question
: if you don't believe me. However, they are my defs and I realize we need
: to understand what the baseline is to discuss this.
Oh, I read sf.written all the time. I just don't buy the "speculative
fiction" notion. Genre classifications exist for marketing
reasons not for literary or critical ones. The *differences* between
works of "speculative fiction" at the opposite ends of the spectrum can
be large enough that your classfication becomes not very useful.
: --
: alan "not-Bob"
: aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
David Mears
> SO.... blithely inventing a solar system "22 light years away"
> with a habitable planet, is approximately equivalent to blithely
> inventing a continent in the mid-pacific. And then saying,
> "Well, we didn't bother to check the maps and see what's really
> there, because it's 'Sci-Fi,' after all."
I can't even begin to count the number of TV shows which have blithely
created a new country with a strange sounding name and plopped it down
somewhere in the area of eastern Europe/western Asia. Creating new
places is nothing at all new in TV land. Why should it be any worse
having a new star created by E2 than it was for Mission: Impossible
to create the country of Transbekistan?
David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
me...@cup.hp.com
David G. Homerick
:
: Show me any problem with E2 that's not horribly magnified on the other current
: shows, and I'll shut up about it.
How about this one: When I watch Earth 2, I usually don't care if the
characters live or die. When I do care, it means I want them to die, not
live.
Would you say this is a problem?
David Homerick sac5...@saclink.csus.edu
Chuck
ghar...@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>The challenge:
>
>"Okay mister smartie <sic> pants, you say there are only three stars
> 22 liiht <sic> years from us. Name them and say where they are,
> or shut up."
>
>
>
> p Eridani A, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
> p Eridani B, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
> HR 753 A, 2'30.6" R.A., +6d25m decl; about 6th magnitude, K3.
>
>K2 and K3 stars are really putrid choices for having habitable planets.
>
>If we back the distance down to 21.3 light years, there's a better
>candidate, Beta Hydri, a type G1 star.
>
> B Hydri, 0h20.5m R.A., -77d49m decl; about 3rd magnitude, G1.
>
>And at about 20.9 light years, we have
>
> 82 Eridani, 3h15.9m R.A., -43d27m decl; about 4th magnitude, G5.
>
>We have to pull back to 19.2 light years' distance to find another
>G-type star, a G7 named Delta Pavonis.
>
>
>stars are so dim and reddish by comparison to our own sun that
>you have to park a planet really close to assure sufficient
>insolation ("incoming solar energy") to support life; and that
>close to the primary, the planet tends to go into some form of
>tidal lock, which means either a long term harmonic resonance
>rotation rate like our own inner planet, Mercury, or else it
>always keeps one face toward the sun.
>
>So planet G-889 really can't exist, and anyone on the staff of
>E-2 could have looked it up in a popularized introductory
>Astronomy text. (No math, simple words, illuminating pictures.)
>OR they could have just asked Greg Bear; if he didn't know the
>answer offhand, and was too busy to look it up, a phone call
>to his father-in-law would have gotten the info instantly,
>since Poul Anderson knows the skies the way I know my keyboard.
>
>In other words, there's no danged excuse for the "G-8 system,
>22 light years away."
>
system's existance. Ready?
They made it up.
Please remember, this is science/speculative _fiction_. They can make up a
star system if they want to, so long as they don't make everything so _easy_
that it eliminates all conflict from the show.
Now, I have to agree with those who are going to harp on the fact that it
took our noble little colony exactly 22 years to travel 22 light years.
There's very little excuse for this, but there is one:
It doesn't matter. The show takes place on E2, not on E2 and Earth.
Any and all Earthly influence is already present in-system, and there
does not appear to be any danger of any more Earthlings showing up that
left _after_ the Eden Project.
They should have just said 22 years away, admittedly, and left it up to
the viewers to decide amongst themselves how many miles that is, but it
only mattered for the first hour of the premiere, and that's long past.
Of course, even if it took them 22 years to get to our closest neighbor,
4 light-years away, they'd have to be moving at about .2 times the speed
of light, or 60,000 kilometers/second....
I won't even mention the fact that said closest star is also incapable of
supporting life.
But let's talk about the conflict, here. Earth still wants to exert con-
trol over E2, right? Well, that would be too easy if we could just warp
ships there in a few hours. And it would be pointless to even try to
control said planet if it took you hundreds of years to get there.
22 years, though, that's about right. Send some nasty killers there to
soften up the place...Allow some troublemakers to get there if we can't
blow up there ship, first...The killers will probably take them out...
Eventually send a colony you expect to survive, but only after you've
done whatever you had to do to ensure you could utterly control the place.
Sound familiar?
Yes, they've made some clearly unreal statements. In fact, last time I
checked the Earth was still fairly livable, with very few people living
their entire lives in satelites orbitting the planet, that is, none.
So? They're writing a story, and a few things have to be taken for granted
in order for that story to be worth telling.
I, for one, am going to let this one slide.
