In space, no one is listening anyway by SittingDuck

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

In space, no one is listening anyway

POSTED BY: SITTINGDUCK
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 04:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6180
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:18 AM

SITTINGDUCK

Has Joss Wheaden ever stated why he chose to go for silent space?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:24 AM

RKLENSETH

Not really but I think it has a lot do with being realistic as well as a creative sense into it. I like the fact that the silence sort of makes it seem like they are alone out there in space. That no one but themselves care for them. And that they are always flying under the radar. The silence gives us the scope of it all.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:34 AM

ASTRIANA

I believe that in the commentary for Serenity, he noted the realism factor as the reason, and said something about putting some music there for them as aren't comfortable with the "soundless space" factor. Haven't seen that commentary in a little bit, though, so I'll have to check.

Oh, darn, now I gotta go watch the ep again...

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:36 AM

CYBERSNARK

I'm guessing it's to do with the "real world" motif he has going; note how all the space sequences look like they're shot by an actual space-going camera crew (with zooms and pans and wobbles).

"In space, no one can hear the Fat Lady."

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:56 AM

HKCAVALIER

Oh my gawd, can you imagine Serenity "wooshing" and "swishing" across the screen? Some crazy "ka-blooey" sound when it does that special yellow gas move? I think the main reason would have to be integrity. Spaceships making noise has got to be one of the saddest conventions of sci-fi. What are the two coolest sci-fi shows of all time? 2001 and Firefly. 'Nough said.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:57 AM

GUNHAND

Pretty much what's already been said, realism plus the fact that just about every other sci-fi movie has the loud vooming ships, earth shaking explosions, etc in space.

Personally when I saw the Alliance cruiser blow up the Trans-U in Bushwhacked I was completely sold on it. Before that I thought it was a cool idea but that scene with the silent explosions in space just made it.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 10:08 AM

MAUGWAI

No sound also provides an element of creepy suspense. Like the way he used no music in "The Body" for BTVS. If you remember the newer Romeo and Juliet, when Claire Danes looks at dead Romeo there is no sound, then she breaks it with this weird cry. Whenever I show that scene in my class, the kids sre completely spellbound. Nobody wants to break the silence. They're all waiting to see what happens, even though they know. So I think the silence in space also kind of forces us to concentrate.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 10:24 AM

BIKISDAD

I'm not sure why he did it that way, I'm just glad he did. It does make the whole show much more realistic. That and the exceeding the speed of light crap (warp drive or hyperspace, whatever) that other shows and movies all use. Hey, people: Einstein proved 100 years ago that it can't be done, period. I'm so glad Joss got that one right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 10:31 AM

WEERWOLF

Both in Out of Gas (the engine fire being sucked out into space) and Our Mrs. Reynolds (Jayne firing Vera soundless and the bullets ricocheting inside the control chamber of the net and the explosions there), the effect of going from sound inside and silence outside was amazingly effective. It made the sound-scenes so much more intimidating.

Same goes for blowing up the ship in Bushwacked (very poetic), or even in Serenity, when the acid-eaten door comes off so the crew can get the treasure on the derelict. I love it. First thing I said when I saw a spaceship go woosh was 'They can't do that, it's in space! Sound doesn't travel in space.' (I have loved my library card

from when I could read). I always shrug and ignore it the rest of the time. But the soundlesness of space realy fits in well in this show.

"---------------------" (Spacecrickets)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 10:36 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SittingDuck:
In space, no one is listening anyway

BWAAHAHAHAHA lol!!! Nice one! You don't know how original and funny that is. Are you a writer? You should be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 3:19 PM

SGTGUMP

There is no sound in space. There is no air or any other substance for sound to travel through. Just look at 2001: A Space Odyssey, there were no sounds during the space sequences either. Just radio noise, or breathing or something. Interesting note: sound travels about 1 mile per second through air and about 5 times that fast underwater.

"Have good sex" -Kaylee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:09 PM

LINDLEY

Quote:
That and the exceeding the speed of light crap (warp drive or hyperspace, whatever) that other shows and movies all use. Hey, people: Einstein proved 100 years ago that it can't be done, period. I'm so glad Joss got that one right.

Einstein proved that it would not be possible given the information he had at the time. He never claimed that his laws were absolute and inviolable; in fact, I beleive he once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment at any time can prove me wrong."

