# Most Misused Word in Science Fiction



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Apr 16, 2005)

I think the word that deserves this dubious honor is "intergalactic."  Anything that doesn't involve more than one galaxy is NOT intergalactic.

Another contender is "dimension," which just refers to a pair of opposite strait-line directions, and not another universe that can be reached by travelling through other dimensions.

I'm interested in what others think about this.


----------



## Mark (Apr 16, 2005)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> I think the word that deserves this dubious honor is "intergalactic."  Anything that doesn't involve more than one galaxy is NOT intergalactic.




"Inner" and "Inter" are often misappropriately substituted for one another.




			
				PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> Another contender is "dimension," which just refers to a pair of opposite strait-line directions, and not another universe that can be reached by travelling through other dimensions.




"Dimension has come to have a great many meanings such as "a level of consciousness, existence, or reality" which is a bit less defined in physical terms.




			
				PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> I'm interested in what others think about this.




So am I.


----------



## reanjr (Apr 16, 2005)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> I think the word that deserves this dubious honor is "intergalactic."  Anything that doesn't involve more than one galaxy is NOT intergalactic.
> 
> Another contender is "dimension," which just refers to a pair of opposite strait-line directions, and not another universe that can be reached by travelling through other dimensions.
> 
> I'm interested in what others think about this.




In the case of intergalactic, many people misunderstand inter- for trans- or pan-.  No big surprise that intergalactic is misused.

As to dimension, that of course stems from parallel dimension.  In other words a mathematical dimension that does not intersect with our own and is therefore entirely distinct.  It is reasonable to assume that a people who travel to places lying in one of these parallel dimensions would begin to call each separate place a dimension.  It's just ease of use.


----------



## Greylock (Apr 16, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> "Inner" and "Inter" are often misappropriately substituted for one another.




Methinks, once upon a time it was "intra-galactic".

I'd like to toss anything non-Trek which uses Trek tropes, such as "Warp" or "phaser".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 16, 2005)

I _still_ occasionally run across people (and writers, though they aren't usually true sci-fi writers) who think "lightyear" is a unit of time, rather than of distance.

(Of course, there's one certain movie writer out there, whose initials are GL, who at one point seemed to think that a "parsec" was also a measure of time, rather than distance. And no, I don't buy the scrabbling for corrections they did in the later novels. )


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 16, 2005)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Methinks, once upon a time it was "intra-galactic".




Yup. I see "inter-" and "intra-" confused _constantly_. "Inter-party conflict" instead of "intra-party," for instance.

I blame the ancient Romans, for that silly little language of theirs.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.

Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 16, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.
> 
> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?




You know, that topic actually came up in one of the old Star Trek novels. (One of the few that was actaully decent, IIRC, though I can't for the life of me remember which one.) Someone--probably Dr. McCoy, though I couldn't swear to that--was discussing the transporter, and wondering if it _didn't_ kill you. After all, if it killed the original person but created a perfect duplicate that _believed_ it was the original person, or if it created a thing that was alive but had no "soul," how would anyone ever really know?


----------



## Dagger75 (Apr 16, 2005)

TIME TRAVEL

 Those 2 words should not be allowed to sit next to each other.  While some stories are interesting most just annoy me with the paradoxs.


----------



## Filby (Apr 16, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.
> 
> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?




Heh, I remember an episode of Trek:TNG where Reg Barkley cited that as the reason he's deathly afraid of transporters. Of course, he was afraid of everything in space...

Ever seen _Galaxy Quest_? 

"And it exploded."


----------



## Silver Moon (Apr 16, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?



Well, if you want to discuss conceptual ideas that Trek promoted and others copied you have to include explosions and fire in space.   Looks great, can't happen.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2005)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to discuss conceptual ideas that Trek promoted and others copied you have to include explosions and fire in space.   Looks great, can't happen.




Can happen, if the exploding thing is (like most spaceships) full of oxygen.  In addition, fission and fusion reactions don't require air to look all glowy and hot.  If you don't believe me, look up on a bright sunny day...


----------



## Silver Moon (Apr 16, 2005)

And the sound that usually accompanies the explosion?


----------



## Templetroll (Apr 16, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.
> 
> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?




Science fiction sees life as a form of energy and anything like matter and energy can be dealt with scientifically.  Anything not matter or energy must not be important.  Correct?


----------



## Temprus (Apr 16, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I _still_ occasionally run across people (and writers, though they aren't usually true sci-fi writers) who think "lightyear" is a unit of time, rather than of distance.
> 
> (Of course, there's one certain movie writer out there, whose initials are GL, who at one point seemed to think that a "parsec" was also a measure of time, rather than distance. And no, I don't buy the scrabbling for corrections they did in the later novels. )




Someone pointed out to me that because you need a navicomputer to do hyperjumps, the MF could be the only ship to make the trip by traveling under 12 parsecs from start to finish without hitting a moon or such.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 16, 2005)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to discuss conceptual ideas that Trek promoted and others copied you have to include explosions and fire in space.   Looks great, can't happen.




Let's not forget sound. No sound in a vacuum.






...but it really does sound cool!


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 16, 2005)

Temprus said:
			
		

> Someone pointed out to me that because you need a navicomputer to do hyperjumps, the MF could be the only ship to make the trip by traveling under 12 parsecs from start to finish without hitting a moon or such.





Which is the scrambled explanation he's talking about not buying. But I'm perfectly fine with it. Then again I'm pretty indifferent to how scientifically correct "sci-fi" is, I'd rather it be entertaining first.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 16, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> ...but it really does sound cool!





Which is the whole point.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 16, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Which is the whole point.




I was watching an interview with Ben Burtt (Star Wars Sound Engineer), and he pointed that out to Lucas, and finally he asked Lucas, "Do you want it to sound right, or do you want it to sound epic?"


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 16, 2005)

Yeah, it is interesting to think how those scenes would feel if it sounded right. In my opinion at least it'd lose a good bit of the spine tingling feel, but who can really say?


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 16, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Yeah, it is interesting to think how those scenes would feel if it sounded right. In my opinion at least it'd lose a good bit of the spine tingling feel, but who can really say?




Ever watched _Firefly_? Space scenes feel naked.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 16, 2005)

On a slight tangent, does a person inside an exploding spaceship hear the explosion? What I mean is, since the explosion likely uses most of the air around it do you hear the beginning and then it just suddenly goes quiet, or does the air get used so fast that the sound never gets anywhere? What about when you're in a spaceship and only part of it blows up? Do you just feel the blast hitting the ship?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2005)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> And the sound that usually accompanies the explosion?




You want me to go for the No-Prize?  Sure!

Sound doesn't travel as a wave through vacuum, but physical items can still move.  When you hear an explosion in a space scene, the sound is poroduced by highly accelerated debris (including simple molecules of gas) impacting the hull of the ship in which the camera sits.  The fact that this results in something we imagine sounds like an explosion is happy coincidence


----------



## Dirigible (Apr 16, 2005)

> If you don't believe me, look up on a bright sunny day...




*wrapping bandage around his eyes* Last time I take _your_ advice...



> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?




Werrrrrl... every atom in your body is replaced over a long enough span of time (about a decade, I think)... so teleportation just does it quicker.

'Wobbly Thing in Space' (to quote Red Dwarf) is pretty overused. Sure, they may not call it that, but practically every sci fi prog has wobbly things in space, whether they be sub-meson rifts, time singularities.

Oooh, ooh, the one that really boils my goat... quantum leap, used to mean a huge, revolutionary progression - when it really refers to a miniscule, inexplicable translocation.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Apr 16, 2005)

Dirigible said:
			
		

> Oooh, ooh, the one that really boils my goat... quantum leap, used to mean a huge, revolutionary progression - when it really refers to a miniscule, inexplicable translocation.



Good one!




			
				Temprus said:
			
		

> Someone pointed out to me that because you need a navicomputer to do hyperjumps, the MF could be the only ship to make the trip by traveling under 12 parsecs from start to finish without hitting a moon or such.




MF? Hope Eric's Grandma didn't see that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 16, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> MF? Hope Eric's Grandma didn't see that.




I'm sure she's a great fan of the Millennium Falcon


----------



## Silver Moon (Apr 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You want me to go for the No-Prize?



A No-Prize!   Have I found myself another member of the Merry Marvel Marching Society!


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Apr 16, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm sure she's a great fan of the Millennium Falcon




So MF is a common abbreviation of "Millenium Falcon"? 




			
				Silver Moon said:
			
		

> A No-Prize! Have I found myself another member of the Merry Marvel Marching Society!




Excelsior!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 17, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.
> 
> Don't people realize that you DIE when you'e teleported?




I always found it amusing that no one abused it.
I mean, if you can store it as data and send it somewhere to be replicated, why can't you just knock out replicants of people at will?

I remember them stating more than once that Clone's degrade with each generation (clone of a clone of a clone) but no matter how often you transport someone, they're fine, so why bother cloning?


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Apr 17, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I always found it amusing that no one abused it.
> I mean, if you can store it as data and send it somewhere to be replicated, why can't you just knock out replicants of people at will?




IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.

Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 17, 2005)

I read a book once that actually addressed the whole "doesn't teleportation kill you" question by having it NOT kill you.

I THINK the book was Frederik Pohl's _Wall Around A Star_, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Anyway, what happens is you step into a teleportation booth, push the button and then walk out. Disappointed because you thought you were going somewhere but just came out exactly where you went in.

MEANWHILE, on the other side of the galaxy, you ALSO stepped out of the remote teleportation booth, all excited because you got see another world but also disappointed because you'd never see home again.

It got all kinds of fun when folks took multiple trips so there were half-a-dozen of themselves running about somewhere. And if you got killed somewhere, they'd try and contact you somewhere else so you could send another you over.

The book itself I didn't like lots, but that idea blew me away. What fun!


----------



## Crothian (Apr 17, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.
> 
> Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.




Actually it made sense in the context as they set it up. THey did explain why they were in the holodeck and not able to be made real at the time.  It wasn't a good episode but it made sense in the Star Trek Universe.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 17, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about words, but the _concept _ of teleportation is moderatly popular in sci-fi... I love the explanations for it. A machine rips you apart atom by atom, digitizes the info (somehow) and sends it to another machine the reconstructs you, atom by atom.




From what I can tell, this isn't teleportation at all. It's a close facsimile, but not the same thing.

"Teleport" means that you go from one point to another without crossing the intervening distance. Being broken down into your component atoms and having them reconstructed elsewhere may be quicker, and you may not experience the travelling, but the individual atoms are still making the physical trip from here to there. Likewise, moving through other "dimensions" (see other posts for more on that   ) isn't teleporting, as you're just traversing the distance by another route.

Literal teleporting is where you cease to exist at one point and simultaneously begin existing at another (though, strictly speaking, it doesn't need to be simultaneous).


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 17, 2005)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> Most Misused Word in Science Fiction...




Science.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 17, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Science.





Duh duh duh duh.

Yeah, that doesn't look as cool as it sounds.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 17, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Duh duh duh duh.
> 
> Yeah, that doesn't look as cool as it sounds.




Try it like this...

_Duh duh duh duh!_


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 17, 2005)

You are my hero.


----------



## s/LaSH (Apr 17, 2005)

'tele'+'port'. 'Tele' means distant or distance. 'Port' means 'move', as in porter, transport, etc. Thus teleport means to move something a great distance, in its rawest etymological form. Nothing about destroying it in there. Thus, unless you perform a metalinked energy transmission using direct matter-to-energy conversion and a matching inversion at the destination, you're not being teleported, or ported at all - you're being duplicated somehow. Or so my technobabble goes (although it's accurate technobabble, one of my weaknesses - I can't carry on about something inaccurately).



			
				Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.
> 
> Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.




I liked that episode. I laughed my anatomy off watching it, and it made sense to me.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 17, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.
> 
> Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.




I loved it as well. Garak's commentary throughout was an added bonus. The episode's name was "Our Man Bashir," FYI.


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 17, 2005)

Dirigible said:
			
		

> Oooh, ooh, the one that really boils my goat... quantum leap, used to mean a huge, revolutionary progression - when it really refers to a miniscule, inexplicable translocation.





A quantum leaps means a jump from one level to another, without actually going in between. Which is pretty much a huge, revolutionary progression.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 17, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I loved it as well. Garak's commentary throughout was an added bonus. The episode's name was "Our Man Bashir," FYI.



It's among my favourite Trek episodes.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Apr 17, 2005)

I rather like how Brin's Uplift universe handles teleportation.

It's quick, it's efficient--and it's very dangerous.

One race, the Tandu (xenophobic mantis-creatures who want to make the universe quiet--by killing off all other species), created a race of powerful reality-altering psychic beings, the Episiarch.  Then they turned these Episiarch into megalomaniac solipsimists, believing the universe is their clay, to be molded at will.  Then they put them in amplification devices, to seriously boost their power.

The Episiarch roars, "GRRRRR!!!  I don't want to be here!  I want to be *THERE*!"  The universe gets out of the way, and the ship moves halfway across a galaxy, sometimes appearing even in the midst of an enemy formation...

Of course, sometimes the Episiarch has a lapse in concentration.  Sometimes the Episiarch accidentally wishes the ship out of existence, so that it _never_ existed.  But that's the price you pay for instantaneous teleportation.

And don't get me started on the dangers of quantum tunneling in the Uplift universe.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 17, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.
> 
> Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.



So, the Holodeck Malfunction can be used for Good, as well as Evil?

I mean really, they should hang one of those " X Days since Accident" on the Holodeck door. You take your life in your hands!


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 17, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I mean really, they should hang one of those " X Days since Accident" on the Holodeck door. You take your life in your hands!




Along with the "No Smoking on the Bridge" sign on the Kobayashi Maru simulator room. Oh, wait...


----------



## Someone (Apr 17, 2005)

Most tortured word in sci-fi is _polarity_, without a word. Everything can be mended, rigged, solved, or is because of a reversal of polarity.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 17, 2005)

Someone said:
			
		

> Most tortured word in sci-fi is _polarity_, without a word. Everything can be mended, rigged, solved, or is because of a reversal of polarity.




Don't forget frequency.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 18, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, that topic actually came up in one of the old Star Trek novels. (One of the few that was actaully decent, IIRC, though I can't for the life of me remember which one.) Someone--probably Dr. McCoy, though I couldn't swear to that--was discussing the transporter, and wondering if it _didn't_ kill you. After all, if it killed the original person but created a perfect duplicate that _believed_ it was the original person, or if it created a thing that was alive but had no "soul," how would anyone ever really know?




_Spock Must Die!_, from memory.

One word that's arguably misused a lot is 'solar'.  "What's the nearest solar system to our current position?" should be answered with "Well... there's only one, and it's where we started..."

None of the other stellar systems have a Sol, after all...

-Hyp.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 18, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> One word that's arguably misused a lot is 'solar'.  "What's the nearest solar system to our current position?" should be answered with "Well... there's only one, and it's where we started..."
> 
> None of the other stellar systems have a Sol, after all...
> 
> -Hyp.




