ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags science fiction

Reply
Old 19th September 2017, 11:00 AM   #81
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,706
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Interesting. What would stop people using the technology to make clones instead of destroying the thing they scanned?
Ethics and law? They make copies of people several times in several of the series. In the original series they accidentally make two copies of Kirk - one good, one bad. In the Next Generation, they make a copy of Dr. Pulaski to cure her of some disease or something. Scotty stored himself as information in a ship's computers for decades before being regenerated by the crew of TNG. I think it happens several other times.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:05 AM   #82
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Ethics and law?
Yeah, but that's such a Trek thing to do: ignore the obvious implications of the technology. Personally I think that transporters and replicators are really stupid tech, even though they're terribly convenient.

Ok, maybe the Federation can stick to those principles. But I'm sure the Romulans and Jem'Hadar have no such ethical problems to essentially creating endless armies composed of their most elite and well-trained individuals, essentially making them unbeatable. But it never happens.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:20 AM   #83
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,706
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, but that's such a Trek thing to do: ignore the obvious implications of the technology. Personally I think that transporters and replicators are really stupid tech, even though they're terribly convenient.

Ok, maybe the Federation can stick to those principles. But I'm sure the Romulans and Jem'Hadar have no such ethical problems to essentially creating endless armies composed of their most elite and well-trained individuals, essentially making them unbeatable. But it never happens.
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Naananannnaananna I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!
(I am not feeling very mature today)
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:23 AM   #84
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,385
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Alien races that have one single monolithic culture despite emerging on planets just as big as ours.
You're forgetting about the Star Trek episode with the 2 aliens, with their faces painted black and white (but on different sides). See? Totally different!

Joking aside, that shouldn't be a big issue. As a species gets more technologically advanced, they get a greater ability to interact with others on the planet. Cultures would naturally blend over time. Heck, look how much English has become the dominant language for business in much of the world, and that's only been in a few hundred years since England started to build its empire (and only a few decades since air travel and long distance communication has been relatively cheap and easy.) Give it another century or 2 and everyone on the planet might be speaking English (or some sort of hybrid English-Chinese-Hindi mix). Things like the way people dress, or the foods they eat, would probably follow suit.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:38 AM   #85
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,580
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, but that's such a Trek thing to do: ignore the obvious implications of the technology. Personally I think that transporters and replicators are really stupid tech, even though they're terribly convenient.

Ok, maybe the Federation can stick to those principles. But I'm sure the Romulans and Jem'Hadar have no such ethical problems to essentially creating endless armies composed of their most elite and well-trained individuals, essentially making them unbeatable. But it never happens.
Actually a lot of stuff is explored. And although non-canon books have some interesting takes on things too.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:45 AM   #86
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually a lot of stuff is explored.
Not really on the show. For instance, why not replicate whole starships in gigantic production facilities? If you can have the pattern for a big dinner, you can scale it up to a ship. That's never really addressed (unless I missed a VOY episode, but I have no regrets there.)
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 12:53 PM   #87
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,580
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not really on the show. For instance, why not replicate whole starships in gigantic production facilities? If you can have the pattern for a big dinner, you can scale it up to a ship. That's never really addressed (unless I missed a VOY episode, but I have no regrets there.)
Actually how starships are built is not explored or mentioned. (Part of !lot) so that's maybe what they're doing. In last two DS9 session Federation had problem with losing too many starships without replacements but precise reason is not mentioned. (Likely lack of crews)
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:23 PM   #88
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually how starships are built is not explored or mentioned. (Part of !lot) so that's maybe what they're doing. In last two DS9 session Federation had problem with losing too many starships without replacements but precise reason is not mentioned. (Likely lack of crews)
See, they could just replicate the ship and the crew and they'd be fine.

