I hate to do this but I am very pressed for time. I just wrote an article recapping "John Carter of Mars" news for the month of March, 2010 over on the other SF-Fandom blog.
There are days when writing multiple blogs becomes a real challenge. And you have no idea of how many blogs I have written articles for over the past 24 hours, but you will soon learn.
You will soon learn.
Mwahahaha!
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Stupid things scientists say
A recent story on Space.com caught my attention. The headline says Warp Speed Could Kill You. That was the message delivered by Johns Hopkins University physicist William Edelstein to the "American Physical Society conference in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 13", according to the article. Dr. Edelstein is an eminent radiology scientist who helped developed Magnetic Resonance Imaging technology that is widely used today.
Apparently, Dr. Edelstein has concluded that if you can manage to propel a ship to a speed near the speed of light, hydrogen atoms in space will kill everyone aboard the ship with radiation. Dr. Edelstein reportedly compared this kind of speed to Star Trek's Warp Speed. Some members of his audience apparently objected to his comparison on the grounds that Star Trek ships have "magnetic shields".
Here is the problem with Dr. Edelstein's comparison and the points his audience made: they are not talking about Star Trek's Warp Speed. In fact, it was originally known as Warp Factors and the pseudo-science behind the concept was not really fully developed until decades later when Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent shows had to explain how the techology worked.
Warp Factor speed is used by Star Trek ships to cover vast distances in space in Earth-standard time frames (that is, relative to time on Earth) in less time than it would take light to travel across those distances. In other words, a ship using Star Trek's fictional Warp technology could position itself at point A somewhere in space, travel at Warp Factor whatever to a point B where it could then take a picture of itself at Position A. Then, again jumping into Warp, the ship could travel to point C where it could take a picture of itself at point A followed some time later by a picture of itself at point B. Finally, the ship could then travel via Warp speed to another point D where it could capture images of itself in reverse sequence from points C, B, and A.
The point of Star Trek's Warp Drive technology is to allow ships to travel between stars at faster-than-light speeds without obviously violating the known laws of physics. Scientists should not be restricting Star Trek Warp speeds to the limits of Einsteinian theory. That's equivalent to saying supersonic jets cannot travel across the ocean faster than 200 knots because there is too much resistance from the water.
I don't know what the maximum achievable physical speed in ocean water is for a vessel, but I'm pretty sure it cannot match the speed of a jet-powered air vessel -- nor the speed of a much faster spaceship. We don't have to know how to make Star Trek's Warp technology in order to avoid saying something stupid like traveling at Warp Speed would kill you.
Scientists are generally respected for being careful in what they say. Sure, there are plenty of examples where previously held scientific ideas have been discarded as new research has unplugged them from our knowledge base, but occasionally someone in science or engineering just says something monumentally stupid for no apparent reason other than ignorance.
For example, NASA struggles with the concepts of UFOs and aliens in part because at least some of its people say some really stupid things, like real aliens would try to land on the front lawn of the White House (in order to make contact with the most powerful leader on Earth). Why would real aliens do that? Maybe they just have a passing scientific curiosity in other life forms and occasionally scoop up random specimens to study -- rather like a field biologist does today, right?
We don't know anything about what a real alien civilization's priorities or mores would be. To assume that they would or would not do anything is pretty stupid. To postulate that they might or might not do something is simply speculative, and therefore more scientific. Assuming that real space aliens would (or would not) single out the White House as the perfect place to make a historic first landing on Earth without knowing anything about an alien space-faring civilization is not scientific -- it's just foolish.
Scientists are often quick to point out dumb things other scientists have said. One of the basic tenets of our scientific process is that we teach scientists and engineers to question all statements, to challenge the observations and conclusions that each other put forward. By forcing ourselves to defend, explain, or clarify what we say, we work toward a better understanding of all things natural.
However, science still has a long way to go in acknowleding "all things natural". Take God, for example. Ask any random scientist from any discipline if God is real and you're likely to hear some variation on "science doesn't address the question of God's existence". Why is that? Probably because in centuries past the forebears of today's scientists were tortured and murdered by religious authorities as heretics. But that's hardly a suitable reason to ignore the question of whether God exists.
If God exists, he is completely natural rather than supernatural. Scientists and atheists use the word "supernatural" to label anything they don't want to believe in. Ghosts, imps, demons, leprechauns, witches, werewolves, and God are supernatural because these are concepts that are "outside the (realm of the) natural". In other words, these things cannot be part of nature.
But why? Either they are imaginary things or they are real things, but either way they are natural things. An imaginary idea is completely natural given that we humans imagine things all the time. Flying cars like George Jetson's little zip-about are completely imaginary, but no one calls them "supernatural".
Supernatural things don't have to answer to natural laws, we are told. Okay, but what does that have to do with the existence of God, Yeti, and were-wolves. We know that animals can and do transform themselves from one type of creature into another (moths, butterflies, and other creatures go through metamorphosis). The fact that natural metamorphosis occurs does not prove were-wolves exist; it merely proves that you cannot disprove were-wolves on the basis of saying a creature cannot turn into another creature.
In other words, science is usually at its worst when it seeks to dismiss belief in things which science has not categorically shown to exist. For example, modern scientists dismissed the existence of creatures like Disney's giant squid from "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" but finally had to acknowledge that Colossal Squids approaching that size in nature do exist (they have been filmed and a few dead bodies have been examined).
The difference between the Colossal Squid and something so-far uncategorized creature like Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster is that science has yet to acquire a body that can be examined. Photographic evidence won't suffice unless it's captured by established scientists in an environment other scientists will trust has not been tampered with.
The chief problem with these so-called cryptids (creatures that have not been proven to exist in a scientific investigation) is not the lack of evidence for their existence but rather the volumes of fake evidence that have been put forth by fraudsters and posers. Every time someone tries to pass off a Halloween costume as Bigfoot, scientists take a step further away from any desire to investigate the hundreds if not thousands of reports of creatures resembling the Yeti or Sasquatch (by up to 20 or more names around the world).
Humanoids of diminutive size had been the subject of folklore and fiction for centuries, but only a few years ago scientists discovered the remains of 3-foot-tall humanoids on a small island in Indonesia. Whether representatives of Homo Florienensis could have made their way around the world to be recorded in mythologies and folklores is highly speculative -- but at least now we know such small people did once live. How much other peoples might have been aware of them 12-15,000 years ago and how long those memories could have been preserved in folklore is a subject for debate, not dismissal.
In fact, linguistic analysis has proposed some interesting things for ancient languages through which we glimpse how our ancestors viewed and understood their world. To them, the natural world was very different from the natural world we live in today. Some things they may simply have not understood very well. But now we know there were some things that really did exist -- cities, lands, peoples -- that were once dismissed by science as imaginary or "supernatural".
That kind of raw dismissal is not acceptable science. We need to expect better of our scientists. Otherwise, they'll never learn enough to explore some of life's more challenging mysteries. It's doubtful a scientist shaped in today's educational system will come face to face with God and return with empirical evidence. But maybe one day we'll understand the ways of the universe better and be able to explain why so many people feel a connection to a higher power (outside of the present theories of psychology).
Maybe...or maybe not. We'll never know until we make the effort to find out the truth. Unfortunately, we retreat from the truth each time we dismiss scientifically unbelievable ideas for lack of scientific evidence. The lack of evidence does not justify the dismissive or derisive attitude some people cultivate toward ideas in the popular belief. If anything, it should inspire a stronger yearning to know more about the details that gave rise to the belief in the first place.
We don't learn by making assumptions but rather by challenging them.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Apparently, Dr. Edelstein has concluded that if you can manage to propel a ship to a speed near the speed of light, hydrogen atoms in space will kill everyone aboard the ship with radiation. Dr. Edelstein reportedly compared this kind of speed to Star Trek's Warp Speed. Some members of his audience apparently objected to his comparison on the grounds that Star Trek ships have "magnetic shields".
Here is the problem with Dr. Edelstein's comparison and the points his audience made: they are not talking about Star Trek's Warp Speed. In fact, it was originally known as Warp Factors and the pseudo-science behind the concept was not really fully developed until decades later when Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent shows had to explain how the techology worked.
Warp Factor speed is used by Star Trek ships to cover vast distances in space in Earth-standard time frames (that is, relative to time on Earth) in less time than it would take light to travel across those distances. In other words, a ship using Star Trek's fictional Warp technology could position itself at point A somewhere in space, travel at Warp Factor whatever to a point B where it could then take a picture of itself at Position A. Then, again jumping into Warp, the ship could travel to point C where it could take a picture of itself at point A followed some time later by a picture of itself at point B. Finally, the ship could then travel via Warp speed to another point D where it could capture images of itself in reverse sequence from points C, B, and A.
The point of Star Trek's Warp Drive technology is to allow ships to travel between stars at faster-than-light speeds without obviously violating the known laws of physics. Scientists should not be restricting Star Trek Warp speeds to the limits of Einsteinian theory. That's equivalent to saying supersonic jets cannot travel across the ocean faster than 200 knots because there is too much resistance from the water.
I don't know what the maximum achievable physical speed in ocean water is for a vessel, but I'm pretty sure it cannot match the speed of a jet-powered air vessel -- nor the speed of a much faster spaceship. We don't have to know how to make Star Trek's Warp technology in order to avoid saying something stupid like traveling at Warp Speed would kill you.
Scientists are generally respected for being careful in what they say. Sure, there are plenty of examples where previously held scientific ideas have been discarded as new research has unplugged them from our knowledge base, but occasionally someone in science or engineering just says something monumentally stupid for no apparent reason other than ignorance.
For example, NASA struggles with the concepts of UFOs and aliens in part because at least some of its people say some really stupid things, like real aliens would try to land on the front lawn of the White House (in order to make contact with the most powerful leader on Earth). Why would real aliens do that? Maybe they just have a passing scientific curiosity in other life forms and occasionally scoop up random specimens to study -- rather like a field biologist does today, right?
We don't know anything about what a real alien civilization's priorities or mores would be. To assume that they would or would not do anything is pretty stupid. To postulate that they might or might not do something is simply speculative, and therefore more scientific. Assuming that real space aliens would (or would not) single out the White House as the perfect place to make a historic first landing on Earth without knowing anything about an alien space-faring civilization is not scientific -- it's just foolish.
Scientists are often quick to point out dumb things other scientists have said. One of the basic tenets of our scientific process is that we teach scientists and engineers to question all statements, to challenge the observations and conclusions that each other put forward. By forcing ourselves to defend, explain, or clarify what we say, we work toward a better understanding of all things natural.
However, science still has a long way to go in acknowleding "all things natural". Take God, for example. Ask any random scientist from any discipline if God is real and you're likely to hear some variation on "science doesn't address the question of God's existence". Why is that? Probably because in centuries past the forebears of today's scientists were tortured and murdered by religious authorities as heretics. But that's hardly a suitable reason to ignore the question of whether God exists.
If God exists, he is completely natural rather than supernatural. Scientists and atheists use the word "supernatural" to label anything they don't want to believe in. Ghosts, imps, demons, leprechauns, witches, werewolves, and God are supernatural because these are concepts that are "outside the (realm of the) natural". In other words, these things cannot be part of nature.
But why? Either they are imaginary things or they are real things, but either way they are natural things. An imaginary idea is completely natural given that we humans imagine things all the time. Flying cars like George Jetson's little zip-about are completely imaginary, but no one calls them "supernatural".
Supernatural things don't have to answer to natural laws, we are told. Okay, but what does that have to do with the existence of God, Yeti, and were-wolves. We know that animals can and do transform themselves from one type of creature into another (moths, butterflies, and other creatures go through metamorphosis). The fact that natural metamorphosis occurs does not prove were-wolves exist; it merely proves that you cannot disprove were-wolves on the basis of saying a creature cannot turn into another creature.
In other words, science is usually at its worst when it seeks to dismiss belief in things which science has not categorically shown to exist. For example, modern scientists dismissed the existence of creatures like Disney's giant squid from "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" but finally had to acknowledge that Colossal Squids approaching that size in nature do exist (they have been filmed and a few dead bodies have been examined).
The difference between the Colossal Squid and something so-far uncategorized creature like Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster is that science has yet to acquire a body that can be examined. Photographic evidence won't suffice unless it's captured by established scientists in an environment other scientists will trust has not been tampered with.
The chief problem with these so-called cryptids (creatures that have not been proven to exist in a scientific investigation) is not the lack of evidence for their existence but rather the volumes of fake evidence that have been put forth by fraudsters and posers. Every time someone tries to pass off a Halloween costume as Bigfoot, scientists take a step further away from any desire to investigate the hundreds if not thousands of reports of creatures resembling the Yeti or Sasquatch (by up to 20 or more names around the world).
Humanoids of diminutive size had been the subject of folklore and fiction for centuries, but only a few years ago scientists discovered the remains of 3-foot-tall humanoids on a small island in Indonesia. Whether representatives of Homo Florienensis could have made their way around the world to be recorded in mythologies and folklores is highly speculative -- but at least now we know such small people did once live. How much other peoples might have been aware of them 12-15,000 years ago and how long those memories could have been preserved in folklore is a subject for debate, not dismissal.