Well, that depends. Solar System means a Star and the planets, etc. that revolve around it.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 18, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Don't forget frequency.




...or phase, for that matter.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 18, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Well, that depends. Solar System means a Star and the planets, etc. that revolve around it.




That's why I said 'arguably'.

Solar system means _the sun_, and the planets etc that revolve around it.  Any other star is 'stella' but not 'Solus', so any extra-Solar star and its planets comprise a stellar system.

There's only one Sol.

-Hyp.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Apr 18, 2005)

Does anyone remember the old King short story Granting? It deals with teleportation in the shortcut through a parallell dimension sense rather than the get destroyed and reassembled way. It's very cool. It's about the father of a family who meticulously explains to his family about the history of Granting. He even mentions the you have to be sedated to go Granting else you risk witnessing the actual journey, somthing that'll drive you mad and kill you. Anyway, good story.

I once read a short story about a boy in the future who refuses to use the teleportation portals that can be found everywhere. His teachers and parents are troubled by this because you must use the portals - all normal people do. It turns out the boy once witnessed a power outage and raised the question: "What happens if you have a power outage in the middle of a teleport jump?".


----------



## ddvmor (Apr 18, 2005)

Following up on the recurring 'quantum' issue in this thread - can someone please exoplain to me exactly what a 'quantum singularity' is, why it emits tachyons and why it's blue and swirly.

And while we're talking about blue and swirly... singularities, rifts, distortions and the like. Why are they always, always blue and swirly?


----------



## Zappo (Apr 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You want me to go for the No-Prize?  Sure!
> 
> Sound doesn't travel as a wave through vacuum, but physical items can still move. When you hear an explosion in a space scene, the sound is poroduced by highly accelerated debris (including simple molecules of gas) impacting the hull of the ship in which the camera sits. The fact that this results in something we imagine sounds like an explosion is happy coincidence



My theory is that what you hear isn't the sound of the engine or explosion, but the electromagnetic waves which the engine/explosion produces, through your ship's radio. Notice that Star Wars' noisiest ships in relation to size seem to be the TIE series, which have ion engines, which presumably produce a lot of electromagnetic "noise". I don't know what the other engines burn, but I bet it isn't gasoline. Most SW weapons use some sort of charged particles too. I'm a bit more at a loss in explaining explosions this way, except for the really big ones... though it is likely that shields dissipate some energy as em waves when hit. So, do I win something?







			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I once read a short story about a boy in the future who refuses to use the teleportation portals that can be found everywhere. His teachers and parents are troubled by this because you must use the portals - all normal people do. It turns out the boy once witnessed a power outage and raised the question: "What happens if you have a power outage in the middle of a teleport jump?".



"The UPS kicks in, that's what happens. Now go, you're late for school." Really, it isn't a word, but my greatest sci-fi pet peeve is why so many advanced civilizations have access to teleportation devices, fusion energy, quantum computers, but no UPS - or surge protectors, for that matter. I guess that safety doesn't make for a good story.


----------



## Allanon (Apr 18, 2005)

Security. In for example Star Trek everyone seems to bypass security with easy. Even non-intelligent lifeforms are either not detected or somehow instictively now all the important subroutines to acces main ship controls. In never amazes me how a lot of science fiction series seem to feature diffenent aliens or entities with no prior knowledge to eachother existance who somehow seem to be able to bypass, disable, override or nullify every security system the other one has.

Something else that never amazes me is how hits to the shield systems or a completely different part of the ship always seem to blow out consoles and systems within the bridge section. Methinks that it would be wise to insulate or otherwise protect those systems from suddenly blowing out. I mean circuitbrakers are commenplace even in these times.


----------



## Padril (Apr 18, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Security. In for example Star Trek everyone seems to bypass security with easy. Even non-intelligent lifeforms are either not detected or somehow instictively now all the important *subroutines* to acces main ship controls.




Why is it in every advanced civilisation they have all reverted to using BASIC with subroutines? It reminds me of the time I spent programming my ZX Spectrum   

In the future all spaceships are run by Spectrums and Commodore 64s


----------



## jonesy (Apr 18, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember the old King short story Granting? It deals with teleportation in the shortcut through a parallell dimension sense rather than the get destroyed and reassembled way. It's very cool. It's about the father of a family who meticulously explains to his family about the history of Granting. He even mentions the you have to be sedated to go Granting else you risk witnessing the actual journey, somthing that'll drive you mad and kill you. Anyway, good story.



Sounds more like travelling through the warp a la WH40K than actual teleportation.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 18, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Ever watched _Firefly_? Space scenes feel naked.



I loved the space scenes in Firefly. Completely silent when the camera was viewing something out in space. Very cool.

For me, I'm happy with both. The "epic" feel of explosions in space for some movies, and complete silence in other movies.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 18, 2005)

ddvmor said:
			
		

> Following up on the recurring 'quantum' issue in this thread - can someone please exoplain to me exactly what a 'quantum singularity' is, why it emits tachyons and why it's blue and swirly.




A singularity is a black hole, I believe.


----------



## ledded (Apr 18, 2005)

Padril said:
			
		

> Why is it in every advanced civilisation they have all reverted to using BASIC with subroutines? It reminds me of the time I spent programming my ZX Spectrum
> 
> In the future all spaceships are run by Spectrums and Commodore 64s




And don't forget those universal RS232 ports that every space-faring civilization installs in their spacecraft.  I mean, how else could you hack an entire war amada with a Mac. (thank you, Independence Day).  I look forward to the day when I can swat down an entire invading Alien force with nothing but a digital watch, a video cell phone, and a pair of iPod headphone jacks.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 18, 2005)

Padril said:
			
		

> In the future all spaceships are run by Spectrums and Commodore 64s




POKE 636, 14

Because the world is better with light blue cursors.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Apr 18, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> A singularity is a black hole, I believe.




A _singularity_ does exist "inside" a black hole, yes.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 18, 2005)

That would make an interesting premise, a TV series in which aliens invade but we 
discover that we hold the ultimate weapon to defeat them: The Mac. After the pilot,
after we break back the invasion, a alliance of alien races against the invaders come
and recruite a team of Earthlings under the leadership of Steve Jobs to battle in the
great *intra*stellar war.

We can call it 'iSpace'.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 18, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, that topic actually came up in one of the old Star Trek novels. (One of the few that was actaully decent, IIRC, though I can't for the life of me remember which one.) Someone--probably Dr. McCoy, though I couldn't swear to that--was discussing the transporter, and wondering if it _didn't_ kill you. After all, if it killed the original person but created a perfect duplicate that _believed_ it was the original person, or if it created a thing that was alive but had no "soul," how would anyone ever really know?



 It was definitely McCoy - in fact, I believe the musing was somewhere near the beginning of Diane Duane's _Spock's World_.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 18, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> It was definitely McCoy - in fact, I believe the musing was somewhere near the beginning of Diane Duane's _Spock's World_.




And mentioned by Emory Erickson in episode "Daedalus."


----------



## LordVyreth (Apr 18, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Security. In for example Star Trek everyone seems to bypass security with easy. Even non-intelligent lifeforms are either not detected or somehow instictively now all the important subroutines to acces main ship controls. In never amazes me how a lot of science fiction series seem to feature diffenent aliens or entities with no prior knowledge to eachother existance who somehow seem to be able to bypass, disable, override or nullify every security system the other one has.
> 
> Something else that never amazes me is how hits to the shield systems or a completely different part of the ship always seem to blow out consoles and systems within the bridge section. Methinks that it would be wise to insulate or otherwise protect those systems from suddenly blowing out. I mean circuitbrakers are commenplace even in these times.