And seriously, no one ever weaponized the transporters? That was the biggest issue I had. Every now and then you'd see a desperate gambit of some sort, but really; bring down the shields and transport a nuke to the enemy ship. For that matter, transport weapons directly outside the enemy ship (or mines into it's path) if you can't breach shields. Put heavy duty ones on the outside of the ship and transport, say, ground-based anti-ship installations into deep space. Make some on vehicles or other portable/mobile platforms to use for troop movement on the battlefield...instant flanking maneuvers. Yet we saw none of that.

ETA: Heck, for that matter, it's a device that turns matter into energy. Talk about weapons potential. Forget about transporting anything, just convert it to energy released in place. That's a freaking weapon...put those wimpy photon torpedoes to shame.

Last edited by Hellbound; 19th September 2017 at 01:25 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:27 PM   #89
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,055
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Banked turns by spacecraft, with only aft thrusters apparent...
I wondered about this once and someone said "gyros!". Though, still, the banking is redundant afaics.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:33 PM   #90
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,994
I do suspect this should be the thread of the year for 2017!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:38 PM   #91
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,055
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No. That's why it took 57 years for it [Ripley's escape craft in Aliens] to be found.
Which would leave Ripley still in or around that star system. In that case the salvage vessel would need ftl capability to get out there and investigate her shuttle. Why would they do that? If The Company knew about Nostromo's demise (and I suppose they did) why would they leave investigation to some yahoo speculators when there was so much at stake?

Also, how did the Aliens grow so damn fast?

disclaimer: I don't really give a toss about science flaws in films like that, as long as they just lead into a good film rather than be at the essence of the film (e.g. Superman, which is wall-to-wall stupid)
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 19th September 2017 at 01:42 PM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:45 PM   #92
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually how starships are built is not explored or mentioned. (Part of !lot) so that's maybe what they're doing. In last two DS9 session Federation had problem with losing too many starships without replacements but precise reason is not mentioned. (Likely lack of crews)
We see ships in construction at various parts of the shows and movies, so we know they assemble them the old fashion way. Me, I'd replicate the ships, transporter-copy the best crews and conquer my enemies, building a great empire that would last forever.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 01:48 PM   #93
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Which would leave Ripley still in or around that star system. In that case the salvage vessel would need ftl capability to get out there and investigate her shuttle. Why would they do that?
They weren't looking for her specifically.

Quote:
If The Company knew about Nostromo's demise (and I suppose they did) why would they leave investigation to some yahoo speculators when there was so much at stake?
I have no idea. The real reason is that sometimes they overlook those things for sequels. If I had to try to rationalise it, I'd say that some executive who ordered the first mission fell out of favour because of the loss of the ship, and the whole thing was buried, which also neatly explains why the company knew nothing about the incident in the second movie.

Quote:
Also, how did the Aliens grow so damn fast?
Magic.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:14 PM   #94
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 174
That whole business of magically fantastical and rapid growth (take the Hulk) has bugged me for as long as I can remember. How the hell does an organism accrue mass (and good muscle tone in the bargain) without ingesting other matter? Alien's chest burster went from maybe squirrel size to big-man size in what, a couple or few days, without apparently eating. Does it grow on air? Space 1999's Alpha Child went from infant to adult in a few days, on a normal diet. DS9's Odo can in a few seconds alter his mass enormously (such as when becoming a bird.)
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:19 PM   #95
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
In Star Wars, for example, books in the universe explain that the ships make no sound in space. The sound in the movies comes from the computers within each ship that detect the other ships and generate the sounds. A unique sound for each kind of ship coming from speakers surrounding the cockpit - this allows the pilot to have better situational awareness. I know it sounds silly, but it is also an easy way to explain away one of the more basically apparent science mistakes in that series.
Doesn't really sound so sillly either. Using proper stereo effects to help locate the ship other ship and simularing doppler shifts to indicate approach and recession speeds. Sounds very useful.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:27 PM   #96
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,055
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
That whole business of magically fantastical and rapid growth (take the Hulk) has bugged me for as long as I can remember. How the hell does an organism accrue mass (and good muscle tone in the bargain) without ingesting other matter? Alien's chest burster went from maybe squirrel size to big-man size in what, a couple or few days, without apparently eating. Does it grow on air? Space 1999's Alpha Child went from infant to adult in a few days, on a normal diet. DS9's Odo can in a few seconds alter his mass enormously (such as when becoming a bird.)
Alien vs Predator was much worse. The whole Alien life-cycle was condensed into a few hours (story time, not real time).