In fact, linguistic analysis has proposed some interesting things for ancient languages through which we glimpse how our ancestors viewed and understood their world. To them, the natural world was very different from the natural world we live in today. Some things they may simply have not understood very well. But now we know there were some things that really did exist -- cities, lands, peoples -- that were once dismissed by science as imaginary or "supernatural".
That kind of raw dismissal is not acceptable science. We need to expect better of our scientists. Otherwise, they'll never learn enough to explore some of life's more challenging mysteries. It's doubtful a scientist shaped in today's educational system will come face to face with God and return with empirical evidence. But maybe one day we'll understand the ways of the universe better and be able to explain why so many people feel a connection to a higher power (outside of the present theories of psychology).
Maybe...or maybe not. We'll never know until we make the effort to find out the truth. Unfortunately, we retreat from the truth each time we dismiss scientifically unbelievable ideas for lack of scientific evidence. The lack of evidence does not justify the dismissive or derisive attitude some people cultivate toward ideas in the popular belief. If anything, it should inspire a stronger yearning to know more about the details that gave rise to the belief in the first place.
We don't learn by making assumptions but rather by challenging them.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Isaac Asimov's influences on economics and SEO theory
If you are interested in search engine optimization at all, you may have read some of my articles at SEO Theory. There are a few articles where I mention science fiction and fantasy, but in particular I made sure to mention Asimov's Foundation books and the character Hari Seldon (a Psychohistorian) in the articles Swarm Theory and Web Communities and Using Swarm Theory to Balance Viral Propaganda.
Today, I stumbled across this Discover Magazine blog post that mentioned this economist's blog and this philosopher's blog where both mention Asimov and Seldon's influences on them.
So count me in good company. I feel no shame in comparing my theoretical work in understanding Web search dynamics to the work of others in fields as disparate as economics, politics, and philosophy.
Psychohistory, in Asimov's books, is an esoteric mathematicaly discipline that seeks to quantify the behaviors of large groups sufficiently predict trends in group behaviors (allowing for occasional identification of pivotal actions with iconic individuals). In other words, Hari Seldon invents a branch of mathematics that is used to predict future trends so reliably that a 1,000-year-long plan to reshape galactic politics is put in place before Seldon dies.
Some people have actually attempted to develop a science of psychohistory.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Today, I stumbled across this Discover Magazine blog post that mentioned this economist's blog and this philosopher's blog where both mention Asimov and Seldon's influences on them.
So count me in good company. I feel no shame in comparing my theoretical work in understanding Web search dynamics to the work of others in fields as disparate as economics, politics, and philosophy.
Psychohistory, in Asimov's books, is an esoteric mathematicaly discipline that seeks to quantify the behaviors of large groups sufficiently predict trends in group behaviors (allowing for occasional identification of pivotal actions with iconic individuals). In other words, Hari Seldon invents a branch of mathematics that is used to predict future trends so reliably that a 1,000-year-long plan to reshape galactic politics is put in place before Seldon dies.
Some people have actually attempted to develop a science of psychohistory.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
You live in the Martinez SuperEon
This week I learned that the Geologic Time Scale lacks a name for the current SuperEon. In discussing the proposed Anthropocene Epoch, which would turn the Geologic Time Scale on its side, I suggested that we name the current SuperEon for me. Why? Apparently because no one has noticed that we have neglected to name the current SuperEon.
And there are only two of these suckers, so you have to wonder what the boys down at the lab were drinking when they came up with all the bizarre names that are used in the Geologic Time Scale.
The last SuperEon (which ended around 452 million years ago) was the Pre-Cambrian SuperEon. The Cambrian was a period, not an Eon or SuperEon. Go figure.
I am pleased to see that I already have garnered some support for the Martinez SuperEon. I hope I can count on your vote, too.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
And there are only two of these suckers, so you have to wonder what the boys down at the lab were drinking when they came up with all the bizarre names that are used in the Geologic Time Scale.
The last SuperEon (which ended around 452 million years ago) was the Pre-Cambrian SuperEon. The Cambrian was a period, not an Eon or SuperEon. Go figure.
I am pleased to see that I already have garnered some support for the Martinez SuperEon. I hope I can count on your vote, too.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Friday, March 26, 2010
EDONLY.COM rips off people
I don't buy shoes online. I don't buy MBT shoes. I only recently learned of MBT shoes. A friend of mine recently bought some MBT shoes from EDONLY.COM, a Chinese-operated Website that -- according to numerous complaints posted around the Internet -- may sell outdated/discontinued MBT shoes, counterfeit MBT shoes, or just takes your money and doesn't actually send any shoes at all.
This friend wanted to buy some MBT shoes at a really great discount. EDONLY.COM claims to sell them for less than $100. The shoes, I understand, normally sell for well over $200. While it might seem like EDONLY.COM offers a great savings, it's not a reputable business about which people say good things.
And, frankly, I would be surprised if any legitimate MBT reseller could offer the shoes for less than $100. Is MBT even aware of this outfit?
To an experienced Internet marketer EDONLY.COM raises all sorts of red flags. The site uses BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM to process its credit/debit card payments. A quick check of the Web finds numerous complaints about how the Webmaster at BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM refuses to handle customer service complaints. Several people allege that BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM has processed multiple card charges against single purchases.
BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM has been associated with an UGG shoe seller (UGGOUTLETSHOP.COM, another site operating from China) that has also been accused of selling fake merchandise, overcharging customers, not shipping merchandise, etc.
The names associated with these various Websites are dissimilar and there is no way to know whether they are the same person.
Charges on your card will apparently be shown under the name GREATDISCOUNTSTORE.COM, which magically redirects to KLAT.COM. GREATDISCOUNTSTORE.COM is owned by Neon Gecko, a Seattle-based firm whose Website says they own and operate KLAT.COM, an eshopper forum and resource.
I don't know what (if any) connection really exists between NEON GECKO and BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM but I'm rather appalled that so many Websites would be connected in such a shady network. Neon Gecko may need to take action to protect their domain name from unscrupulous Chinese vendors if it's being misused on credit card statements.
If Neon Gecko is involved in these fraudulent businesses, they had better change course quickly. People won't put up with this kind of nonsense for long.
And here is a bit of advice to people looking for great bargains on the Web: If you're not getting that 75% discount directly from the manufacturer, assume it's a ripoff unless the manufacturer has a well-documented business relationship with the retailer.
I, personally, will never do business with EDONLY.COM or any of its apparently related sites.
BTW -- if you have purchased anything from any of the companies operating through BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM, now might be a good time to close your credit card/debit card and get a new one. Just in case.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
This friend wanted to buy some MBT shoes at a really great discount. EDONLY.COM claims to sell them for less than $100. The shoes, I understand, normally sell for well over $200. While it might seem like EDONLY.COM offers a great savings, it's not a reputable business about which people say good things.
And, frankly, I would be surprised if any legitimate MBT reseller could offer the shoes for less than $100. Is MBT even aware of this outfit?
To an experienced Internet marketer EDONLY.COM raises all sorts of red flags. The site uses BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM to process its credit/debit card payments. A quick check of the Web finds numerous complaints about how the Webmaster at BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM refuses to handle customer service complaints. Several people allege that BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM has processed multiple card charges against single purchases.
BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM has been associated with an UGG shoe seller (UGGOUTLETSHOP.COM, another site operating from China) that has also been accused of selling fake merchandise, overcharging customers, not shipping merchandise, etc.
The names associated with these various Websites are dissimilar and there is no way to know whether they are the same person.
Charges on your card will apparently be shown under the name GREATDISCOUNTSTORE.COM, which magically redirects to KLAT.COM. GREATDISCOUNTSTORE.COM is owned by Neon Gecko, a Seattle-based firm whose Website says they own and operate KLAT.COM, an eshopper forum and resource.
I don't know what (if any) connection really exists between NEON GECKO and BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM but I'm rather appalled that so many Websites would be connected in such a shady network. Neon Gecko may need to take action to protect their domain name from unscrupulous Chinese vendors if it's being misused on credit card statements.
If Neon Gecko is involved in these fraudulent businesses, they had better change course quickly. People won't put up with this kind of nonsense for long.
And here is a bit of advice to people looking for great bargains on the Web: If you're not getting that 75% discount directly from the manufacturer, assume it's a ripoff unless the manufacturer has a well-documented business relationship with the retailer.
I, personally, will never do business with EDONLY.COM or any of its apparently related sites.