That doesn't preclude some form of spacefold drive (which is one interpretation of Warp Drive), or a level of reality outside of normal space (like SW or B5 hyperspace).

So yes, its impossible to exceed the speed of light in normal space. That doesn't necessarily translate to it being impossible to move between two points faster than a photon is normally able to do so.

Which is really neither here nor there.....since it was never firmly established whether or not Serenity's drive was FTL in nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:43 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Personally, I think the argument other shows have used, that you have to have sound in space because without sound the action lacks drama, shows a distinct lack of imagination. Joss understands that the mood of a space-based series is enhanced by silence, just as a submarine-warfare drama can be enhanced by realistic underwater lighting and sounds.

As to the FTL/STL question, and the related "One Solar System or many?" controversy, why don't we leave that discussion to other threads, Hokay?

(For the record, I'm a "multiple systems/FTL drive" man myself; but I'll admit the evidence is contradictory at best.)

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:47 PM

BIKISDAD

Well, the Serenity drive appeared to be some sort of nuclear powered propulsion system, which obviously would not be FTL. Interesting that a a couple of scientists are currently working on a theoretical nuclear space propulsion drive. It's way, way in the early planning stages and would probably never be developed within our lifetimes.

Stephen Hawking has theorized that particles may travel faster than light within a black hole. So what? I for one am not going to volunteer to fly a rocket into a black hole to check out that theory. His theory may be true, but trying to go FTL by travelling through a black hole has a serious death side-effect that probably makes it not worthwhile to attempt.

Actually, over the decades, many experiments have been done in particle accelerators that show Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (the one that says you can't go FTL) to be exactly correct. Hawking's theory aside, it can't be done in real space. Even if it can be done within a black hole, we can't survive anywhere near the gravity well of a black hole. So the only place in the 'verse where real human beings are going to go FTL is in their imaginations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:03 PM

STIZO

As to your opinion that realspace FTL is impossible. Just a few thoughts:
It was once thought impossible that the Earth revolves around the sun.
It was once thought impossible that man could fly.
It was once thought impossible that man would reach the moon.
If science and history has taught us anything, it's that we don't really know much of anything.
A few hundred years in the future they might laught at what we deemed to be impossible.
In my opinion, having FTL in the future is just as likely as not having it. So to say one is more realistic than the other is not somthing that can really be done. Eventually Einstein and Hawking might be proved to be wrong, or not. Only time will tell.

Doing the impossible, makes us mighty.

Telling an Engineer that somthing is impossible is the equivalent of "Triple-Dog-Daring" a 6-year old.

----------------------------------------------
Conquering the galaxy with terrifying space monkeys, one ship at a time...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:20 PM

BIKISDAD

Actually, Einstein was merely correcting an old belief, from classical physics, that FTL travel WAS possible. You're right about people's belief's being proven wrong over time. What you're missing is the historical context. Einstein corrected the old, WRONG belief that there is no limit to particle velocity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:45 AM

SITTINGDUCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SittingDuck:
In space, no one is listening anyway

BWAAHAHAHAHA lol!!! Nice one! You don't know how original and funny that is. Are you a writer? You should be.

I'm not a published writer. While I've written some RPG material that is posted on a couple of Internet pages, I'm not too good at fiction. I have trouble with dialogue. As to that line, it's a chapter title from a book by a certain British author who is quite popular.

Speaking of fiction, I've had an idea for a Reaver based fanfic. But as I've said, I'm not much good at writing fiction. If anyone wants to use it, just send me a private message. So far, I just have a very loose out line and the title, "Tastes Like Chicken".

You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney. If you cannot afford one, tough noogies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:07 AM

RELFEXIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Actually, Einstein was merely correcting an old belief, from classical physics, that FTL travel WAS possible. You're right about people's belief's being proven wrong over time. What you're missing is the historical context. Einstein corrected the old, WRONG belief that there is no limit to particle velocity.

Of course, that does not stop someone proving later on that our RIGHT theories were actually WRONG theories. Theories change and get replaced as new maths and new technology allow us to explore the limits and discover new ones.

Theories are just models, not the real thing. They explain what we can see, not what is.

Besides, some very clever physicists say if you could warp the energy field of spacetime you could create a sort of 'incline' that would propel you faster than light... but that's just a theory, and one badly explained at that.