But I liked that film. Too short though, imo.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:45 PM   #97
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
That whole business of magically fantastical and rapid growth (take the Hulk) has bugged me for as long as I can remember. How the hell does an organism accrue mass (and good muscle tone in the bargain) without ingesting other matter? Alien's chest burster went from maybe squirrel size to big-man size in what, a couple or few days, without apparently eating.
If only it was days, we could say it ate stuff around the ship. But it seemed only a few hours. In subsequent movies it only gets worse and worse.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:49 PM   #98
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,832
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I wondered about this once and someone said "gyros!". Though, still, the banking is redundant afaics.
So what happens to the momentum of the spacecraft as a whole? How does the forward velocity of the craft get cancelled and moved to the new vector?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 04:17 PM   #99
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
While we're at the topic of bogus science, the whole representation of science in movies bothers me majorly. And mostly because it's bogus for no good reason.

A) Scientists work alone and jealously guard their secrets.

While that may be true in secret wartime projects, the fact of the matter is that even then it's mostly the engineering parts that are secret, not the science part. Scientists actually SEND their work to other scientists for peer review, and publish it in publically available journals.

And really that's why science works. Nobody can discover and process everything. You have to base your work on the works of others. Any nation where every scientist is working by himself is going to fall behind very quickly.


B) Scientists would sabotage and even murder each other to steal each other's work. See, for example, the STNG episode with the new heat shield.

In reality, what happened to just subscribing to a journal?


C) The only way to present a discovery is to present a fully working model that works on a full scale shuttle or even warship, and if it doesn't work the first time around, you're a failure and disgrace.

There are several problems with that, not the least of which being that it fails to even comprehend the differences between theoretical science, experimental science, and applied science a.k.a. engineering. It's highly unlikely that some guy working in secrecy on an old abandoned space station, with no more help than his wife, would even have the skills or knowledge to not only do the science, but also engineer something that's fully commercially viable at large scale.

In modern terms imagine requiring that a new rocket propulsion (say, antimatter heated plasma) isn't even acknowledged theoretically until one guy can do all the stages and build one that can lift a fully loaded space shuttle. And you test it directly with a crewed shuttle.

That's not how it works. That goes through several staged and iterations of published theoretical papers, experiments to try to disprove the theory, small scale prototypes that couldn't even push a snail on teflon, and so on.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 05:07 PM   #100
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,871
In the recent movie, Life, the alien had absurd strength for the size of its muscle when it was only a couple inches long. It crushed a man's hand.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 05:30 PM   #101
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,063
One thing that bothers me is the lack of appreciation for scale when it comes to spacecraft.

This generally applies to those shows and movies where the ships are a mile long, or miles long. Writers love to do that, but they very rarely demonstrate any appreciation of what that would involve.

Take a modern US aircraft carrier, which is around 330 m long. They carry 70+ aircraft and upwards of 5000 - 6,000 people. Scale it to one mile, 1,609 m. The volume has increased by one hundred and sixteen-fold! Such a ship would have a crew in the region of 630,000 people and be capable of carrying eight thousand aircraft!

Yet in sci-fi such ships typically have a crew in the hundreds, maybe the thousands. You hear a lot of excuses as to why it is so, but even accepting them the mental image you're left with is that you would be able to wander around in such a vessel for hours without ever meeting anybody, just because they're so empty.

And even if you did depict crews that size, running the ship would be very different to the things we see in movies. Being the Captain of a ship with 630,000 crewmembers would be like being the mayor of a city, not the captain of a ship.

Worse, the weapons and whatnot on these ships are usually tiny, man-scale stuff. Take a look at a battleship from world war II and the scale of the weapons compared to your ship. The laser guns (or whatever) on your sci-fi battleship are almost always miniscule in comparison. You should either see giant weapons, or hundreds and hundreds of small ones. Yet you almost never do.

I could go on and on. Giant ships shown with no appreciation of what their size would mean really bug the hell out of me.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 05:40 PM   #102
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
While we're at the topic of bogus science, the whole representation of science in movies bothers me majorly. And mostly because it's bogus for no good reason.
D) Scientists are arrogant and probe things that they should really just leave alone, because they don't know what they're messing with.

This one has crept into the public mind, too.

Quote:
C) The only way to present a discovery is to present a fully working model that works on a full scale shuttle or even warship, and if it doesn't work the first time around, you're a failure and disgrace.
That's one of the reasons I didn't like the well-reviewed Minority Report. Apparently if the pre-crime system isn't 100% reliable, it's worthless. that idea permeates the entire movie.
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 19th September 2017 at 05:41 PM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 07:17 PM   #103
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
I could go on and on. Giant ships shown with no appreciation of what their size would mean really bug the hell out of me.
Example please?

I read your ideas about scaling up an aircraft carrier. Basically scaling up an aircraft carrier to the size you proposed merely means that people could live at normal city densities in those ships. Not really seeing a problem.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 07:44 PM   #104
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Example please?

I read your ideas about scaling up an aircraft carrier. Basically scaling up an aircraft carrier to the size you proposed merely means that people could live at normal city densities in those ships. Not really seeing a problem.
If the crew and systems *don't require* the volume, then it makes no sense to go all Brobdignagian in dimensions. A smaller vessel is a smaller target that maneuvers more nimbly. And getting around inside is quicker. Design for function.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 08:37 PM   #105
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
While I would generally aggree with the idea that a practical spaceship wouldn't have ballroom-sized one-man dorms like in Star Trek and could probably be a lot smaller, I humbly present another idea: heat dissipation.

Take a look at those huge panels on the space station, and yeah, they're there to dissipate the heat from a tiny space station by SF standards. The issue is that in space you can't just transfer the heat to air like on Earth, so only radiation helps you. Granted, you could probably reduce them if you used a heat pump to make their surface hotter, courtesy of Messrs Stefan and Boltzmann, but even that only goes so far.

So I humbly submit that having a big outer shell could actualy serve a purpose. Namely that of heatsink. When you have to have whole square kilometres of heatsink just to get out the energy seeping from your engines and electronics anyway, it's not the worst idea to just make a huge wedge or saucer shaped hull with lots of space inside.

Granted, then what I'd also want to see is leaving some space between that heatsink outer hull and the inner hull -- kinda like the two hulls on a sub -- as spaced armour. Split it into airtight compartments, and you have some extra protection against explosive decompression of some room where the people are. Be it from battle or just grazing a grain of sand at relativistic speeds.

Basically it doesn't require VOLUME, but it might require SURFACE to get the heat out.

Edit: Which, incidentally would also explain some of the designs with strangely low volume-to-surface ratios, like the wedges in Star Wars or the dishes in Star Trek. I mean, think about it. If you wanted to optimize for volume, at the same weight, you'd probably make it a sphere. Or if you get into aerodynamics considerations (which are real even in interstellar space at relativistic speed, because you sweep a lot of space, so you collide with a lot of atoms) you'd make it tube-shaped like a submarine. Both the star destroyers and most ships in ST actually seem to deliberately go for most surface for least volume, which is the most stupid thing you can do... unless you have a good reason to need that surface.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th September 2017 at 08:45 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 10:46 PM   #106
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 174
Simply scaling up volume and surface area in step doesn't help to dissipate heat; it's worse. Area is a squared function while volume is cubic. Given the same proportions, smaller is better. Compare a mouse and an elephant, and the metabolic rates as determined by the ability to shed heat.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 10:59 PM   #107
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,772
I've often wondered how the Enterprise manages to always arrive at a destination with their ship time synchronised to whatever the local time happens to be. This also applies to meeting other ships out in space...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:26 PM   #108
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,580
Originally Posted by Hellbound
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually how starships are built is not explored or mentioned. (Part of !lot) so that's maybe what they're doing. In last two DS9 session Federation had problem with losing too many starships without replacements but precise reason is not mentioned. (Likely lack of crews)
See, they could just replicate the ship and the crew and they'd be fine.