Chuck
Mike Batchelor
>In <ftmexpatD...@netcom.com> ftme...@netcom.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
>>
>> Why not hire real scientists for the job, to lesson the chance of
>> "beam me up Scottie" or "Universal Tranlator" solutions and let the
>> writers do the writing [and the fact-finder editors do their job].
>Because, in the absence of sufficient technical knowledge to differentiate
>SF from fantasy, this procedure results in non-SF stories with "science"
>used as a magical plot pivot when necessary. The result is NOT SF.
>It's fantasy with technobabble magic wands.
>
>If the science isn't PART of the situation that GENERATES the story,
>isn't PART of the *solution* of the problem, then the story isn't SF,
>because it can be written in a different, non-SF, format.
Then what is "Stranger in a Strange Land"? What about "Childhood's End"?
Both of them have magic science which is not integral to the story, yet they
are considered by most to be classics of the genre.
How about "Foundation" or "Dune"? Nothing magical about the science there,
right? Both are just political epics that take place in a magic-science
setting. Both are classic sci-fi. Some might say "hard" sci-fi.
--
\\\ Mike Batchelor /// mik...@clark.net \\\ M.Bat...@babylon4.clark.net ///
"The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Gharlane of Eddore
>
....<deletia>
>
> Is it posible to travel 22 light years and be in suspended animation
> for 22 years? I remember that the equations to compute this were
> quite simple (Lorenz Transforms), however I don't have Physics book
> to look this stuff up.
This has already been covered in the topic. They say repeatedly that
the "G8 system" is 22 light years away. They also say repeatedly
that it will take 22 years to get there. (at one point in the dialog,
the number TWENTY-FOUR is used. Bad continuity, or just a sloppy
actor..)
Since we know of NO way to instantly accelerate a ship to lightspeed,
and there is no visual sequence showing the ship being magically
accelerated to the speed of light, we are forced to the conclusion
that the writers haven't the foggiest idea of how such things work,
and frankly don't give a damn, because they could have gotten a
straight answer, even from Greg Bear, whom the credits CLAIM is on
the rolls as a "Technical Advisor." Obviously, they paid him and
ignored him.
Of secondary interest is the fact that the stars within a hundred
light years or so of our solar system are VERY well catalogued,
and we just conveniently happen to know for a fact that there are
only *THREE* stars at a distance of just 22 light years, and none
of them happens to be the kind that would look that color in the
sky. And they ALL have names, and *NONE* of them is "G-8."
In fact, the three stars which are 22 light years from us are
small reddish suns, with habitability zones so close to their
surfaces that a Terran-type planet would be in tidal lock, with
no day or night, unless it had a HUGE moon to pump its rotation
with tidal effects. (multiple moons diminish the effectiveness
of this solution, by the way.) There's a big honking moon showing
in Earth 2's sky sometimes, but unless it's got an average density
about twice as great as lead, I wouldn't count on E-2 having a
rotational period anywhere near 24 hours.
Incidentally, not knowing the planet's rotational rate, after all
that probe data, is really laughable.
John P. LaRocque
that we should all do our best to wish this thread to go away.
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
Frank McNeil
: I've just been viciously hassled by mail over my last posting.
: Without getting into personalities, no, I do *not* have any
: gastro-intestinal malfunctions that cause me to emit entries
: which are fabrications, but thank you for your concern.
:
: The challenge:
:
: "Okay mister smartie <sic> pants, you say there are only three stars
: 22 liiht <sic> years from us. Name them and say where they are,
: or shut up."
:
: Sure thing, since you've been so courteous and civil about it.
: Of course, if you knew how to use a library, you could pull out
: any of several standard texts on the subject, and simply look
: up the answers.
:
: From a book printed in 1970:
^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
: At distance 22.0 light years:
: p Eridani A, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
: p Eridani B, 1'36" R.A., -56d42m decl; about 6th magnitude, K2.
: HR 753 A, 2'30.6" R.A., +6d25m decl; about 6th magnitude, K3.
: K2 and K3 stars are really putrid choices for having habitable planets.
:
: If we back the distance down to 21.3 light years, there's a better
: candidate, Beta Hydri, a type G1 star.
:
: B Hydri, 0h20.5m R.A., -77d49m decl; about 3rd magnitude, G1.
: And at about 20.9 light years, we have
:
: 82 Eridani, 3h15.9m R.A., -43d27m decl; about 4th magnitude, G5.
:
: We have to pull back to 19.2 light years' distance to find another
: G-type star, a G7 named Delta Pavonis.
:
:
: Without going into a lot of details of the technical variety that
: readers of this topic seem to be really allergic to,
??
: K-type
: stars are so dim and reddish by comparison to our own sun that
: you have to park a planet really close to assure sufficient
: insolation ("incoming solar energy") to support life; and that
: close to the primary, the planet tends to go into some form of
: tidal lock, which means either a long term harmonic resonance
: rotation rate like our own inner planet, Mercury, or else it
: always keeps one face toward the sun.