I know what you mean.  I lose suspension of disbelief every Star Trek episode with a big space battle.  A few torpedoes hit the shields, and computers on the bridge are bursting into flame or exploding, random gas is pouring out of pipes, extras go flying over the guardrails...Actually, that leads to some questions about the wisdom of bridge design and the lack of seat belts as well.

On a similar note, there's the boarding party raids.  It annoys me that it always comes down to people sneaking through ventilation shaf...err, I mean Jeffery Tubes and blasting each other.  You'd think we'd have some sort of security cameras and automated weaponry in the future.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 18, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> A _singularity_ does exist "inside" a black hole, yes.




Nope, not necessarily.

We've never actually seen what's inside a black hole...  That's part of it being a black hole, after all.

All we know is that at the middle of a black hole, there is enough mass in a small enough space to produce enough gravity to capture light, and prevent it from escaping.  That space is defined by the Schwarzschild Radius, more commonly known as the event horizon, once the blackhole is formed.  This radius is based on the total mass of the object, and you can calculate it for any object... 

Rs = MG/c2

M stands for mass
G is Newton's constant coefficient of gravity
c is the speed of light

The Sun, for example, would be about 6 km wide as a black hole, and the Earth would have to be compressed down to less than 2 cm wide before it could form a black hole.

A mass need not be a singularity to be a black hole, it only needs to be smaller than the Schwarzschild Radius.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 18, 2005)

LordVyreth said:
			
		

> extras go flying over the guardrails...Actually, that leads to some questions about the wisdom of bridge design and the lack of seat belts as well.



What confuses me is that if you're generating your own gravity (and let's just leave that little one aside, shall we?) and something causes your ship to shake, why do people lean from side to side? Their relative acceleration due to gravity doesn't change no matter what orientation the ship is in, right? So what's with the leaning?

Generating gravity. Okay.

Oh, and if you can teleport, as explicitly described in Star Trek (breaking down matter and transmitting it for re-assembly), then you can synthesize matter. At arbitrary points in space.

So what, exactly, does Scotty do? I mean, why don't they just have every single component of the Enterprise listed in the ship's memory, and anytime there's any damage, just "transporter" the broken version out and stick a new version of the component into its appropriate location?

"The hoobajoob's cracked! Quick, press the 'New Hoobajoob' button. Okay, phew."


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 18, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> the Earth would have to be compressed down to less than 2 cm wide before it could form a black hole.



So let's put half the world's population on one side, and half on the other, and SQQQUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEE...


----------



## Captain Tagon (Apr 18, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What confuses me is that if you're generating your own gravity (and let's just leave that little one aside, shall we?) and something causes your ship to shake, why do people lean from side to side? Their relative acceleration due to gravity doesn't change no matter what orientation the ship is in, right? So what's with the leaning?
> 
> Generating gravity. Okay.
> 
> ...





Well, they can synthasize food.


----------



## driver8 (Apr 19, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> IIRC there was a DS9 episode where a shuttle exploded with half of the main cast in it. They beamed out in time, but only barely - they were "stuck" in the ship's memory, only to appear on the holodeck. For some reason, they couldn't stop the running program (James Bond rip-off), or else these people (Sisko, O'Brian, Kira and Dex - again, IIRC) would've died.
> 
> Gosh, that was an awful episode. Didn't make any sense whatsoever.




Sure it does, it was to gain the benefit of the interest of the first Pierce Brosnan James Bond movie being released at the same time IIRC. TNG did a similar thing with that Robin Hood/Q ep during Kevin Costners Robin Hood movie..I think.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 19, 2005)

ledded said:
			
		

> And don't forget those universal RS232 ports that every space-faring civilization installs in their spacecraft.  I mean, how else could you hack an entire war amada with a Mac. (thank you, Independence Day).



In Independence Day the aliens hacked our satellite systems first, so they had already figured out the jacking in part and how to convert the data to a form that our computers could read. So the connection back to their system was already there.

And yes, that's also really ridiculous and pointless. The time they used to hack into the satellites could have been used for actually setting up their own satellite network. As if they'd even have needed one. What _was_ the point of jacking them anyway?

Edit: ever read _The Killing Star_? If the enemy knows how your computers work, you better stop listening to their messages asap.


----------



## Altalazar (Apr 19, 2005)

'Scanners' 

Ok, what REALLY bothers me is useless panels of randomly flashing lights.  ARGGGGH!

I can tell a show is going to be REALLY dumb if it has those.  

I remember Seaquest - which I thought had a decent first season - but then they HAD to push up the "ratings" so they started Season 2 with a new ship that had, you guessed it, huge banks of randomly flashing, useless lights in the background.  AAAARRGHGHGHGHG!

And it also became so stupid I couldn't watch it.


----------



## Altalazar (Apr 19, 2005)

ledded said:
			
		

> And don't forget those universal RS232 ports that every space-faring civilization installs in their spacecraft.  I mean, how else could you hack an entire war amada with a Mac. (thank you, Independence Day).  I look forward to the day when I can swat down an entire invading Alien force with nothing but a digital watch, a video cell phone, and a pair of iPod headphone jacks.




Yes, stupid, but then, the premise was that the Mac was actually reverse engineered from the crashed alien spacecraft...  so perhaps not quite that stupid...

heh.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 19, 2005)

driver8 said:
			
		

> TNG did a similar thing with that Robin Hood/Q ep during Kevin Costners Robin Hood movie..I think.




"Sir, I must protest.  I am _not_ a _Merry Man_!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Dagger75 (Apr 19, 2005)

Padril said:
			
		

> Why is it in every advanced civilisation they have all reverted to using BASIC with subroutines? It reminds me of the time I spent programming my ZX Spectrum
> 
> In the future all spaceships are run by Spectrums and Commodore 64s





 I think the space shuttle is programmed in ADA.

 This a TV show thing in general but how come everybody knows the phone number for everything.

 Lame Comedy Wife: Oh no, the bag from the Dry Cleaners has a costume of a pink badger.  Where is my dress.

 Lame Comedy Husbond: I'll call the Dry Cleaners.
   Picks up and phone and just dials a number doesn't look at anything.  Grrrrrr
            They are closed,  I'll just sneak in and grab it.

 Hilarity ensues.  This show gets picked up for another season and they cancel Firefly instead.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 19, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> This show gets picked up for another season and they cancel Firefly instead.



TV (that is, Western Civilization), in a nutshell.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 19, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> TV (that is, Western Civilization), in a nutshell.




Wait a minute! The Canadian series that last are always genious. 22 Minutes, Air Farce, Made In Canada, for example.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 19, 2005)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> Yes, stupid, but then, the premise was that the Mac was actually reverse engineered from the crashed alien spacecraft...  so perhaps not quite that stupid...
> 
> heh.




If you'd ever played Star Thugs, you wouldn't think that was such a funny joke.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 19, 2005)

So I've been thinking about this thread...

I work as an Accelerator Operator* at a rather large particle accelerator.  The job is roughly analogous (but considerably less...  exciting?) to the bridge crew of the starship Enterprise.  We operators would be equivalent to the extras that enter and sit down on the bridge whenever the main characters head off as an 'away team' to cavort on some exotic planet with blue-skinned women (more on that later).

Our job is to... well... operate the particle accelerators.  In addition, we are the 'first line of defense' should an emergency or failure occur.  Whereas Captain Kirk says, "Warp 9, Mr. Sulu...  Scotty! We need more power to the shields!" and they reply, "Aye, Captain," the poor post-docs at the experiments call us up and say, "We'd like two turns of protons every ten seconds on our secondary target, using the minus 50 GeV tune," and we reply, "Sorry, we've got a water leak in the power amplifier on station 3 in the Linac, it'll take four hours to fix it, and we've got techs replacing a bad voltage regulator on an RF modulator in the Booster, but that shouldn't take long.  We'll give you a call when we're ready to send you beam."

