Dr. Michio Kaku talks about Firefly: Bushwhacked. by HAKEN

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Dr. Michio Kaku talks about Firefly: Bushwhacked.

POSTED BY: HAKEN
UPDATED: Monday, March 21, 2011 13:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18617
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, March 11, 2011 1:48 PM

Likes to mess with stuffs.

DON'T MISS...

The new episode of FIREFLY only on the Science Channel

Episode 2 –BUSHWACKED
Premieres Sunday, March 13 at 10:00 PM (ET/PT)
The crew discovers a derelict ship and Mal wants to look for survivors and salvage whatever valuables it contains. The screw suspects the ship was attacked by Reavers, men who’ve been long removed from civilization and have reverted to savage ways. Mal and his team soon discover a survivor with a secret while trying to keep the Alliance from capturing River and Simon.

Dr. Michio Kaku will discuss the science behind anti-matter engines.

Direct download the QuickTime promo video here:
http://www.ikacollective.com/disc/Firefly_Bushwhacked_Final.mov

[object]

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/'; CONTROLLER='true' LOOP='false' width='560' height='448' AUTOPLAY='true' name='Bushwhacked'>[/object]

NOTE: This might only be viewable from the beta site. Requires QuickTime.

http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=47823#834993

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

Friday, March 11, 2011 11:20 PM

STEGASAURUS

Worked from the original site for me on my iPad.

-Steg

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

Monday, March 14, 2011 2:41 AM

TDBROWN

Serenity didn't have anti-matter engines. No faster than light speed in the 'Verse; That's Canon. I do believe the good Doctor has never watched the show he is "introducing".

"Might have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." -Mal

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

Monday, March 14, 2011 3:07 AM

SISTER

still great to see the show again! Hope it's bringing in many new fans.

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

Monday, March 14, 2011 4:26 AM

BYTEMITE

I, yeah, what? It uses plasma propulsion from a fusion engine and grav screening.

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

Monday, March 14, 2011 5:45 AM

LWAVES

The Doc may know about the theory of anti-matter engines but I have to agree with TDBrown that he knows nothing about Firefly. Or at least it appears that way.
How can you talk about the science in the show if the science isn't in the show.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:30 AM

JOHNAG68

Not so fast, guys. (yes, bad pun, I know.)

I'm no rocket scientist, but there is an actual concept out there which combines the two:

Here is a Wiki article that explains it much better than I can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_propul
sion

Now, I agree, of course, that nowhere in Firefly is there any mention of Anti-matter being involved in Serenity's propulsion system.

However, considering her overall size, (and giving Dr. Kaku the benefit of the doubt) I think he may have been trying to rationalize how such a spaceship's propulsion could be reconciled with the reality of actual physics and theoretical physics as we understand them today. In other words, its an attempt at taking out as much of the fiction from the "science-fiction" as possible... rather appropriate for the "Science Channel," I guess.

:)

Here is one more article from Nasa that talks about the possibility of Anti-matter being used in a Fusion engine:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/prop12apr99_
1/

(its toward the bottom, under the subheading: A Star in a Bottle.)

'Course, It's entirely possible I'm being a bit too forgiving, but hey... just throwing it out there!

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:14 PM

JOSSFREEMAN

Yeah, he talked about "Warp Drive" too. I was afraid they'd do that - throw out generic sci-fi stuff and hope no one would notice.

I've had some experience in TV, and I'm not surprised at ALL that the Kaku segment producers never watched the show.

He did cover terraforming though.

??? What SHOULD Dr. Kaku be talking about ???

Artificial gravity?

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:28 PM

BYTEMITE

Absolutely. Artificial gravity is both huge part in the day to day, AND a big part in how Serenity is actually mobile.

Unfortunately, this is pure sci-fi and doesn't have any basis in current or developing technology right now.

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:30 PM

BYTEMITE

Hmm... Fair enough. So long as the antimatter is a catalyst and not being claimed to be the source of Serenity's propulsion, it still works.

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:25 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Absolutely. Artificial gravity is both huge part in the day to day, AND a big part in how Serenity is actually mobile.

Unfortunately, this is pure sci-fi and doesn't have any basis in current or developing technology right now.

Except for , no , it's untrue , what Byte said...

No offense , but the tech is in existence , it does work , and more than that cannot be said about it.

It's 'in the black'.