SHORT ANSWER: If it is possible, we don't know how. This does not make it actually impossible.

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:34 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SittingDuck:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SittingDuck:
In space, no one is listening anyway

BWAAHAHAHAHA lol!!! Nice one! You don't know how original and funny that is. Are you a writer? You should be.

I'm not a published writer. While I've written some RPG material that is posted on a couple of Internet pages, I'm not too good at fiction. I have trouble with dialogue. As to that line, it's a chapter title from a book by a certain British author who is quite popular.

Speaking of fiction, I've had an idea for a Reaver based fanfic. But as I've said, I'm not much good at writing fiction. If anyone wants to use it, just send me a private message. So far, I just have a very loose out line and the title, "Tastes Like Chicken".

You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney. If you cannot afford one, tough noogies.

Well ya gotta tell me who this writer is! Tastes like chicken... heh heh. I think I've heard an Argentine soccer player say that once.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:45 AM

BIKISDAD

I know this is getting off topic, although my original intent was just to compliment Joss on the realism of Firefly, as opposed to all the shows/movies with "Star..." in the title.

Contrary to what seems to be a somewhat popular belief, there ARE absolutes in this universe. There is no sound in space - for reasons explained very well by someone earlier in the thread. FTL travel is also impossible. If you don't believe me, then read "Introduction to Modern Physics" by Richtmeyer, Kennard, and Cooper. It has the best explanation anywhere of Einstein's Special Theory, which, by the way has been proven true over and over and over by many different experiments over many decades. If you are looking for Einstein's wrong theory, that would be the "Unified Field Theory", which has nothing to do with special relativity.

The fact is, the speed of light as a limiting constant is basic to the existence of the universe in the form we observe (in fact, even light can not go faster than the speed of light - when you are in your car going 80 m.p.h. with the headlights on, the light from the headlights doesn't go the speed of light plus 80, it just goes the speed of light, but with a blue shift to the spectrum to account for the extra energy provided by the speed of your car). If it was not so, this universe would be a very different place than it is, and we probably wouldn't even exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:21 AM

RELFEXIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I know this is getting off topic, although my original intent was just to compliment Joss on the realism of Firefly, as opposed to all the shows/movies with "Star..." in the title.

Contrary to what seems to be a somewhat popular belief, there ARE absolutes in this universe. There is no sound in space - for reasons explained very well by someone earlier in the thread. FTL travel is also impossible. If you don't believe me, then read "Introduction to Modern Physics" by Richtmeyer, Kennard, and Cooper. It has the best explanation anywhere of Einstein's Special Theory, which, by the way has been proven true over and over and over by many different experiments over many decades. If you are looking for Einstein's wrong theory, that would be the "Unified Field Theory", which has nothing to do with special relativity.

The fact is, the speed of light as a limiting constant is basic to the existence of the universe in the form we observe (in fact, even light can not go faster than the speed of light - when you are in your car going 80 m.p.h. with the headlights on, the light from the headlights doesn't go the speed of light plus 80, it just goes the speed of light, but with a blue shift to the spectrum to account for the extra energy provided by the speed of your car). If it was not so, this universe would be a very different place than it is, and we probably wouldn't even exist.

Of course. And I liked the no-sound too, which I didn't notice till Serenity first blasted away to escape the cruiser. Cool. And, of course, exactly correct.

But... do not assume that our absolutes are, well, absolutes. Things do change, our understanding of the underlying principles of the universe being one of them. FTL travel, that, is, moving a body faster than the speed of light purely by moving really quickly, is impossible, yes. Either it really, truly is impossible (almost certainly the case) or we just don't know how to get around it yet (not completely impossible, just very, very improbable).

It just means we may have to try wormholes or hyperspace instead... if they are possible. Right now, I don't think anyone can really say for sure.

Besides... great show, ain't it? Looks fab! Cool the way they travel around from place to place, huh? Woo!