Anyway, the job gives me a unique perspective on Sci-fi movies and television...  Please allow me to address a few points that have been brought up, so that I can compare and contrast the fictional future version with the actual present-day version.

On Polarity and Reversing It:

At the Lab, we use massive electromagnets to steer our charged beams (H- ions, Protons, or Anti-protons, depending) in the direction we want them to go and focus them tightly, so they don't scatter and disperse.  The magnets necessarily have poles, as all magnets do, and as electromagents that are only magnetic by virtue of being hooked into high volatage/high current power supplies, it is possible to reverse their polarities.  For most magnets, it simply means telling the power supply to run a negative current.  For others, we have 'reversing switches' or 'polarity switches', which are simply mechanical switches that atuomatically swap the leads to the cables that draw power from the supply (much like putting in a battery backwards).  For a very few, one must actually unbolt the two primary power cables that are attached to the magnet itself, swap them around, and rebolt them.

It is something that happens all the time here, and the only real significance is that the beam now turns left instead of right, or down instead of up.  We cannot generate an entirely new type of miracle field or particle by reversing polarity.

On Frequency:

Electric fields oscilating at radio frequencies (RF) are what we use to accelerate our charged particles to just a little less than speed of light. The frequencies must be precisely tuned, or the beam will accelerate the way we want it to. There are, of course, many little tricks we can play with frequencies to make that beam dance like a puppet on a string. Which brings us to...

On Phase and Its Modulation: 

In a nutshell, the phase of the generated RF must be precisely tuned like cogs in a wheel.  Otherwise, the beam splatters all over the place, when we try to accelerate it or transfer it from one machine to another.

For example, when the beam is going fast enough that the Relativity effects break even with Newtonian effects, we have initiate a 'phase jump' to keep the beam accelerating properly.

Or, for another example, we sometimes begin with a set of RF generating stations 180 degrees out of phase of each other.  Half of them accelerate the beam and the other half decelerate it, so that the beam sees no net acceleration.  We then slowly bring the stations into phase with each other, so that the beam begins to accelerate.  That's called 'paraphasing'.

On Blue Swirlies:

Unfortunately, the vast majority of stuff that happens in science, especially space, is invisible to human sense.  Fortunately, we've got false color computer enhancement.  We've got a lot of monitors in our Control Room, each of which can display a multude of 'blue swirlies'.  Unfortunately, if you were to go look directly at any of the actual effects, you wouldn't see anything.

On Catastrophic Failures and Their Effect on Unrelated Systems:

You. Would. Be. Surprised.

Despite the oodles of circuit breakers and fuses we have here, it is not uncommon for us to experience catastrophic distasters involving electrical sparking, smoke, fire, gushing water, cryogenic liquids, spatters of molten metal, airborne mechanical components or any of the possible combinations thereof.

More often than not, the original cause of the failure has nothing to do with the actual device that blew up.

Granted, we've never had anything explode in the control room.  The closest we've come is having one of our display monitors burn out resistor or capacitor.

On Spectrums, Commodore 64s and Outdated Computing Systems:

Our controls system runs off of 20 year old VAX/VMS systems.

On Replacement Parts:

We have entire roomfuls of spare modules for every piece of equipment in the Lab.  When something breaks, if we, the operators, cannot fix it immediately, we simply replace the broken module with a fresh spare.  The spare gets tagged and stored, and then gets fixed at the leisure of the apprpriate specialist technician.

Only if the operators cannot fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time (10-15 miutes), do we call in experts (like Scotty or Geordi) to fix it for us.

On Scanners:

We do have scanners, though not in the generic sense that most sci-fi shows use the terms. All of our scanners have a specific purpose that involves taking measurements that systematically span a wide range (the definition of scanning).  Amongst others, we have SWIC scanners and wire scanners.  We also routinely perform "aperture scans" and "target scans".

On Randomly Flashing Lights:

We have thousands upon thousands of (seemingly) randomly flashing lights.  Most of them are red or green.  Every single one of them means something, and flashes for a good reason, though it usually isn't apparent should you look at them from across a room.

On Away Teams:

We don't have "away teams", we have "remote operators".  Very often, something breaks that we cannot fix from the control room.  Consequently, we have to send someone out to find out what went wrong and how to fix it.

Now, normally, our Crew Chief doesn't go along.  He's the guy who's got the Big Plan, so he stays in the Control Room unless something Really Important has gone wrong (like a burning building).  Otherwise, we send two operators...  One veteran to get the job done, and one rookie to learn how to get the job done.

So, you see, the shows and movies are quite as bad as you might think on some of these things...  Though some shows are certainly better than others.

Considering some of the more recent series, SG-1 and Battlestar Galactica have some of the more reality-sensible control rooms and procedures I've seen.  The Millenium Falcon looks and acts surpisingly 'realistic' from the inside (ignoring the super-psuedo-science gadets necessary), though Star Wars falls flat on many other accounts.  Star Trek, on the other hand, is mostly a load of tripe.


*Operator in the Rifts RPG Occupational Character Class 'general technician' sense, not the answer the phone and say, "How may I direct your call" sense.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 19, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So what, exactly, does Scotty do? I mean, why don't they just have every single component of the Enterprise listed in the ship's memory, and anytime there's any damage, just "transporter" the broken version out and stick a new version of the component into its appropriate location?




Not a bad idea. I know in the original series that beaming anywhere _within_ the ship was a Bad Thing, and so incredibly dangerous that they only did it once. Then on Next Gen transportter technology had advanced to the point that they did that sort of thing regularly. No reason they can't create new parts like that, though; they've used the transporter to reconfigure _people_ to previous versions of themselves before.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 19, 2005)

You find some interesting terminology when you read really old science fiction. I read a lot of it from the Golden Age and it can get pretty bizarre. I was very, very confused at times until I realized they were using different words to refer to the same thing. The two most bizzare are using 'Star' and 'Planet' interchangably and using 'Galaxy' and 'Star System' interchangably (as in, 'We're going to the Alpha Centauri galaxy').


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 19, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> On Catastrophic Failures and Their Effect on Unrelated Systems:
> 
> You. Would. Be. Surprised.
> 
> ...




Anybody who works with computers regularly would know this happens.


----------



## Trainz (Apr 19, 2005)

Thanks Pbartender. Your diatribe was quite interesting and fun to read.

Actually, it sums up pretty much how I feel about Sci-Fi shows. Most of it is possible, *IF* we don't look at it with our 21st century knowledge.

For example, let's say a dude in the 30's did a sci-fi movie in which one of the characters uses a round cristalline disc to store data, which is afterwards read by a laser beam. Some random dude watching that movie in the 30's could say "that's preposterous... how can a beam of light *read* something ? It can only illuminate or burn..." because in the 30's, the proprieties of light were not well known by the general populace. In fact, we barely know light's proprieties TODAY.

On misused words; language evolves, changes. A parsec is a unit measuring distance *for us*, but who's to say that in 500 years the word will not loose it's original meaning to signify a unit of time ?

Frankly, about anything is plausible in sci-fi simply because it happens in the future. Things will be different in the future: physics, language, everything.

What *does* get on my nerves in sci-fi shows is when I see a common item from my time (now, in real life, on earth) used:

Clothing: we know for a fact that fashion varies greatly. Some would smirk at someone wearing the clothes from *15* years ago. I just can't strike it up to coincidence when I see someone in a futuristic sci-fi show that wears clothing too similar to what is in fashion today. It destroys my disbelief (Battlestar Galactica).

Items: On Battlestar Galactica, their inner communication system uses phones that look exactly like those used by our military a few years back. Ditto their control panels. Hell, some dude was drawing a line on a map with a ruler and pen to calculate some navigational procedure on the bridge. When I see those, I instantly stop being immersed in the futuristic universe the show pretends to portray.

Vocabulary: I can understand that the characters speak english because most wouldn't enjoy some alien language subtitled (I would though, it would increase my immersion in the alienness of the show), but I hate it when the use an earth-specific noun in a universe that has no ties to earth. Example, Millenium Falcon. I don't believe they have falcons in the Star Wars universe, in fact, AFAIK, not a single earth animal has been used in the movies OR the books, but, hey, Millenium Falcon. 

Explosions in space ? 

Sure, I have NO idea what properties the engines of futuristic spaceships will have.


----------



## Staffan (Apr 19, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Items: On Battlestar Galactica, their inner communication system uses phones that look exactly like those used by our military a few years back. Ditto their control panels. Hell, some dude was drawing a line on a map with a ruler and pen to calculate some navigational procedure on the bridge. When I see those, I instantly stop being immersed in the futuristic universe the show pretends to portray.



They have a reason for the use of some of those items, however. The main one being that the colonies are quite distrustful of computers (especially networked ones) and wireless stuff, because of their vulnerability to Cylon infiltration.


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 19, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Vocabulary: I can understand that the characters speak english because most wouldn't enjoy some alien language subtitled (I would though, it would increase my immersion in the alienness of the show), but I hate it when the use an earth-specific noun in a universe that has no ties to earth. Example, Millenium Falcon. I don't believe they have falcons in the Star Wars universe, in fact, AFAIK, not a single earth animal has been used in the movies OR the books, but, hey, Millenium Falcon.




I always like to think of it "as closely translated as possible."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 19, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Clothing: we know for a fact that fashion varies greatly. Some would smirk at someone wearing the clothes from *15* years ago. I just can't strike it up to coincidence when I see someone in a futuristic sci-fi show that wears clothing too similar to what is in fashion today. It destroys my disbelief (Battlestar Galactica).




I have a vague memory of some miniseries, set ten or fifteen years in the future.  I was quite impressed by the outfits - pretty much identical to the clothing of the time it was aired, except that men wore their ties over their collars (with the collars altered slightly so it didn't look stupid).

It was a nice "It's only a short distance into the future" touch.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 20, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Vocabulary: I can understand that the characters speak english because most wouldn't enjoy some alien language subtitled (I would though, it would increase my immersion in the alienness of the show), but I hate it when the use an earth-specific noun in a universe that has no ties to earth. Example, Millenium Falcon. I don't believe they have falcons in the Star Wars universe, in fact, AFAIK, not a single earth animal has been used in the movies OR the books, but, hey, Millenium Falcon.




There is a good reason for this, though most authors never bother to give an explanation.  A a preface to the novel, _Nightfall_, Issac Asimov and Robert Silverberg excused it like so...



> TO THE READER
> 
> Kalgash is an alien world and it is not our intention to have you think that it is identical to Earth, even though we depict its people as speaking a language that you can understand, and using terms that are familiar to you. Those words should be understood as mere equivalents of alien terms-that is, a conventional set of equivalents of the same sort that a writer of novels uses when he has foreign characters speaking with each other in their own language but nevertheless transcribes their words in the language of the reader. So when the people of Kalgash speak of "miles," or "hands," or "cars," or "computers," they mean their own units of distance, their own grasping-organs, their own ground-transportation devices, their own information-processing machines, etc. The computers used on Kalgash are not necessarily compatible with the ones used in New York or London or Stockholm, and the "mile" that we use in this book is not necessarily the American unit of 5,280 feet. But it seemed simpler and more desirable to use these familiar terms in describing events on this wholly alien world than it would have been to invent a long series of wholly Kalgashian terms.
> 
> ...


----------



## s/LaSH (Apr 20, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So I've been thinking about this thread...
> 
> I work as an Accelerator Operator* at a rather large particle accelerator.  The job is roughly analogous (but considerably less...  exciting?) to the bridge crew of the starship Enterprise.  <Snip fascination>




I like this post a lot. Thus I shall forward it to my acquaintances, if you don't mind.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 20, 2005)

Filby said:
			
		

> Heh, I remember an episode of Trek:TNG where Reg Barkley cited that as the reason he's deathly afraid of transporters. Of course, he was afraid of everything in space...
> 
> Ever seen _Galaxy Quest_?
> 
> "And it exploded."





ROFLAMO


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 20, 2005)

ledded said:
			
		

> And don't forget those universal RS232 ports that every space-faring civilization installs in their spacecraft.  I mean, how else could you hack an entire war amada with a Mac. (thank you, Independence Day).  I look forward to the day when I can swat down an entire invading Alien force with nothing but a digital watch, a video cell phone, and a pair of iPod headphone jacks.





McGyver in the 21st century!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 20, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Sir, I must protest.  I am _not_ a _Merry Man_!"
> 
> -Hyp.




ROFLMAO

One of my favorite Worf quotes!!


----------



## Kesh (Apr 20, 2005)

Temprus said:
			
		

> Someone pointed out to me that because you need a navicomputer to do hyperjumps, the MF could be the only ship to make the trip by traveling under 12 parsecs from start to finish without hitting a moon or such.



 In the first Timothy Zahn _Star Wars_ trilogy, it was said that Kessel was in a sector of space populated by lots of black holes. There were known safe routes, but they took longer than the shortcuts most smugglers used. Of course, those smugglers usually ended up dead by taking too-short shortcuts, and getting pulled into a black hole.

So, Han was boasting that the Falcon was fast enough to zip between the black holes on a _very_ short path without getting pulled into them.

From what I heard, Lucas loved the explanation.


----------



## Kesh (Apr 20, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What confuses me is that if you're generating your own gravity (and let's just leave that little one aside, shall we?) and something causes your ship to shake, why do people lean from side to side? Their relative acceleration due to gravity doesn't change no matter what orientation the ship is in, right? So what's with the leaning?
> 
> Generating gravity. Okay.
> 
> ...



 IIRC, one of the technical manuals stated that replicators were really good at making "loose" molecular structures. So things like food, beverages, etc. were easily produced. However, things with "tight" structures (such as dense metals), or which needed extremely precise construction, were beyond the capabilities of a standard replicator and too power-intensive to do often on a transporter system. Which is why they didn't just build a giant replicator in Mars orbit and "beam" ships together on a factory line.

(I'm just full of these silly explanations I've read, aren't I?  )


----------



## reanjr (Apr 20, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I always found it amusing that no one abused it.
> I mean, if you can store it as data and send it somewhere to be replicated, why can't you just knock out replicants of people at will?
> 
> I remember them stating more than once that Clone's degrade with each generation (clone of a clone of a clone) but no matter how often you transport someone, they're fine, so why bother cloning?




Michael Crichton had an good explanation of why you couldn't do this in his book Timeline.  Basically, the process of "reading" the data destroys it (or at least changes it to the degree that you are left without the original object).


----------



## reanjr (Apr 20, 2005)

ddvmor said:
			
		

> Following up on the recurring 'quantum' issue in this thread - can someone please exoplain to me exactly what a 'quantum singularity' is, why it emits tachyons and why it's blue and swirly.
> 
> And while we're talking about blue and swirly... singularities, rifts, distortions and the like. Why are they always, always blue and swirly?




A quantum singularity is a massive point (a theoretical non-dimensional point).  Basically, a singularity is a place that is infinitely small and contains a lot of crap.  It's directly related to an event horizon.  I do not know exactly why they would emit tachyons, but I suppose it might (I have no idea, I'm just speculating) have to do with the area between the singularity and the event horizon being so warped that particles would travel through time and, in essense, travel faster than the speed of light.

Probably related to blueshift, and phenomenon experienced when something travels away from you at near light speeds (and I suppose at extra-light speeds).  I would think that because matter entering the "rift" is being whisked away real fast-like, that it creates a blueshift.  Seems like a reasonable (if flawed) reason.

There may be some actual reason that would make this happen continuously and in a swirl, but I do not know of one.


----------



## reanjr (Apr 20, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> My theory is that what you hear isn't the sound of the engine or explosion, but the electromagnetic waves which the engine/explosion produces, through your ship's radio.




My theory is that you are hearing the sound from the point of view of the ship blowing up.  It is very common in TV and movies to juxtapose the audio and the video (the camera shows something far away [like two people talking] that you hear on audio as if you were right ther).

I also think my theory is the most scientifically sound.


----------



## reanjr (Apr 20, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Really, it isn't a word, but my greatest sci-fi pet peeve is why so many advanced civilizations have access to teleportation devices, fusion energy, quantum computers, but no UPS - or surge protectors, for that matter. I guess that safety doesn't make for a good story.




I think most of these technologies require such massive amounts of power that you simply can't create a capacitor to power them.  It requires an actual active power system.


----------



## reanjr (Apr 20, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> You find some interesting terminology when you read really old science fiction. I read a lot of it from the Golden Age and it can get pretty bizarre. I was very, very confused at times until I realized they were using different words to refer to the same thing. The two most bizzare are using 'Star' and 'Planet' interchangably and using 'Galaxy' and 'Star System' interchangably (as in, 'We're going to the Alpha Centauri galaxy').




What's interesting is that the definition of the word planet is still pretty much up for grabs.  In some cases it basically boils down to "We know one when we see one".


----------



## Wayside (Apr 20, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What confuses me is that if you're generating your own gravity (and let's just leave that little one aside, shall we?) and something causes your ship to shake, why do people lean from side to side? Their relative acceleration due to gravity doesn't change no matter what orientation the ship is in, right? So what's with the leaning?



On the subject of gravity (though only vaguely sci-fi), one of the things that I've always found odd (or curious, maybe I'm wrong) is superheroes who can run at superspeeds. When you run, you always push up as well as forward, but if you were running at that speed, gravity wouldn't have time to bring you back down, so you would actually end up suspended in mid air, waving your arms and legs really fast.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 20, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> What's interesting is that the definition of the word planet is still pretty much up for grabs.  In some cases it basically boils down to "We know one when we see one".



You mean, like every other year Pluto is the 9th planet, while he previously wasn´t?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 20, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> In the first Timothy Zahn _Star Wars_ trilogy, it was said that Kessel was in a sector of space populated by lots of black holes. There were known safe routes, but they took longer than the shortcuts most smugglers used. Of course, those smugglers usually ended up dead by taking too-short shortcuts, and getting pulled into a black hole.
> 
> So, Han was boasting that the Falcon was fast enough to zip between the black holes on a _very_ short path without getting pulled into them.




Yes, we know. Most Star Wars fans know about that after the fact rationalization for completely screwing up the original dialogue. The explanation is what many people simply don't buy. It is just too stupid.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 20, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> IIRC, one of the technical manuals stated that replicators were really good at making "loose" molecular structures. So things like food, beverages, etc. were easily produced. However, things with "tight" structures (such as dense metals), or which needed extremely precise construction.




And yet, they can still replicate the dense molecular structures of the ceramic, glass and metal cups, glasses, plates and utensils that food arrives with.

Not to mention the fact that a transporter (which is practically the exact same thing as a replicator) has never goofed up a phaser, a tricorder, a space suit, or any other piece of excessively complicated, precisely made, artificial device.

Think about how precisely a human body must be put back together when it goes through a transporter...  and they say a replicator can't make working electrical component?


----------



## Numion (Apr 20, 2005)

Earth gravity is the most missused thing. It's everywhere .. in spaceships, in alien moons, everywhere


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 20, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Michael Crichton had an good explanation of why you couldn't do this in his book Timeline.  Basically, the process of "reading" the data destroys it (or at least changes it to the degree that you are left without the original object).



I can understand that "scanning" will rip the atom's apart (or whatever destroys the original , but once it's in memory, you should still be able to Print another copy, I'd think.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 20, 2005)

s/LaSH said:
			
		

> I liked that episode. I laughed my anatomy off watching it,



 Huh? 

Y'know, on second thought, I don't want you elaborate...


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 20, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> On the subject of gravity (though only vaguely sci-fi), one of the things that I've always found odd (or curious, maybe I'm wrong) is superheroes who can run at superspeeds. When you run, you always push up as well as forward, but if you were running at that speed, gravity wouldn't have time to bring you back down, so you would actually end up suspended in mid air, waving your arms and legs really fast.



Mark Waid gave us a silly Comic Book explanation in his Flash run: The Speedforce. It is
somekinda energy field into which speedsters tap to ignore the laws of physics. It's beyond
the understanding of modern science so don't know how it does it.

It's a perfect way to explain all these sci-fi thingamadings. Some wacky reality bending
energy/force/whatever with a silly name that's beyond our understanding.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2005)

Here's a No-Prize challenge for those smug folks with their explosion noise explanations:

Laser beam sounds. Especially, laser guns being fired from some other ship at a third ship, so there's no contact between either target or firing vessel and the position of the camera, and yet, laser beam sounds are heard.

Huh? Huh? Do we have a winner? Besides reanjr's "cinematic convention" theory?


Oh, and anybody who wants to convince me that metals are more complicated at a molecular level than organic compounds (especially organic compounds that have to be assembled to form a LIVING creature) is welcome to take a shot...


Oh, and just for you, Trainz: if in 500 years "parsec" means "an hour" then maybe the writer of the screenplay ought to have used the word "hour" like he did in every single other instance of the word? You think? The only reason to use the word "parsec" (given that the REAL Han Solo probably doesn't speak English anyway, so presumably ALL of his dialogue has been translated) is because you mean "parsec". Which of course makes no sense whatsoever, but hey, nobody said George Lucas knew science.


And nobody's tackled my "stumbly bridge" problem, either. Come on, folks. I'm waiting...


----------



## Wayside (Apr 21, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And nobody's tackled my "stumbly bridge" problem, either. Come on, folks. I'm waiting...



That one's obvious. The impact of the weapons on the ship causes its gravity generators to become momentarily "dizzy," like a shot to the head   .


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2005)

Good one! Or possibly super-future laser guns have an effect on the ear canals, making the _people_ dizzy. So they're just sort of stumbling around on a perfectly still deck.

The cameraman, too, explaining the jiggly camera stuff.

For some reason that amuses me immensely.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I once read a short story about a boy in the future who refuses to use the teleportation portals that can be found everywhere. His teachers and parents are troubled by this because you must use the portals - all normal people do. It turns out the boy once witnessed a power outage and raised the question: "What happens if you have a power outage in the middle of a teleport jump?".




It was a nice short story by Asimov. In the story the boy always used the Door (everyone does) but one day it breaks down, so he has to actually *walk* to his school. Nobody every walks outside *anywhere*. Thing is, he starts to like walking. The psychiatrists who try to understand his aberrant behaviour theorise that it is because he is worried about power outages, but in actual fact it is the sheer joy of walking (He is perfectly happy to take the Door on a trip to china, for instance). Eventually a psychiatrist comes to talk to the boy and the boy takes him outside and shows him the wonders of the outside world - the end result of which is that the psychiatrist decides to walk home too.

I must have read that story about 30 years ago, in a collection called "Through a glass, darkly". Funny that it made such an impression on me, it was nice to have the memories stirred up again.

Cheers


----------



## Tolen Mar (Apr 21, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember the old King short story Granting?




That was a King story?  I read it years ago...thought it was by someone else.


----------



## Victim (Apr 21, 2005)

The King story was called the Jaunt.


----------



## Rel (Apr 22, 2005)

Victim said:
			
		

> The King story was called the Jaunt.




I read through half this thread waiting to post that and I got beat on the last post! 

I've been fascinated by the concept of Teleportation ever since I read Larry Niven's essay "The Theory and Practice of Teleportation" from his book _All the Myriad Ways_.  But the thing that really bakes my noodle about it is that in a lot of science fiction the whole "we scan you, beam the information and reconstitute you at the other end" explantion is offered.  As somebody mentioned upthread, that means *they just killed you*!

If we buy into the notion that the position of every subatomic particle in your body is in precisely the same position AND that this fact means that all your memories and experiences are intact AND that your soul is not an issue then we're still left with the fact that the unique being that was YOU just got melted down.  Suddenly, a million miles away, this clone of you with all your memories and personality springs into being.  To the viewer, since this being acts in the exact way that you did, then the story can continue because that being will act as you would have acted and remember the things that you've done.  But that isn't YOU because YOU are dead!

To quote Mr. Niven, "I dunno, but I wouldn't ride in the goddam thing."


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 22, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> As somebody mentioned upthread, that means *they just killed you*!




There was another great story I read once where that's exactly how they did interstellar travel; they didn't have ships that could go FTL so they braintaped you, killed your body, fired the information at a receiving station light years away, which then cloned a body based on that info, then read your mind into it. The beam would of course move at the speed of light, but the person would have to his awareness just instantly teleported. The story concerned someone's mind being read into the wrong body....


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 22, 2005)

However, in _Star Trek_, they solved the ethics of the transporter by saying that it converts your constituent atoms into energy, transmits that energy, and you are reconstituted from that energy.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 22, 2005)

Geez, didn't anybody read my post on the first page?

They don't HAVE to kill you. In _Wall Around A Star_, they didn't. There was just TWO yous once the process was done: the original you still at the original destination, and the "remote" you. So of course, you can end up with multiple yous all over the place (which is actually a fundamental problem with pretty much any teleportation methodology). Now THAT'S fun thinking.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Geez, didn't anybody read my post on the first page?
> 
> They don't HAVE to kill you. In _Wall Around A Star_, they didn't. There was just TWO yous once the process was done: the original you still at the original destination, and the "remote" you. So of course, you can end up with multiple yous all over the place (which is actually a fundamental problem with pretty much any teleportation methodology). Now THAT'S fun thinking.




Which brings up something about Star Trek that's always made me wonder...

Everybody who watches Star Trek knows that transporters take you apart, turn you into an energy singal, tranmit you somewhere else, and put you back together.  Now, in many episodes, they touch on the 'transporter buffer'...  A sort of temproary circular buffer that holds the energy singature of whatever was transported, that the transporter computer can reference to put you back together.

First, they sometimes use the buffer signal to 'clean' up a transported person... eliminating the signal of a disease or parasite en route.  To extrapolate this, why not use the transporter to rejuvinate amputees, or instantaneously heal wounds?  It should be easy enough, considering.

Second, why not use a transporter as a instant-cloning device?  You need to board that Romulan starship and take it in one piece.  Stuff Worf into the transporter, dial it up to "x24", and beam over two dozen heavily armed copies of the biggest, baddest, ass-kickinest Kligon Security Officer you've got.  When he's finished, you beam them all back, but only reconstitute one of him.


----------



## Rel (Apr 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Geez, didn't anybody read my post on the first page?
> 
> They don't HAVE to kill you. In _Wall Around A Star_, they didn't. There was just TWO yous once the process was done: the original you still at the original destination, and the "remote" you. So of course, you can end up with multiple yous all over the place (which is actually a fundamental problem with pretty much any teleportation methodology). Now THAT'S fun thinking.




Yes I read it.  I didn't mean for you to get all weepy and stuff. 

It seems pretty disappointing either way, doesn't it?  You step up to the Teleportation Booth and there's a guy standing outside:

"Hi!  I'd like to go to Mars!  My wife is there already and I'm joining her for vacation."

"Dandy, sir.  That will be ten thousand dollars."

"Ha!  Cheap at twice the price considering what space travel costs.  Here you go."

"Thank you sir.  Now if you'll just sign this waiver and check one of the boxes at the bottom...Either the one that says "Kill Me" or "Don't Kill Me"."

"What?!  I think I'll take "Don't Kill Me" thanks!"

"That's fine sir.  Either way you're not going anywhere.  But a new you will be walking all over Mars, having the time of his life on vacation and sleeping with your wife."

"What?!  I'll KILL HIM!"

"Don't worry sir, we'll kill him before he ever leaves Mars.  We'll kill your wife too!  No extra charge.  Either way, you're not going anywhere."


   :\ 

In Mr. Niven's essay he goes on to ask about the moral and legal quandries that abound from this setup:

If you melt the guy into his component atoms but don't transmit him, have you committed murder (you did MELT him after all)?  Or is it kidnapping?  If it's murder then does it stop being murder if you renconstitute him prior to trial?


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 22, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> If you melt the guy into his component atoms but don't transmit him, have you committed murder (you did MELT him after all)?  Or is it kidnapping?  If it's murder then does it stop being murder if you renconstitute him prior to trial?




Simple: assuming the person is still energy, the energy has to go somewhere, and won't stay in the same spot, so the pattern degrades and it's just energy. If you yell, the sound isn't there forever, and if you shine a light, this light will not continue infinitely. Therefore, the pattern becomes lost.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> IIRC, one of the technical manuals stated that replicators were really good at making "loose" molecular structures. So things like food, beverages, etc. were easily produced. However, things with "tight" structures (such as dense metals), or which needed extremely precise construction, were beyond the capabilities of a standard replicator and too power-intensive to do often on a transporter system. Which is why they didn't just build a giant replicator in Mars orbit and "beam" ships together on a factory line.



Except I'm not sure that makes much sense.  Complex organic molecules, such as those found in food, seem like they'd be much more difficult to construct then metals.


----------



## sniffles (Apr 22, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Thanks Pbartender. Your diatribe was quite interesting and fun to read.
> 
> 
> On misused words; language evolves, changes. A parsec is a unit measuring distance *for us*, but who's to say that in 500 years the word will not loose it's original meaning to signify a unit of time ?




I enjoyed Pbartender's info, too.  As I did yours, Trainz.  But I can't resist commenting on the above, in light of the title of this excellent thread.  In 500 years the word will not -lose- its original meaning!     I don't think the original meaning is going to get -loose- and fall off like a 6-year-old's front tooth.  Or maybe it will and that's why it changes.     I've seen the word -loose- misused more than any other word (except -then-) on this site.

A very good point, though.  Language changes even more rapidly in the age of television and computers.  

My favorite misused word in scifi is "alien".  Unless the whole story takes place on Earth, then every character in the show is an alien, including Captain Kirk!!


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Apr 22, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> My favorite misused word in scifi is "alien". Unless the whole story takes place on Earth, then every character in the show is an alien, including Captain Kirk!!




Depends on whom you're asking, not where you are (IMHO).


----------