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:19 PM

BYTEMITE

If I'm wrong, then show me the theory work. I don't need 100% irrefutable proof, I'll even accept just the logic if it makes sense, it's how I've become to believe a number of conspiracy theories. But I don't believe everything either. It has to make sense.

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:51 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Went completely 'black' about 10 years ago.

Can't show you...Got no need to be locked up.

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

Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:40 AM

BYTEMITE

Look, even government mind control research and experiments are well reported on, and information getting out on that is a hell of a lot more damaging to the government than anti-gravity research. Someone would hack into the computers and steal it, because the government is incompetent in general and the hackers have a tech and creativity advantage.

Besides, it's not like your mysterious artificial gravity claim from ten years ago is all that mysterious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Gravity#Gravity_generator.2Fgr
avitomagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Podkletnov.27s_gravity_
reflection_beam

So no, they're not going to drag you away or anything.

Frankly, I'm sympathetic to Eugene Podkletnov, and I can see how sometimes when the media grabs hold of something and misinterprets it, it can result in unwarranted discrediting of the author. But on the other hand, even reading what he claims to have done so far, I don't think we're anywhere NEAR artificial gravity generators yet, to me it sounds like we're barely at the point of being able to detect tiny changes in the existing field around a moving object. Grav screening, maybe, but so far it sounds like what we've managed is not yet useful, especially not for propelling a space ship.

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

Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:13 AM

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Could you please just make it stranger? Stranger. Odder. Could be weirder. More bizarre. How about uncanny?

Tell you what, I just appreciate the Science Channel is making the effort to hook a new audience. Obviously there will be debates on what is or isn't, what can or can't be, but ultimately, it's just shiny to see her on the air again and getting proper attention. :)

That being said, remember, at one time flying machines and submersible vessels were once deemed "impossible".

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

BWAH!

TCM

http://www.cafepress.com/10thcrew

*Download my Firefly Games for FREE at
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=13&t=36208&m=664612

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

Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:58 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Look, even government mind control research and experiments are well reported on, and information getting out on that is a hell of a lot more damaging to the government than anti-gravity research. Someone would hack into the computers and steal it, because the government is incompetent in general and the hackers have a tech and creativity advantage.

Besides, it's not like your mysterious artificial gravity claim from ten years ago is all that mysterious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Gravity#Gravity_generator.2Fgr
avitomagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Podkletnov.27s_gravity_
reflection_beam

So no, they're not going to drag you away or anything...

...I don't think we're anywhere NEAR artificial gravity generators yet, to me it sounds like we're barely at the point of being able to detect tiny changes in the existing field around a moving object. Grav screening, maybe, but so far it sounds like what we've managed is not yet useful, especially not for propelling a space ship.

A lot of the information about mind control has gone straight down the 'memory hole'.

There were a lot more resources on those subjects prior to the I-net...but in the form of books...Many of the books are difficult or impossible to find now , and many are systematically eliminated from Libraries.

What you were able to find on gravity experiments with your cursory search is not even scratching the surface...Podkletnov was , and is , just a neophyte.

Seems that you don't have a good notion what it means when a technology 'goes black'. It means that evidence of it is systematically erased. It means that the science that supports it is no longer 'open'. It means that all of it is gone , 'in vacuo'. It means that no one is allowed to know anything they are not authorized to know...That means , for you , you probably won't learn anything about it anytime soon , if ever.

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

Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:16 PM

BYTEMITE

"That means , for you , you probably won't learn anything about it anytime soon , if ever."

Because I'm not yet ready to be educated? Either way I look at that seems to be something to take pride in.

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

Monday, March 21, 2011 1:19 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Because I'm not yet ready to be educated? Either way I look at that seems to be something to take pride in.

Did I mention education ?

Not sure I recall that. I have no doubts abouts you being educable , that is up to you , of course...Your personal readiness.

Being authorized is another matter. If you were authorized , you wouldn't have to ask. I cannot authorize you , and presently I doubt that I know anyone who can. Sorry.

The way that people most often approach matters that they disbelieve is with the attitude "I'll believe it when I see it."

What more often works for minds that really want to know is the attitude , "I'll see it when I believe it."

The first creation of everything is the mental visualization. No actualization is possible without the first creation.

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

Monday, March 21, 2011 1:51 PM

BYTEMITE

I don't particularly believe in any of that stuff either. >_> If I did, I'd be religious.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE