Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Everything I learned about Computers, Math, Science, and...

Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

01 Dec 2012, 3:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Eleas wrote:

Overall, it's tough to make a Sci-Fi series that is both (techno)logically consistent and dramatically interesting. Often, when people try, they just end up making less sense, such as with Babylon 5 and the Starfury fighter (which looks cool and sensible until you realize that the bulkiness of the engines would actually hurt the vessel's ability to maneuver, contrary to the point of the design).


There was one sci fi movie that accurately depicted what one would hear in the vacuum of space ---- nothing. That is -2001: A Space Odessy-. Ever since we have been treated to bangs, booms, blasts, sizzle and crashes in the vacuum of space. Let us face it: silent space is as boring as watching paint dry.

ruveyn


plenty of scifi does obey the general rules of a vacuum,

firefly did so very well,


though on a side note would an explosion of sufficient proximity not propel matter in a manner similar to a shockwave, thus inducing sound in the hull of a vessel upon impact?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Dec 2012, 8:21 pm

Oodain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Eleas wrote:

Overall, it's tough to make a Sci-Fi series that is both (techno)logically consistent and dramatically interesting. Often, when people try, they just end up making less sense, such as with Babylon 5 and the Starfury fighter (which looks cool and sensible until you realize that the bulkiness of the engines would actually hurt the vessel's ability to maneuver, contrary to the point of the design).


There was one sci fi movie that accurately depicted what one would hear in the vacuum of space ---- nothing. That is -2001: A Space Odessy-. Ever since we have been treated to bangs, booms, blasts, sizzle and crashes in the vacuum of space. Let us face it: silent space is as boring as watching paint dry.

ruveyn


plenty of scifi does obey the general rules of a vacuum,

firefly did so very well,


t


But not Babylon 5, Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica (both old and new) or any of the Rodenberry clones.

Silent space is dramatically dead.

ruveyn



Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

03 Dec 2012, 6:49 am

ruveyn wrote:
Eleas wrote:

Overall, it's tough to make a Sci-Fi series that is both (techno)logically consistent and dramatically interesting. Often, when people try, they just end up making less sense, such as with Babylon 5 and the Starfury fighter (which looks cool and sensible until you realize that the bulkiness of the engines would actually hurt the vessel's ability to maneuver, contrary to the point of the design).


There was one sci fi movie that accurately depicted what one would hear in the vacuum of space ---- nothing. That is -2001: A Space Odessy-. Ever since we have been treated to bangs, booms, blasts, sizzle and crashes in the vacuum of space. Let us face it: silent space is as boring as watching paint dry.

ruveyn

Yes, but 2001 was a dramatic failure. His point was that a successful film can usually find a compromise. That's exactly what Star Wars did and why it has more fans than 2001 could dream of.

ruveyn wrote:
But not Babylon 5, Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica (both old and new) or any of the Rodenberry clones.

Silent space is dramatically dead.

ruveyn

Battlestar tried to find a balance. Low howls as Vipers streaked by, explosions who's sounds were limited to what you'd hear in vibrations of the hull.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

03 Dec 2012, 9:45 am

Biokinetica wrote:
Yes, but 2001 was a dramatic failure. His point was that a successful film can usually find a compromise. That's exactly what Star Wars did and why it has more fans than 2001 could dream of.


as far as popularity is concerned, "star wars" was superior because it appealed to a wider range of intelligences. "2001" appealed to a narrower range of intelligences.
people who are below average intelligence were not among the repeat audiences of "2001", and they also were not responsible for any acclaimed critiques of that movie.



Eleas
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

03 Dec 2012, 1:14 pm

I suspect it's problematic to correlate personal taste with intelligence in quite that way. Instead, I'd suggest Star Wars offers far more pure escapism and fairy-tale adventure than does 2001.



Evinceo
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 392

03 Dec 2012, 4:23 pm

Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
MacDragard wrote:
Technology, I learned from watching Star Trek.

Can anyone relate?


No. There is no plausible technology on Star Trek. However it is good entertainment. The Star Trek material is comparable to old Arabic tall tales which include Flying Carpets and caves that open to a voiced command. What a minute!! ! I have a garage door that opens when I push a button.

ruveyn


The idea for cellphones was inspired by the communicators in Star Trek though.


Cell phones where a bad idea. Imagine if they'd gone straight to text messaging-the technology was there, but they didn't go for it until more recently.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2012, 4:30 pm

Evinceo wrote:

Cell phones where a bad idea. Imagine if they'd gone straight to text messaging-the technology was there, but they didn't go for it until more recently.


Most people use phones to -talk- to others.

Texting is for dedicated neurotics.

ruveyn



Evinceo
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 392

03 Dec 2012, 4:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Evinceo wrote:

Cell phones where a bad idea. Imagine if they'd gone straight to text messaging-the technology was there, but they didn't go for it until more recently.


Most people use phones to -talk- to others.

Texting is for dedicated neurotics.

ruveyn


Of course you're right, though I'd argue that texting in public is far less obnoxious then talking on a phone.