And seriously, no one ever weaponized the transporters? That was the biggest issue I had. Every now and then you'd see a desperate gambit of some sort, but really; bring down the shields and transport a nuke to the enemy ship. For that matter, transport weapons directly outside the enemy ship (or mines into it's path) if you can't breach shields. Put heavy duty ones on the outside of the ship and transport, say, ground-based anti-ship installations into deep space. Make some on vehicles or other portable/mobile platforms to use for troop movement on the battlefield...instant flanking maneuvers. Yet we saw none of that.

ETA: Heck, for that matter, it's a device that turns matter into energy. Talk about weapons potential. Forget about transporting anything, just convert it to energy released in place. That's a freaking weapon...put those wimpy photon torpedoes to shame.
Replicating crew by transporter is quite inefficient (a lot of energy) and ethically at best dubious. And if one want to mass produce then there are better methods. (see Jem'Hadar)

Nice ideas, but forgetting one thing. You have to lower your shields to use transporter. Unless you had already disabled enemy's weapons it is tactically inadvisable course of action.

And in any other case it takes again a lot of power that might be missing from other critical systems.

i don't think yourIideas would really work all that well...

As for your edit. Quantum torpedoes.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually how starships are built is not explored or mentioned. (Part of !lot) so that's maybe what they're doing. In last two DS9 session Federation had problem with losing too many starships without replacements but precise reason is not mentioned. (Likely lack of crews)
We see ships in construction at various parts of the shows and movies, so we know they assemble them the old fashion way. Me, I'd replicate the ships, transporter-copy the best crews and conquer my enemies, building a great empire that would last forever.
Transport copy is very inefficient and duplicates not only bodies but minds too. (See Riker and his transport clone) It creates quite few problems. And anyway, Dominion. (DS9) Say hello to Jem'Hadar.
Actually thinking about it, replication takes quite a lot of energy too, so it is possible that they are creating smaller parts and assemble them simply to save energy. (And size of that thing would be brutal)

Jem'Hadar
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 11:38 PM   #109
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,580
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I've often wondered how the Enterprise manages to always arrive at a destination with their ship time synchronised to whatever the local time happens to be. This also applies to meeting other ships out in space...
Not that hard. If planet is in database then computer already ahs all the info it needs for adjustment. If unknown then calculate one from rotation of planet and then adjust to whatever locals use for UTC-equivalent.

And computer is far more powerful and per technical manual is in its own warp field to further increase speed of calculations.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 12:14 AM   #110
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Simply scaling up volume and surface area in step doesn't help to dissipate heat; it's worse. Area is a squared function while volume is cubic. Given the same proportions, smaller is better. Compare a mouse and an elephant, and the metabolic rates as determined by the ability to shed heat.
It's only worse if you actually fill that volume with more stuff that generaters heat. Having the same number of people and equipment on a bigger ship doesn't actually make the problem any worse, since it's the same heat to vent. Simply arranging the panels of the ISS in a ISD-style wedge shape around it won't make the dissipation any more problematic, if you don't actually bring more people and equipment on board.

Hence, yes, you would have a disparity between the number of crew and such and the volume of the ship.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 01:50 AM   #111
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Interesting. What would stop people using the technology to make clones instead of destroying the thing they scanned?
There's actually the bones of an answer to that one in QM. There have been some experiments that show the possibility, if I understand this correctly, of creating a particle at location B in the exact same state as a particle at location A, provided information on the state of the particle at location A is destroyed in the operation. If both particles remained in existence then it would be possible, for example, to measure the momentum of particle A and the position of particle B precisely and thus to violate the Uncertainty Principle, but so long as the original state is lost then the Uncertainty Principle is not violated. That principle would, of course, make the transported extremely dangerous, because it would completely destroy the person at the transmitting end, and any signal error would result in them not being reconstructable at the receiving end.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 01:55 AM   #112
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Replicating crew by transporter is quite inefficient (a lot of energy)
How is it inefficient? It replicates an entire object or person! All you need is to input energy into the system. I can think of no more efficient way to produce something: no human intervention, no construction material, very little waiting time; all you need is a large solar collector and M/A reactor.

Quote:
and duplicates not only bodies but minds too.
I mentioned that as a positive already: no need to train your troops in multiple.

Quote:
Say hello to Jem'Hadar.
The Jem'Hadar are grown biologically. Very inefficient.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 02:55 AM   #113
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,580
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How is it inefficient? It replicates an entire object or person! All you need is to input energy into the system. I can think of no more efficient way to produce something: no human intervention, no construction material, very little waiting time; all you need is a large solar collector and M/A reactor.



I mentioned that as a positive already: no need to train your troops in multiple.



The Jem'Hadar are grown biologically. Very inefficient.
Explain how it is more inefficient then expending lots of energy on transport-based duplication. Also having effectively mono-thinking army is not precisely good idea. If you wanted such thing then you can outright go Borg-way.

Also, "all you need energy". Yes, but that amount of energy is on bit different scale by the time you get to starship sizes. Reminder: We are talking about civilizations that routinely use multipole MARA reactors for regular operations!

Also size of that replicator for starships would be different matter then even regular industrial sized ones. You are assuming things just scale easily...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 04:10 AM   #114
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Example please?
Examples of giant ships?

Take the star destroyer. They're one mile long. If anything they're larger than a scaled up aircraft carrier, because they're far wider for a given length. So projecting 600,000+ crew for a star destroyer would be extremely conservative. Yet they only have a crew of 35,000. A carrier crewed to that density would have about 250 people on it.

The Executor Super Star Destroyer was 1,600 times bigger than a Star Destroyer. Yet it only has a crew of 280,000, eight times as many. If it was populated like a present day carrier is, it would have a crew of close to one billion people. Or alternatively, a modern carrier crewed to the density that an SSD is would have a crew of two people, at most. Two!

Similar story with the Enterprise-D in Star Trek. Though it's much, much smaller than the above ships, a Galaxy class ship is still huge - on the order of fifteen times the size of an aircraft carrier. Yet the war version of the ship in Yesterday's Enterprise can only carry six thousand troops, and is very crowded. With six thousand people aboard, that ship would feel practically empty. With the normal 1,000 crew, it should be a great rarity to see anybody walk past anybody else in a corridor - something that happens all the time.

Hell, Dax said that they "pack them in" on a Constitution class, which is over half the volume of a carrier but has a twelfth of the crew aboard

Quote:
I read your ideas about scaling up an aircraft carrier. Basically scaling up an aircraft carrier to the size you proposed merely means that people could live at normal city densities in those ships. Not really seeing a problem.
The problem is that that's exactly what we would expect these huge ships to be like - flying cities, with tens of millions of people in them and all that comes with that. But in reality we almost never see them treated that way. Being Captain of an SSD wouldn't even be like being the mayor of a town, it would be more like being the President of a country three times the size of America - and the Captain and his deputies would have as much involvement in the day to day running of any given department of the ship as Trump has in running any given state in the US.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 04:24 AM   #115
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Explain how it is more inefficient then expending lots of energy on transport-based duplication.
They replicate coffee. Obviously they have the ressources to spare. And I've already explained it: faster, fewer ressources, no need to mine, no workoforce required, etc.

Quote:
Also having effectively mono-thinking army is not precisely good idea.
Have you ever seen army training? The whole point is to reduce individuality to a minimum and enforce a strict hierarchy.