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:43 AM

WEERWOLF

I'm not the technical stuff at all (it's been a couple of years since my physics classes ended), but I always thought these quotes from Arthur C. Clarke where kinda nice:

1."When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

2."The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

3."Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

1d6 degrees of separation - John Kovalic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:47 AM

BIKISDAD

Absolutely (see, there are absolutes) cool show. And the apparent nuclear drive that they use in the show IS theoretically possible and would make our space ships travel at least ten times faster than they currently do (which is still nowhere near light speed). That would make travel to other planets/moons such as Mars and Jupiter (or more likely Jupiter's moons) a snap, but still taking a couple of weeks rather than many months, like it does now. That's really what I was trying to convey in my original post. The Firefly 'verse that Joss has established is very realistic and, therefore, believable. That's different than Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Andromeda, etc. that sometimes manage to tell interesting stories, but have a believability factor of zero.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:09 AM

BIKISDAD

Yes, Arthur C. Clarke, an excellent science FICTION writer. I've enjoyed some of his work, too. Still, while our ancestors believed in all kinds of weird things, like for instance, witches; Alyson Hannigan's excellent portrayal of Willow aside, they don't exist. They never did exist, and they never will exist - sort of like space ships that travel faster than light.

In the Middle Ages, hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people were hanged/burned at the stake for being witches (see "Safe"). Not a single one actually was a witch, but that didn't stop people from believing that they were. Some of the things that exist in the sci-fi lexicon today, such as FTL travel, are as false as the existence of witches. Unfortunately, people still have some strange need to believe in it. It literally took hundreds of years before our ancestors finally stopped burning "witches". I don't expect this will be any different.

I'm done arguing about this now, as the proof of my position is "out there", and has been for many decades. The fact that everyone chooses to believe in the fantasy is their choice and they're welcome to it. After all, unlike burning witches, believing in FTL isn't harmful to anyone. Besides, now I'm going to have to answer to all of the people who are going to argue with me about witches....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:38 AM

RELFEXIVE

You have a very grounded, solid, logical and rational view of things.

Lighten up

Just jestin'.

I guess the impossible will just have to remain that way... unless we find out otherwise. Me, I'll stick with having a little unreality in my fiction. After all, that's all it is. That and fun, of course.

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:44 AM

GUNHAND

Actually NASA has several theoretical FTL concepts they're investigating. None of which actually break the light barrier the way that the X-planes broke the sound barrier.

So on one hand breaking the speed of light is improbable, nothing is impossible but it's very very very improbable.

However, getting around the light barrier via other means is less improbable. Wormholes, strands, warping, dilation-distortion all are possible ways around that hard barrier. So I guess it wouldn't be faster than light travel but cheating lightspeed travel, which amounts to the same thing really, if you can get to places very far away relatively fastlike then the nomenclature really doesn't matter.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:06 AM

BIKISDAD

OK, I'll agree to that, as long as no one gets on me about the "witches" thing.

Who knows, maybe River is a witch, in some futuristic, technified way. Maybe we'll find out in the Big Damn Movie!

Yay!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:13 AM

GUNHAND

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
OK, I'll agree to that, as long as no one gets on me about the "witches" thing.

Who knows, maybe River is a witch, in some futuristic, technified way. Maybe we'll find out in the Big Damn Movie!

Yay!

She may be a witch, but she's our damn witch!

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:54 AM

GUNRUNNER

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_030922.html

There is sound in space however we can’t hear it…

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:01 AM

34CYGNI

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
...the exceeding the speed of light crap (warp drive or hyperspace, whatever) that other shows and movies all use. Hey, people: Einstein proved 100 years ago that it can't be done, period.

For the record, what Einstein proved is that you can't accelerate to the speed of light, not that it can't be exceeded. Of course, this still requires a sci-fi widget that allows ships to instantaneously achieve FTL velocities (at least it does in my interstellar reading of the show's setting) but I, too, appreciate the 'verse's apparent lack of "hyperspace" and other hoary old traditions of the genre.

As for the silence of space in "Firefly", I think it was a fine decision -- the absence of sound tends to focus my attention on the outstanding visual effects. Serenity's such a pretty little ship...

Plus, the silence actually seems to make space seem, well, bigger. I tend to associate silence with wide-open natural places, such as a desert or mountainside, which are big on a scale that I can understand. Intellectually, I know space is a pretty big place, too, but it's hard to appreciate that when the entire 'verse is being crammed into a box in my living room.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:38 AM

GROUNDED

I always liked the no sound in space but, on a similar note, at first I didn't really like the various 'holographic' items which cropped up throughout the show - the window in TTJ, the pool table in Shindig, the fence in Safe, the scanner in Ariel - because it messed with the theme of realism in the show. Then of course we have the various 'floating' things (chandelier, whole estates in Trash!) and River's psychic ability. But after thinking about it for a while, I started to wonder what they would do if they had to take all this window dressing out. Would the show be as good? Probably not, because all these little additions add colour, scientifically sound or not. True hard sci-fi will probably never make it to the small screen - Firefly is probably the closest we'll ever get

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:39 PM

CORWYN

I am disappointed that so many sci-fi fans seem to misunderstand science.