THEREFORE:
: So planet G-889 really can't exist, and anyone on the staff of
: E-2 could have looked it up in a popularized introductory
: Astronomy text. (No math, simple words, illuminating pictures.)
: OR they could have just asked Greg Bear; if he didn't know the
: answer offhand, and was too busy to look it up, a phone call
: to his father-in-law would have gotten the info instantly,
: since Poul Anderson knows the skies the way I know my keyboard.
Why not hire real scientists for the job, to lesson the chance of
"beam me up Scottie" or "Universal Tranlator" solutions and let the
writers do the writing [and the fact-finder editors do their job].
: In other words, there's no danged excuse for the "G-8 system,
: 22 light years away."
:
: It can't exist, because we can't see it!
:
: (Folks who don't know diddly about basic science seem to think
: that we don't know anything about our own immediate neighborhood.
: This is simply not the case.)
IMO, the astronomy lesson is not part of basic science I know.
However IMO (if I remember correctly) the Lorenz Transform (Traveling
close to the speed of light arithmetic is part of Freshman Physics
courses.
I really appreciated reading the posters post before this. Simple
and to the point. I ignore his conclusions about the writers.
IMO, he wasn't effected by the episodes that seem to have moved many
of the posters to alt.tv.earth2. In otherwords he doesn't really
understand the show. On the other hand I couldn't laugh as I [look
forward to doing] at these posts. His Stellar Geography lesson may
be on point.
I think this Gregg Bear talk is off the point. Fiction is fiction
IMO science is understood by those that have studied the experiments
that gave rise to the physics and mathematical models scientists use
to describe the science. Hence, I wish the "Earth 2" producers would
have hired the relevant grad students to read the script for the
Pilot.
Know I'm left with the conclusion that the members of Eden project
don't understand Freshman College Physics, because the planet must be
much farther away than 22 Light hears (if the Astronomy listed in the
post was correct).
I used to think that that there may have been something very strange
going on when the colonists thought they were in suspended animation,
because I thought it was impossible to sleep for 22 years while the
ship aged 22 years and wake up being only 22 light years away from
earth.
Frank
<A HREF="http://www.best.com/~ftmexpat/e2/e2-camp.html">E2 Refugee Camp</A>
: =======================================================================
Mike Batchelor
>I find the very idea that "E2 is great SF" is so ignorant and offensive
>that we should all do our best to wish this thread to go away.
Use your kill file. Your opinion does not imply any obligation on the
rest of us to wish along with you.
>--
> |----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
>********]|-----|___\__________
>********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
> |_____ / that life here began out there..."
Or would you rather we all say "By your command" like the Cylons in your
favorite "SF" show?
--
\\\ Mike Batchelor /// mik...@clark.net \\\ M.Bat...@babylon4.clark.net ///
"Supporting Windows is like buying a puppy. The dog only cost $100, but
we spent another $500 cleaning the carpet."
- Marc Dodge, "Reality Check", _Open Computing_, December 1994
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
ghar...@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>If the ship magically gets to near-lightspeed very very fast, then
>the 22-light-year trip would be experienced by those on board as
>Very Brief; cold sleep would not be necessary.
>I already mentioned this in a much earlier entry discussing E-2's
>massive degree of staff brain damage.
>
>So either they've got a *really* hinky space drive, or they're just
>just plain fat-assed lard-brained idiots with delusions of competence.
>
Or, they want the show to be popular among people who aren't particularly
clear on relativity, and don't want to try to explain why 22 years would
really seem to be only several days to the people moving near light speed.
I agree, instead of saying 22 light-years away, they should have just said
22 years away, and left it up to us to decide how fast the ship was moving.
But it doesn't matter. They're there, and since the first episode they
_have_ simply been saying 22 years.
I'm sure the production staff has a fairly high degree of competence, because
they've presented travel between the stars in such a way that _most_ people
can watch the show without going "Huh?" A serial action show is not the best
place for an explanation of relativity, or much of the other science they
use. It's science fiction. But it's televised science fiction, and they're
limited by the mainstream audience. It doesn't have to be accurate. It just
has to be believable.
David Mears
> In <3glrg5$r...@hpindda.cup.hp.com> me...@cup.hp.com (David Mears) writes:
> > I can't even begin to count the number of TV shows which have blithely
> > created a new country with a strange sounding name and plopped it down
> > somewhere in the area of eastern Europe/western Asia. Creating new
> > places is nothing at all new in TV land. Why should it be any worse
> > having a new star created by E2 than it was for Mission: Impossible
> > to create the country of Transbekistan?
> What's your point?
I believe I already stated it above. But, I shall repeat it.
``Why should it be any worse having a new star created by E2 than it
was for Mission: Impossible to create the country of Transbekistan?''
You seemed to be SO concerned that E2 had made up a star system that
didn't exist. Why? Who cares if they made it up? They made it up!
People do that in TV all the time. There's no difference between E2
making up a star system for convenience sake than for MI to make up
a country for convenience sake. And based on your lengthy response,
you don't seem to care that MI made up countries all the time. Why
is it just E2 that you care about making up stuff?
Sometimes it appears you're trying to pull any old sort of strawdog
argument out of thin air just to refute the show. Is the science on
E2 perfect? No, of course not. Neither is the science on Star Trek
or Babylon 5, or any other SciFi TV show that's ever been produced.
For many of us, it's not so bad that it detracts from our enjoyment
of the show. And as a person with a scientific background, I do get
annoyed by REALLY bad science. (I hated the movie The Black Hole.)
You don't like E2. You've made that very plain. That's your right.
Why do you feel it necessary to try to convince everyone who does
like it that they really shouldn't?
or...@skydivskylit.dseg.ti.com
--
In article <17338B907S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>, CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu writes:
>It's science fiction. But it's televised science fiction, and they're
>limited by the mainstream audience. It doesn't have to be accurate. It just
>has to be believable.
Let's not forget the purpose of any television show: Entertainment. I enjoy
the show, yeah I can sit and pick holes in it all day. If you enjoy nitpicking
go ahead - that's your entertainment. The first time I watch something I want
to just watch it and be entertained. If I've watched it many times, then it
gets fun to find inconsistencies (like watching Star Trek movies 5x).
Regards, Bonnie
*******************************************************************
I hate paranoid people, they're everywhere!
Chuck
ftme...@best.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
> Is it posible to travel 22 light years and be in suspended animation
>for 22 years? I remember that the equations to compute this were
>quite simple (Lorenz Transforms), however I don't have Physics book
>to look this stuff up.
>
>--Frank
It's possible, but pointless. It would only seem like 22 years to someone
observing the phenomenon from the outside. To someone travelling at near
light-speed it would seem like a few weeks. Relativity and all.
So, yes, you could spend two subjective weeks in suspended animation, but
it's easier to take a number of good books and some food, water, and liva-
ble environment....
Chuck
Gharlane of Eddore
> created a new country with a strange sounding name and plopped it down
> somewhere in the area of eastern Europe/western Asia. Creating new
> places is nothing at all new in TV land. Why should it be any worse
> having a new star created by E2 than it was for Mission: Impossible
> to create the country of Transbekistan?
>
What's your point? Transbekistan is just to the west of Transylvania,
slightly north of the Triple Kingdom (Scythia-Panonia-Transbalkania).
Its northern border is still in a bit of turmoil, due to the everlasting
territorial dispute with Graustark, so don't count on the accuracy of
the maps when you look it up. It should be noted that the Ruritanian
invasion, immediately on the heels of WWII, caused a number of geographers
to completely eliminate Transbekistan from the maps, but this action was
premature, since the Klotchotvik Rebellion in '82 successfully repelled
the Graustarkian troops. (They'd been weakened by the withdrawal of
one division to take part in the bi-annual War Games with the neighboring
Duchy of Grand Fenwick; with Prince Rupert III stuck in Monaco chasing
"Princess" Caroline, the Royal Bimbo, around the beaches, the Graustarkian
army was somewhat lacking for competent leadership.)
Four episodes of "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE" were shot in Transbekistan, just
prior to the production crew's departure for the location shooting in
Hong Kong. Most of the "stock shots" used in later productions were
done during this initial foray to Balkania; a good percentage of the
first year's production was done in Hong Kong.
(It was in the third year of production that Douglas Cramer's
massive cost-cutting and new studio management squeezed out Bruce
Geller and chopped the budget by moving the M:I force home to the
U.S. for domestic operations.)
Gharlane of Eddore
> "beam me up Scottie" or "Universal Tranlator" solutions and let the
> writers do the writing [and the fact-finder editors do their job].
Because, in the absence of sufficient technical knowledge to differentiate
SF from fantasy, this procedure results in non-SF stories with "science"
used as a magical plot pivot when necessary. The result is NOT SF.
It's fantasy with technobabble magic wands.
If the science isn't PART of the situation that GENERATES the story,
isn't PART of the *solution* of the problem, then the story isn't SF,
because it can be written in a different, non-SF, format.
> IMO, the astronomy lesson is not part of basic science I know.
> However IMO (if I remember correctly) the Lorenz Transform (Traveling
> close to the speed of light arithmetic is part of Freshman Physics
> courses.
Actually, it's part of seventh-grade general science, or was when *I*
was in school. Of course, that was so long ago that the back row
was composed of bright pterodactyls, but you get the idea.
> I really appreciated reading the posters post before this. Simple
> and to the point. I ignore his conclusions about the writers.
> IMO, he wasn't effected by the episodes that seem to have moved many
"Affected." "Effect" and "affect" are two different words, not
interchangeable.
> of the posters to alt.tv.earth2. In otherwords he doesn't really
Oh, E-2 moves me all right; normally in the direction of the lavatory.
> understand the show. On the other hand I couldn't laugh as I [look
> forward to doing] at these posts. His Stellar Geography lesson may
> be on point.
> I think this Gregg Bear talk is off the point. Fiction is fiction
> IMO science is understood by those that have studied the experiments
> that gave rise to the physics and mathematical models scientists use
> to describe the science. Hence, I wish the "Earth 2" producers would
> have hired the relevant grad students to read the script for the Pilot.
By the time the script is *written*, it's too late to have it vetted
by someone who's technically competent. If you're going to do real
SF, technical competence is required at the OUTSET, as part of the
creative process. Otherwise, you're not making SF, and chances are
you're not making anything worth watching, because maltreatment of
SF plot schticks allows the whole mess to descend into a morass of
imitative fantasy..... as E-2 has done.
> Know I'm left with the conclusion that the members of Eden project
> don't understand Freshman College Physics, because the planet must be
> much farther away than 22 Light hears (if the Astronomy listed in the
> post was correct).
I figure it's a LOT more likely that E-2 is somewhere near the
Centauri system; 22 years would be a LOT more believeable time
for sublight transit to a system about five light years away.
> I used to think that that there may have been something very strange
> going on when the colonists thought they were in suspended animation,
> because I thought it was impossible to sleep for 22 years while the
> ship aged 22 years and wake up being only 22 light years away from
> earth.
Funny you should mention this. However, the script specificallly
says, (a) sleeping for 22 years; and (b) 22 light years away.
Tom Weinstein
> In article <17338B907S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
>> Or, they want the show to be popular among people who aren't particularly
>> clear on relativity, and don't want to try to explain why 22 years would
>> really seem to be only several days to the people moving near light speed.
> For that matter, why bother with cryosleep if you can really travel
> .99c? It's only going to be a few days (subjective) anyway, surely the
> savings in power and space from dumping the sleep chambers more than makes
> up for a few days (maybe a couple of weeks) of food storage.
Bzzt. Don't you know your special relativity? The time compression is:
sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)), which for .99c is about 1/7. So, a trip of 22 ly
would be 3 years subjective. To get it down three weeks, you'd have to
go .9999965c.
--
"We'll see you at White Sands in June. You bring your | Tom Weinstein
view-graphs, and I'll bring my rocketship." -- Pete Worden | to...@engr.sgi.com
Alan D. Earhart
Peng) wrote:
> What you seem to be saying is that E2 should be internally
> *consistent* to be called science fiction. My argument is that this is
> desirable *regardless* of what genre one might stuff the show into.
> No matter what your aim is, unless you're doing magical realism
> (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) or something where inconsistency
> becomes part of the game, you *should* be consistent. This is a more
> general complaint about any TV show.
Ummm....yes and no. It would help if they worked a little harder on the
consistency but that wouldn't be enough for me to call it SF.
The writers have shown a blatant disregard for some basic laws of physics
(as discussed in other posts). This seems to arise not from a desire to
write good SF and just blowing it but from not caring about some
fundamental physical laws. I just can't begin to call it SF if they don't
want to write SF (as they have stated). Hey! I used the word in the
definition...*sheesh*...as you can see I am having a bit of difficulty
trying to convey my thoughts on this.
As my final note on this I'd like to add something. Call the show what you
want since it just doesn't matter to me. Remember that I *do* like the
show. I'm not out to nitpick it to death like what happens with shows that
have 'Trek' somewhere in the show... :) The interesting thing that I've
seen is how people have responded to me here and in email. I've attempted
to keep things casual and to not make extreme statements although it seems
that some people seem to have overlooked this point.
The bottom line is that I don't consider E2 to be SF. If you do then fine.
If not then fine.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Robert D Brown
An issue I haven't seen brought up yet (correct me if I've missed it)
is the 22 year thing. I keep getting the impression that the ship
has traveled that distance at the speed of light. Nothing has been
mentioned on the show yet that might support that. It's a 22 light-
year trip that the crew has traversed in 22 years (real time). That
sounds like C to me.
If the G-type stars are just not there, then I'd say it's plain we're dealing
with an alternate universe story, not meant to resemble reality in any
significant way. At least then the writers can do whatever they
feel like doing and it doesn't have to make sense at all.
Disappointing, but a possibility.
jgut...@ivory.trentu.ca
I personally would have to agree with Chuck. I am no science major myself,
and we must keep in mind the limitations of what we know now and what we
could know in the future. I think that the writers of E2 do a pretty good
job of predicting future technology without leaving too many holes. Holes
that only the most avid watchers and those well versed in the laws of
relativity would spot. So lets enjoy the show and not
get too nit picky -unless of course they really start getting rediculous.
Jen
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> Let's not forget the purpose of any television show: Entertainment. I enjoy
> the show, yeah I can sit and pick holes in it all day. If you enjoy nitpicking
> go ahead - that's your entertainment. The first time I watch something I want
> to just watch it and be entertained. If I've watched it many times, then it
> gets fun to find inconsistencies (like watching Star Trek movies 5x).
Very well, but *my* idea of high entertainment is watching Gharlane
paddle the young'uns when they make ill-considered statments about
technobabble and the quality of TV SF.
As for *Star Trek* movies, I usually find most of the inconsistencies
on the *first* viewing.
(Of course, it took about six or seven times through *Forbidden
Planet* to wonder why the Krell installed, in a typical kindergarten
classroom, a switch that would vaporize Altair IV. Did they put one
in every classroom?)
Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "Captain's Log, Stardate 46682.4.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | The *Enterprise* is docked at the
Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET | Remlar Array, where it will undergo
Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | a routine procedure to eliminate
SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS | accumulated baryon particles."
("Baryon Bunnies" under the beds?) | Hmm, my apartment needs this too.
Gharlane of Eddore
but doesn't show any time dilation,
In <17338B907S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu writes:
>
> Or, they want the show to be popular among people who aren't
> particularly clear on relativity, and don't want to try to explain
> why 22 years would really seem to be only several days to the people
> moving near light speed.
If you can't explain it in context, with a couple of simple throw-away
lines, you shouldn't be writing for a living. It's part of the SF
milieux. You don't avoid the use of arcane poisons and weapons
on "MURDER, SHE WROTE;" you explain them in context.
> I agree, instead of saying 22 light-years away, they should have just
> said 22 years away, and left it up to us to decide how fast the ship
> was moving. But it doesn't matter. They're there, and since the first
> episode they _have_ simply been saying 22 years.
*THEIR* problem. I decline to waste intellectual effort creating
ways to explain away the incompetences of writers who are vastly
overpaid.
> I'm sure the production staff has a fairly high degree of competence,
> because they've presented travel between the stars in such a way that
> _most_ people can watch the show without going "Huh?" A serial action
> show is not the best place for an explanation of relativity, or much of
> the other science they use. It's science fiction. But it's televised
> science fiction, and they're limited by the mainstream audience.
> It doesn't have to be accurate. It just has to be believable.
Gee, that's funny. "CAPTAIN VIDEO" did a pretty good job of explaining
relativistic time dilation, over forty years ago, and did it in a
HALF-hour show, without slowing down the action. Of course, when your
instrument panel is just painted onto a sheet of cardboard, you danged
well have to have a decent script, or people stop watching.
The folks on "SPACE PATROL" ended up in Colonial New England, with a
blackboard explanation of the "-t" in the formula if you exceed "C."
A lot of kids thought that was really neat, and learned the formula
by watching the show. (At the time, it was commonly accepted that
"exceeding the speed of light will send you backward in time.....")
After their FTL drive malfunction there was a bit of trouble with
Cotton Mather and high-tech artifacts, as I recall. There was also
a stop-off in the mid-twentieth century, and an alteration in time
tracks when they triggered the research that would result in the
development of anti-radiation medication. Many of the '50's shows
were easily as good as things which are in current production.
(Of course, I'm still steamed off about them never following through
on that neat flying saucer Rocky Jones found, and got home in,
after his ship was destroyed....)
..If they could do THAT with a nearly zero-budget kiddie show, forty
years ago, how is it that stuff like "SEAQUEST" and "EARTH 2" can't
contrive to be at least as good?
Frank McNeil
: >I find the very idea that "E2 is great SF" is so ignorant and offensive
: >that we should all do our best to wish this thread to go away.
I hope not.
: Use your kill file. Your opinion does not imply any obligation on the
: rest of us to wish along with you.
Kill files are great!
IMO, many of us didn't understand why the posters that used the ad
hominem fallacy over and over when flaming the "Earth 2" production
thought they were saying anything meaningful, because we have watched
more impossible science magic in "Star Trek" than "Earth 2."
We (at least me) thought "Star Trek" was regarded to be Science
Fiction. IMO the "beam me up" and "holodeck" machines of Star Trek
can't exist in the Star Trek social universe. That is, the mere
existence of such technology would imply that it would be used for
many more things than are part of the Star Trek Universe.
Hence, by comparison "Earth 2" is great SF.
This is a good thread for some of us. IMO, by reading this thread
and the technobable thread, some of us have learned why some people
find the phrase "Earth 2 is great SF" so objectionable and can
appreciate that feeling. They are CLINGING to a different meaning of
the term "Science Fiction" than the common way the term is used by the
general public.
[For me trying to force people to use MY MEANINGS for words is like
putting a square peg in a round hole.]
Frank
[An Earth 2 fan]
P.S. Also. I don't understand why we have to regard the statements
of non-experts (e.g., Danziger or Alonzo), that rely an
AI, as valid explanations of the "Earth 2" science. I
seldom take the word of a non-expert as fact in real
life, so why should I do otherwise when watching "Earth
2."
IMO "Earth 2" science (and technology) like other things
in this new type of series just isn't explained. Thats
what we, the thinking and creative audience, are allowed
to do.
James Buster
<CGWO...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Or, they want the show to be popular among people who aren't particularly
>clear on relativity, and don't want to try to explain why 22 years would
>really seem to be only several days to the people moving near light speed.
For that matter, why bother with cryosleep if you can really travel
.99c? It's only going to be a few days (subjective) anyway, surely the
savings in power and space from dumping the sleep chambers more than makes
up for a few days (maybe a couple of weeks) of food storage.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> I personally would have to agree with Chuck. I am no science major myself,
> and we must keep in mind the limitations of what we know now and what we
> could know in the future. I think that the writers of E2 do a pretty good
> job of predicting future technology without leaving too many holes. Holes
I don't, and neither does anyone else with reasonable knowledge of science
and/or SF who's posted on this subject.
> that only the most avid watchers and those well versed in the laws of
> relativity would spot. So lets enjoy the show and not
"Relativity" has no "laws;" and relativistic ineptitude was hardly the
major point of contention anyway.
> get too nit picky -unless of course they really start getting rediculous.
"EARTH 2" has been ridiculous from the outset, and it's getting worse;
or are horses, that come in "L'Eggs" and grow to full size without being
fed much, *not* ridiculous (note spelling) in your world-view?
No *wonder* you find "EARTH 2" palatable.
> Jen
Gharlane of Eddore
> A ceveat: I'm still new to this thread.
> An issue I haven't seen brought up yet (correct me if I've missed it)
> is the 22 year thing. I keep getting the impression that the ship
Oh, it's been discussed, more than a bit. See my initial excoriation
of the pilot film from last fall, or save the lifespan and accept my
assurances that your comments are in line with a large number of
complaints already posted, by a good many folks...
> has traveled that distance at the speed of light. Nothing has been
> mentioned on the show yet that might support that. It's a 22 light-
> year trip that the crew has traversed in 22 years (real time). That
> sounds like C to me.
> If the G-type stars are just not there, then I'd say it's plain we're
> dealing with an alternate universe story, not meant to resemble reality
> in any significant way. At least then the writers can do whatever they
> feel like doing and it doesn't have to make sense at all.
> Disappointing, but a possibility.
This might be an acceptable "out," were it not for the fact that we
are *not* responsible for explaining away the idiocies and incompetences
of the writers; it's THEIR story, it's THEIR responsibility to tell it;
they're certainly being paid well enough that they should feel motivated
to provide us with something better than recycled comic books and old
"WAGON TRAIN" scripts.
Please note that a light-speed drive might be acceptable, IF they'd
(a) talked about using it, and explained how it is that the thing
accelerates and decelerates instantly from rest to C and from C
to rest (otherwise, you lose part of your 22 years getting up
to speed and slowing down, and you can't GO 22 light years in
22 years!).....and
(B) explained how it is that even though they're travelling at, or
nearly at, lightspeed, there's no time dilation, and 22 years
pass while they're in cold sleep travelling 22 light years.
Outside of their tremendous technical and genre incompetence, I'm
sure they're all warm, wonderful, special, talented human beings.
But that doesn't mean I have to respect them, because they're
producing incompetent slop and wasting a huge budget doing so.
They *could* have made a GOOD show.
Bloodheart
they were traveling in could not have gone exactly 22 light
years...Because it would take time to accelerate and the decel too. So
maybe when they say "22 light years" on the show it is a rough
aproximation.... so say it would be any where from 20-24 light years away..
Mind you this is just a theory, so please don't get to angry with me...
Muralynd
>I agree, instead of saying 22 light-years away, they should have just said
>22 years away, and left it up to us to decide how fast the ship was moving.
>But it doesn't matter. They're there, and since the first episode they
>_have_ simply been saying 22 years.
Maybe Earth2 is 22 Years away AT the speed of Light?!?!?
>I'm sure the production staff has a fairly high degree of competence, because
>they've presented travel between the stars in such a way that _most_ people
>can watch the show without going "Huh?" A serial action show is not the best
>place for an explanation of relativity, or much of the other science they
>use. It's science fiction. But it's televised science fiction, and they're
>limited by the mainstream audience. It doesn't have to be accurate. It just
>has to be believable.
Dat's de key, It's only the `nit-pickers' that worry WHY this or that
isn't right instead of just suspending belief and enjoying the show.
I like to speculate as much as the next person but COME ON, this is the
FUTURE... Their going to have advanced a LITTLE bit.... I would hope.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muralynd #Include <Standard.Disclaimer>
mura...@sky.net Finger mura...@sky.net for PGP Key
Geek Code Follows; These views are mine alone! I paid for `em!
-*- GAT/d---/-p+/c++++/l/u/e+/m++/s/+/n-/h--/f*/!g/w/t+/r++/y+/y**
PGP Key fingerprint = 67 25 E4 67 2B 57 86 CE F9 33 37 BA EC 66 3E AE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "GoE" == Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@nextnet.csus.edu> writes:
GoE> What's your point? Transbekistan is just to the west of Transylvania,
GoE> slightly north of the Triple Kingdom (Scythia-Panonia-Transbalkania).
Transylvania is not located anywhere near the other countries you
mention. Look it up.
John Wheeler
: isn't right instead of just suspending belief and enjoying the show.
: I like to speculate as much as the next person but COME ON, this is the
: FUTURE... Their going to have advanced a LITTLE bit.... I would hope.
Yes, but they get such enjoyment :) out of being critical of every little
detail, except for the show they really like. Sad really.
I just enjoy E2 because I like it, and don't mind a few inconsistencies
here and there, after all no one's perfect.
/\ Vermillion Ranger -- Sabalom Glitz
/vvvvvvvvvvvv \--------------------------------------,
`^^^^^^^^^^^^ /====================================="
\/ "Cactus Wren Bull of Heaven Thunderzord Power!!"
Bill Bouma
In article <a8LClSk4...@sky.net>, mura...@sky.net (Muralynd) writes:
|> Dat's de key, It's only the `nit-pickers' that worry WHY this or that
|> isn't right instead of just suspending belief and enjoying the show.
Most TV requires suspending some of your rational thought process.
Perhaps some people have a more difficult time shutting their
rationality down to the level required to enjoy E2. Some people
who like E2 have a problem shutting down their rationality even
farther to enjoy Seaquest for example.
|> I like to speculate as much as the next person but COME ON, this is the
|> FUTURE... Their going to have advanced a LITTLE bit.... I would hope.
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the FUTURE, but it isn't the FUTURE in any universe I
know about. You realize that Earth II refers to the planet they
left and not the one they went to? It is obvious that the Earth
is set in a different universe than this one we live on. The laws
of physics, chemistry, and biology have all been shown to be dif-
ferent from those we have come to know and love.
--
Bill <bo...@cs.purdue.edu> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/bouma
Bill Bouma
In article <3gt6i1$k...@news.primenet.com>, sgl...@primenet.com (John Wheeler) writes:
|> Yes, but they get such enjoyment :) out of being critical of every little
|> detail, except for the show they really like. Sad really.
Personally, the shows I like the best are the ones I am very critical
of! This is because I cannot turn my thought process on and off at
will. I accept your pity for my innability in this matter. In turn
I give you my pity for your ability to be spoonfed dog shit and convince
yourself you are eating cake.
|> I just enjoy E2 because I like it, and don't mind a few inconsistencies
|> here and there, after all no one's perfect.
Robert D Brown
: of the writers; it's THEIR story, it's THEIR responsibility to tell it;
: they're certainly being paid well enough that they should feel motivated
: to provide us with something better than recycled comic books and old
: "WAGON TRAIN" scripts.
I'm not a screenwriter, but I do write sf. So here's my challenge...
You people who know how the screenwriting business is know what to
do -- write and submit manuscripts. It may be "their" story, but it's
also _your_ story, and you should let the writers know it's not going
as well as it could. Do it by speaking out, and there's several ways
of getting the job done. Write or call the network. Talk to the people
who count. But the best way to improve the show is to write a better
episode. Write your manuscript, polish the hell out of it, get an
agent, and submit it! There really is no better solution.
Tod the Fox
sheesh, get a life, people.
amy, wondering if people actually argued like this over Plan 9 from
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Amy L. Plack "With talent on loan
tr...@wpi.edu from God... and half my
t...@sidehack.res.wpi.edu brains tied behind my back to make it fair..."
JEREMY A. DU-CHARME
: Umm...someone else earlier pointed out a good fact...In 22 years the ship
earth time.
This is from when the crew was worrying about their reception upon returning
will be after leaving without clearance and someone said "44 years, and how
many adminsitrations will that be"(quote may not be exact)
abn...@cotton.uamont.edu
do you watch this mess
Magic BBS
> aged 22 years? But then there's the possibility that Riley's group made the
> journey roughly at the same time as the Eden Advance Team.
Sure, Riley was there before. It seems they are in orbit somewhere above
the planet. Heller just contacted him when she arrived (probably had
been told they were there already)
Robert D Brown
: (Of course, it took about six or seven times through *Forbidden
: Planet* to wonder why the Krell installed, in a typical kindergarten
: classroom, a switch that would vaporize Altair IV. Did they put one
: in every classroom?)
That's probably all the set space they had left. Power plants the
size of office blocks must really do wonders for real estate values.
Robert D Brown
: I find the very idea that "E2 is great SF" is so ignorant and offensive
: that we should all do our best to wish this thread to go away.
What's the matter, John? You don't enjoy beating
dead dogs senseless?
Jeff Gerke
> Maybe Earth2 is 22 Years away AT the speed of Light?!?!?
I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't know much about it, but that's a
good enough explanation for me. It would certainly expand the parameters a
little. No more looking for stars 22 light years away from earth. It would
also explain why they had to be in suspended animation. If a 22 light year
journey would only feel like a week or two, why go to sleep?
But how is it that Riley's still contemporary with them? Wouldn't he have
aged 22 years? But then there's the possibility that Riley's group made the
journey roughly at the same time as the Eden Advance Team.
I don't know. Just produce a new episode.
Jeff