Quote:
Also, "all you need energy". Yes, but that amount of energy is on bit different scale by the time you get to starship sizes.
Irrelevant; you just scale up energy production and replicators.

Quote:
You are assuming things just scale easily...
Are you asking me to imagine the use this magical technology realistically? That's like saying that the US can't just mass-produce cars by scaling up assembly facilities.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 04:49 AM   #116
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Examples of giant ships? <SNIPPED)

I see what you're saying. You are making the assumption that the same number of crew are required per cubic yard of wessel which I'm not really sure holds. The more advance the technology the more one person can deal with.

Any pretense at realism (which there isn't, I realise) would mean that about 9/10 of a SSD would be fuel or empty fuel tanks.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 04:52 AM   #117
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Examples of giant ships?

Take the star destroyer. They're one mile long. If anything they're larger than a scaled up aircraft carrier, because they're far wider for a given length. So projecting 600,000+ crew for a star destroyer would be extremely conservative. Yet they only have a crew of 35,000. A carrier crewed to that density would have about 250 people on it.

The Executor Super Star Destroyer was 1,600 times bigger than a Star Destroyer. Yet it only has a crew of 280,000, eight times as many. If it was populated like a present day carrier is, it would have a crew of close to one billion people. Or alternatively, a modern carrier crewed to the density that an SSD is would have a crew of two people, at most. Two!

Similar story with the Enterprise-D in Star Trek. Though it's much, much smaller than the above ships, a Galaxy class ship is still huge - on the order of fifteen times the size of an aircraft carrier. Yet the war version of the ship in Yesterday's Enterprise can only carry six thousand troops, and is very crowded. With six thousand people aboard, that ship would feel practically empty. With the normal 1,000 crew, it should be a great rarity to see anybody walk past anybody else in a corridor - something that happens all the time.
About the 1701-D, there's plenty of open spaces for gymnasiums, holodecks and other such recreation, quarters are pretty huge compared to military vessels (you could probably fit 40 people in an officer's quarters!). So you expect a low density. There are other issues with this, but at least with the Enterprise they have an excuse.

With the Star Destroyers, well, that's what happens when you just want big ships for your sci-fi world.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 07:02 AM   #118
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
If the crew and systems *don't require* the volume, then it makes no sense to go all Brobdignagian in dimensions. A smaller vessel is a smaller target that maneuvers more nimbly. And getting around inside is quicker. Design for function.
But a crew staying for a long time on a ship does require more space. Nothing cited so far seems to be at odds with the idea that large ships with crews staying for a long time would want to be populated at some lower density than an aircraft carrier or an Apollo command module.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 07:07 AM   #119
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Examples of giant ships?

Take the star destroyer. They're one mile long. If anything they're larger than a scaled up aircraft carrier, because they're far wider for a given length. So projecting 600,000+ crew for a star destroyer would be extremely conservative. Yet they only have a crew of 35,000. A carrier crewed to that density would have about 250 people on it.
But 35,000 sounds perfect if you simply accept the idea they aren't populated like an aircraft carrier but are merely populated like a large city. 35,000 people per square mile is a city like density.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
The problem is that that's exactly what we would expect these huge ships to be like - flying cities, with tens of millions of people in them and all that comes with that.
Which of your examples would be reasonably expected to have tens of millions of people on them? Only one example (Executor Super Star Destroyer) you cited might support tens of millions at a city like density. And probably not actually if you allowing for large open spaces that are meant to be large enough to give a feeling of being out doors.

Looks like a non problem to me.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 07:24 AM   #120
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,145
Now that it's becoming common, I see replicators as being similiar to 3D printers that construct something if needed, or just materialize whatever food is called up from galley storage.

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
And seriously, no one ever weaponized the transporters?
Scotty did, sending the MOAB to the Klingon engine room (The Mother of all Broods).
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

Last edited by alfaniner; 20th September 2017 at 07:25 AM.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.