1) Einstein and all other physicists, have never proved anything. They have created theories. Those theories have never been proven. There is in fact no mechanism (within science) by which they can be proven.

2) Just because they are 'only' theories does not diminish them in any way. What diminishes them is being shown not to match reality. Theories which seem to agree with reality are 'successful', ones which do not are less successful (though often very useful). Newtonian mechanics is still taught even though there are more successful theories which describe the same phenomena, because it is simpler.

3) Science isn't that only method for determining reality, just currently the most successful one.

4) FTL disagrees with most currently successful theories. The drive in Serenity disagrees with _all_ the theories that I am aware of. Please don't make Joss explain it, it will only make it worse.

5) Proclaiming that witches have never existed and never will exist seems a bit presumptuous. How do you know? How do you define a 'witch' anyway? Is someone who uses a potion of willow bark to cure pain, a witch or a doctor? What about one who uses a potion of mastadon hair? If witchcraft works, and science eventually 'figures out' how, does that mean it isn't witchcraft? There is no phenomenon which science considers to be outside its purview, so if witchcraft is 'defined' as those things which are outside of science, then you have 'defined' it out of existence. Doesn't make anything a witch does any less real.

6) my trouble with the holograms isn't scientific (most of that stuff is within current science, if not current technology), it is economic. Is it really cheaper to have holographic pool balls rather than real ones? If not cheaper is it a better experience for the players? I maintain the answer to these is likely to always remain 'no'. Is a holographic window in any way better than a glass one? maybe if people are thrown through it often enough, I guess. :-)

7) The floating chandelier is well within the established limits of gravity control shown in _serenity_. And seems just the sort of thing rich people would do. As to its plausibility, I doubt you will find anyone credible who will say they know how gravity works.

Thank You Kindly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:02 PM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by corwyn:
6) my trouble with the holograms isn't scientific (most of that stuff is within current science, if not current technology), it is economic. Is it really cheaper to have holographic pool balls rather than real ones? If not cheaper is it a better experience for the players? I maintain the answer to these is likely to always remain 'no'. Is a holographic window in any way better than a glass one? maybe if people are thrown through it often enough, I guess. :-)

"most of that stuff is within current science, if not current technology"

Really? We can see objects because light reflects off of them so how exactly would we see a 'hologram' projected into thin air? Everyone must have seen the high school science experiment where your teacher points a laser at the wall - you see a red dot on the wall but no beam until he scatters chalk dust in its path.

And yes, of course, you are right that most of these 'improvements' also make little economic sense.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:59 PM

CALHOUN

"In space, no one is listening anyway" hmmmn.. surely its a matter of perspective. When inside a spacecraft and the engines ignite I think one would hear them.

As for FTL.. all you have to do is "fold space" hasnt anyone read "Dune"? I know you think I am being facetious but I believe in the distant future this will be a reality and Steven Hawking agrees with me.

Jayne - "Nice move, dumbass"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:14 AM

SITTINGDUCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SittingDuck:
I'm not a published writer. While I've written some RPG material that is posted on a couple of Internet pages, I'm not too good at fiction. I have trouble with dialogue. As to that line, it's a chapter title from a book by a certain British author who is quite popular.

Speaking of fiction, I've had an idea for a Reaver based fanfic. But as I've said, I'm not much good at writing fiction. If anyone wants to use it, just send me a private message. So far, I just have a very loose out line and the title, "Tastes Like Chicken".

Well ya gotta tell me who this writer is! Tastes like chicken... heh heh. I think I've heard an Argentine soccer player say that once.

The author in question is Terry Pratchett. One percent of ALL books sold in Britain are written by him. The book that chapter title came from is Only You Can Save Mankind, which had a lot of Alien jokes in it.

You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney. If you cannot afford one, tough noogies!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:31 AM

GHOULMAN

Oh, he did those Diskworld things. I never read much Sci-Fi but I hear this fellow is rather good?

ooo, just found a nice website terrypratchettbooks.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE