test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

A moment of nerd rage...

1235»

Comments

  • logicalspocklogicalspock Member Posts: 836 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    cgta1967 wrote: »
    here's the thing...it is 'you' that feels it 'needs to get it right' ... I'm sure most people dont really care and are very satisfied with the mumbo-jumbo science that is offered....obviously because the shows and movies have a successful fanbase regardless of getting the scientific equations in order.


    ...oh...and nice opportunity to take a jab at Mr. Abrams I see ....

    Ah, the argument that we should always strive to appease the lowest common denominator in society. By that reasoning, most people do not like Star Trek in the first place, so rather than create a new series, CBS should develop a bunch of new reality TV shows and trite sitcoms (which people do like) with the money.

    The great thing about making things scientifically accurate when a plot point involves a certain scientific principle is that the shows can be educational and inspirational. It is hard to inspire young people into careers in science and engineering with science fiction shows that are essential just fantasy with laser pistols instead of swords and spaceships instead of castles.
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Ah, the argument that we should always strive to appease the lowest common denominator in society. By that reasoning, most people do not like Star Trek in the first place, so rather than create a new series, CBS should develop a bunch of new reality TV shows and trite sitcoms (which people do like) with the money.

    The great thing about making things scientifically accurate when a plot point involves a certain scientific principle is that the shows can be educational and inspirational. It is hard to inspire young people into careers in science and engineering with science fiction shows that are essential just fantasy with laser pistols instead of swords and spaceships instead of castles.

    your elitism is showing .....
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • inkrunnerinkrunner Member Posts: 407 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    This thread was a harmless discussion of Dyson Sphere/Shell physics, with a little Science Fiction genre debate thrown in.

    Can we get back to civilized conversation or has the thread devolved too far?:(
    2iBFtmg.png
  • l30p4rdl30p4rd Member Posts: 334 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    The problem here is that some people are thinking far to literally and they complain about upcoming content not being science fact and forget this is science fiction. If your going to dissect the sphere you may as well dissect everything in STO which will leave you with very little FACT. There are tons of issues regarding a dyson sphere and to try and get your head around them with broken physics and maths that are at caveman stage is like asking a kid to give you a technical schematic of a car with paper and crayon ITS NOT GONA HAPPEN. All this "I am far more intellectual than you" posturing is elitist bull poo.

    Yes a dyson sphere in our understanding is impossible and just goes to show how dumb we really are EVEN the intellectuals !

    We are getting one whether people like it or not so just live with it and enjoy it !
  • hevachhevach Member Posts: 2,776 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    You are not only making a straw man argument but clearly did not read and understand my previous post. Given that, I see no purpose in continuing to attempt to have a discussion on the subject.

    You're the one creating a false definition of a thing and attacking anything that deviates from that definition - and invoking Arthur C. Clarke, who's based entire series of novels on conceits like "humans vastly mismeasured the speed of light and relativity is wrong," and, "the universe is a biological process so everything humans know about physics is wrong because they study the universe as a physical thing and not a living one," doesn't really help you - Clark revels in the scientific nonsense because he's into high concept philosophy more than hard sci fi.
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    The more actual science is used to explain the Dyson sphere they end up creating the happier I'll be.

    It's nonsense to go invent technobabble where current science can work by itself.

    Science fiction sure is fiction, but don't forget the first word. It should either start with real science or come up with a credible science of its own. Not some 'deus ex machina' whenever the story needs to move/whenever the game needs new content.


    Science fiction is here to show possibilities, our future, to educate and make us better. Because of that, it needs to satisfy to the highest demands.



    Back to the game: a Dyson sphere is fiction, so why not strive for the most accurate scientific representation of that fiction so we get the best possible science fiction?
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • moronwmachinegunmoronwmachinegun Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Here's my ideas on what could have happened to a race to get them to make a Dyson sphere, and then some side effects.

    The original Dysonians came from a tidally locked planet orbiting a red dwarf star. Their whole ecology was based on a star at a fixed point above them, never changing. Through brave explorers, they went into the shadowlands and eventually the dark zone, seeing stars and other planets for the first time.

    They then build rocket technology and started exploring their own solar system. The relatively small size of the solar system made it fairly easy for them to explore it all. However, they found that their other planets weren't as useful as Comfort (their name for their homeworld) in terms of gravity and continual light. After thousands of years they were getting too big for their homeworld, but did not have enough technology to develop warp drives. However, they did have artificial gravity drives, and artificial gravity beams, far in advance of what the Federation or Klingons have available. With the beams, they could now rip their gas giants in their solar system apart, and fuse them to generate energy, and also create more useful heavy elements.

    While they were unable to develop warp technology, they were able to discover subspace, and could listen in to the conversations going on around them. Their linguists were able to show that there were vast empires around them, able to use warp drives to zip from place to place. However, warp technology eluded them still and they started to worry. As they noticed other civilizations filling in around them, they decided they needed to hide their existence. The only way was hiding their star in a Dyson shell.

    They had figured out that the subspace transmissions seemed to come from brighter, larger stars, and so they planned to mask their activities by hiding themselves inside the shell. With the brown dwarfs and other planets and debris in their solar system, they were able to create a Dyson shell that had multiple external laser systems emulating their sun's light that are directed at the nearby stars, to make it "seem" like the star was just a boring, average red dwarf without anything of note, while their scientists continued working on warp drives.

    However, after their completion of the shell, something about warp technology kept eluding them. Perhaps their brains simply could not understand the higher order math involved, having evolved on a planet with an unchanging sun in the sky.

    Over time, their mega civilization inside the sphere descended into a civil war, with the existing survivors nothing more than stone age tribes. Without access to higher technology, they are left fending for themselves on the surface of the sphere. Some areas escaped the general chaos, but with the inter-dependency of Dysonian society over time even their technology decayed into uselessness.

    The sphere itself is autonomous, with a self-repair and maintenance system distributed into blocks. However, some of these blocks have failed, leading to giant dead zones as the water and atmosphere was slowly pulled away to nearby blocks due to the lack of local gravity.

    Within each block are large administrative and engineering centers, abandoned long ago. These were the centers of government and science, and where records of their history and failed attempts at warp technology could be found.

    Great Gates were placed around the sphere, where "mountain" ranges 100+ miles high surrounded portals miles wide, allowing for ships to enter and exit the shell without a force field.

    A few years ago, one of the camouflage lasers failed, piquing the interest of local astronomers. They did a deep analysis of the system and noticed the additional long-wavelength heat coming from the exterior surface of the sphere that they could not see when blinded by the lasers.

    They sent a survey ship, and what with intelligence and spying the way it is, the news rapidly spread throughout the quadrant.
  • logicalspocklogicalspock Member Posts: 836 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    hevach wrote: »
    You're the one creating a false definition of a thing and attacking anything that deviates from that definition - and invoking Arthur C. Clarke, who's based entire series of novels on conceits like "humans vastly mismeasured the speed of light and relativity is wrong," and, "the universe is a biological process so everything humans know about physics is wrong because they study the universe as a physical thing and not a living one," doesn't really help you - Clark revels in the scientific nonsense because he's into high concept philosophy more than hard sci fi.

    I am not creating any particular definition. Arthur C. Clark is widely recognized as a hard science fiction writer. The overall scientific accuracy of his popular novels is much more accurate than the overall scientific accuracy of the Star Trek series. Hard science fiction does not mean that you cannot speculate about a future where humans have made scientific and technological progress. It means that you have a good understanding of modern science and incorporate it into the plot of your novels/screenplays rather than just using the deux ex machina of magic by another name.

    The screenplay Clarke wrote, 2001, is an excellent example. It is imaginative and highly speculative, but on matters of established science it is extremely accurate. You seem to falsely conflate hard science fiction with not allowing for imaginative speculation when in fact hard science fiction can be just as speculative as soft science fiction. The difference is the amount of hand-waiving and deux ex machina.
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    .... rather than just using the deux ex machina of magic by another name. .....



    " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

    - A.C. Clarke

    .
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    You witches trap people inside boxes called I pods...only way to escape is with song IT'S MAGIC!!!! I TELL YOU MAGIC!!!!
    GwaoHAD.png
  • hevachhevach Member Posts: 2,776 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I am not creating any particular definition. Arthur C. Clark is widely recognized as a hard science fiction writer. The overall scientific accuracy of his popular novels is much more accurate than the overall scientific accuracy of the Star Trek series. Hard science fiction does not mean that you cannot speculate about a future where humans have made scientific and technological progress. It means that you have a good understanding of modern science and incorporate it into the plot of your novels/screenplays rather than just using the deux ex machina of magic by another name.

    The screenplay Clarke wrote, 2001, is an excellent example. It is imaginative and highly speculative, but on matters of established science it is extremely accurate. You seem to falsely conflate hard science fiction with not allowing for imaginative speculation when in fact hard science fiction can be just as speculative as soft science fiction. The difference is the amount of hand-waiving and deux ex machina.

    Except Arthur C Clarke openly engages in both hand-waving and deus ex machina. The 2001 series, with the exception of 3001 Final Odyssey (which is an inversion of the New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court trope, and otherwise disconnected from the series) is a strong example - combining themes of Intelligent Design with the conceit that any sufficiently complex system must be set in motion by intelligence, and will inevitably become intelligent itself - a scene reduced to the line, "Oh my God, it's full of stars," and some confusing imagery in the film comprises several pages of fantastic revelations by the Obelisk, from the artificial origins of humans to living stars and sentient planets, and the organic nature of space itself.