BTW -- if you have purchased anything from any of the companies operating through BILLINGSUPPORTSYSTEM.COM, now might be a good time to close your credit card/debit card and get a new one. Just in case.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Scientists want to rein in Hollywood pseudo-science
As a computer programmer I rarely watched movies about computer technology gone amok for many years. Friends and family only gradually persuaded me to watch "The Matrix". Will Smith helped me see past the issues I might have had with "I, Robot". Now I can pretty much watch a computer tech movie and not flinch.
But some scientists still have a hard time with the science in so-called science fiction movies. The Guardian has a story about Sidney Perkowitz, a physicist based at Emory University in Atlanta.
Perkowitz and some fellow scientists have proposed that Hollywood only violate the laws of physics no more than once per film. Otherwise, ... well, I don't know what will happen. Perhaps Reality will turn in its universal franchise or something.
You know, "Starship Troopers" disappointed me in a few ways but the size of the bugs was not one of the problems I had with the movie.
The "laws of physics" are not exactly laws in the sense that they must be enforced or even respected. Physicists today are developing experiments that will hopefully lead to practical technologies enabling us to travel to the stars safely, live longer lives, perhaps study the past in a more personal way, control the raw forces of nature, and otherwise do things that supposedly violate the "laws of physics".
It seems impractical -- no, unrealistic for a scientist to criticize the entertainment industry for making up its facts in order to tell interesting stories. Truth be told, science is constantly discovering new properties of things both natural and artificial that were previously relegated to science fiction and fantasy.
Hence, now we're talking about developing "invisibility cloak" technology for soldiers that will render them invisible on the field of battle, creating magnetic force fields to protect spaceships and astronauts from Solar radiation and other nasty things, teleportation technology, and even personal flight technologies (have you heard of the Martin Jetpack?).
It seems okay for science to challenge itself but for some reason Hollywood has to rein itself in and respect the boundaries that keep scientists from getting up and walking out of cinemas in disgust.
Perhaps where we need to set down some boundaries is in how seriously members of the scientific community take themselves. We should limit the scientific community to criticizing entertainment no more than once per decade.
That seems reasonable to me.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
But some scientists still have a hard time with the science in so-called science fiction movies. The Guardian has a story about Sidney Perkowitz, a physicist based at Emory University in Atlanta.
Perkowitz and some fellow scientists have proposed that Hollywood only violate the laws of physics no more than once per film. Otherwise, ... well, I don't know what will happen. Perhaps Reality will turn in its universal franchise or something.
You know, "Starship Troopers" disappointed me in a few ways but the size of the bugs was not one of the problems I had with the movie.
The "laws of physics" are not exactly laws in the sense that they must be enforced or even respected. Physicists today are developing experiments that will hopefully lead to practical technologies enabling us to travel to the stars safely, live longer lives, perhaps study the past in a more personal way, control the raw forces of nature, and otherwise do things that supposedly violate the "laws of physics".
It seems impractical -- no, unrealistic for a scientist to criticize the entertainment industry for making up its facts in order to tell interesting stories. Truth be told, science is constantly discovering new properties of things both natural and artificial that were previously relegated to science fiction and fantasy.
Hence, now we're talking about developing "invisibility cloak" technology for soldiers that will render them invisible on the field of battle, creating magnetic force fields to protect spaceships and astronauts from Solar radiation and other nasty things, teleportation technology, and even personal flight technologies (have you heard of the Martin Jetpack?).
It seems okay for science to challenge itself but for some reason Hollywood has to rein itself in and respect the boundaries that keep scientists from getting up and walking out of cinemas in disgust.
Perhaps where we need to set down some boundaries is in how seriously members of the scientific community take themselves. We should limit the scientific community to criticizing entertainment no more than once per decade.
That seems reasonable to me.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Barrier releases movie trailer
Fans of Bruce Hopkins and Claudia Christian can finally see a glimpse of their work on the upcoming "Barrier" short film. The official Barrier Website has been updated with a new video trailer. Sheldon Whittaker let me know about it this morning and I am shamelessly embedding it here.
A bigger version can be viewed at... http://www.barrier.tv/media.html
The production has been busy, as you'll see if you check out the Barrier blog.
I'll post more when I get a chance.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
A bigger version can be viewed at... http://www.barrier.tv/media.html
The production has been busy, as you'll see if you check out the Barrier blog.
I'll post more when I get a chance.
SF-Fandom is a moderated, fan-run community devoted to science fiction, fantasy, history, and mythology. SF-Fandom was founded in 2001 and is part of the Xenite.Org network. Free registration is required to post. Please be sure you read our Posting Guidelines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)