    Most of Odyssey's themes are mirrored in Rama, particularly after the second book declares all of mortal science incorrect and replaces it with the most literal deus ex machina I think I've ever read - robots created by a being they describe as the literal Judeo-Christian God, and despite the implication that they're only co-opting the specific religion for temporary convenience the divine nature is repeatedly reaffirmed.

    And even the St. Peter robot is arguably less than the amount of handwaving in Hammer of God, and that pales before the main conceit of Richter Ten, which was a techtonic simulator so perfect it could predict weather, wars, and at one point the economy as well, thousands of years into the future with absolute precision (only failing after the main character began trying means of preventing earthquakes without updating the model).

    He wrote an entire book on the conceit that the speed of light was a math error nobody ever bothered to double check. Cryptic's exaggerating the curvature of a sphere for visual impact. And THAT, according to you, is the scientific nonsense that doesn't belong in science fiction.
  • logicalspocklogicalspock Member Posts: 836 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    hevach wrote: »
    Except Arthur C Clarke openly engages in both hand-waving and deus ex machina. The 2001 series, with the exception of 3001 Final Odyssey (which is an inversion of the New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court trope, and otherwise disconnected from the series) is a strong example - combining themes of Intelligent Design with the conceit that any sufficiently complex system must be set in motion by intelligence, and will inevitably become intelligent itself - a scene reduced to the line, "Oh my God, it's full of stars," and some confusing imagery in the film comprises several pages of fantastic revelations by the Obelisk, from the artificial origins of humans to living stars and sentient planets, and the organic nature of space itself.

    Most of Odyssey's themes are mirrored in Rama, particularly after the second book declares all of mortal science incorrect and replaces it with the most literal deus ex machina I think I've ever read - robots created by a being they describe as the literal Judeo-Christian God, and despite the implication that they're only co-opting the specific religion for temporary convenience the divine nature is repeatedly reaffirmed.

    And even the St. Peter robot is arguably less than the amount of handwaving in Hammer of God, and that pales before the main conceit of Richter Ten, which was a techtonic simulator so perfect it could predict weather, wars, and at one point the economy as well, thousands of years into the future with absolute precision (only failing after the main character began trying means of preventing earthquakes without updating the model).

    He wrote an entire book on the conceit that the speed of light was a math error nobody ever bothered to double check. Cryptic's exaggerating the curvature of a sphere for visual impact. And THAT, according to you, is the scientific nonsense that doesn't belong in science fiction.

    Arthur C. Clarke's is widely considered to be a hard science fiction writer because he had a scientific background and authored books with a very strong emphasis on getting technical and scientific details correctly. That does not mean that he did not use his imagination or write books and screenplays that explored themes that were far, far beyond the scientific understanding of his time.

    My suggestion is to actually take some time to look at what most people consider hard science fiction and why they consider authors like Clarke to be writers of that vein.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
  • fredscarranfredscarran Member Posts: 15 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Arthur C. Clarke's is widely considered to be a hard science fiction writer because he had a scientific background and authored books with a very strong emphasis on getting technical and scientific details correctly. That does not mean that he did not use his imagination or write books and screenplays that explored themes that were far, far beyond the scientific understanding of his time.

    My suggestion is to actually take some time to look at what most people consider hard science fiction and why they consider authors like Clarke to be writers of that vein.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

    Technobabble sophistry doesn't define hard science fiction, it might separate the campy from the non-campy though.
  • fredscarranfredscarran Member Posts: 15 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    hevach wrote: »
    Except Arthur C Clarke openly engages in both hand-waving and deus ex machina. The 2001 series, with the exception of 3001 Final Odyssey (which is an inversion of the New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court trope, and otherwise disconnected from the series) is a strong example - combining themes of Intelligent Design with the conceit that any sufficiently complex system must be set in motion by intelligence, and will inevitably become intelligent itself - a scene reduced to the line, "Oh my God, it's full of stars," and some confusing imagery in the film comprises several pages of fantastic revelations by the Obelisk, from the artificial origins of humans to living stars and sentient planets, and the organic nature of space itself.

    Most of Odyssey's themes are mirrored in Rama, particularly after the second book declares all of mortal science incorrect and replaces it with the most literal deus ex machina I think I've ever read - robots created by a being they describe as the literal Judeo-Christian God, and despite the implication that they're only co-opting the specific religion for temporary convenience the divine nature is repeatedly reaffirmed.

    And even the St. Peter robot is arguably less than the amount of handwaving in Hammer of God, and that pales before the main conceit of Richter Ten, which was a techtonic simulator so perfect it could predict weather, wars, and at one point the economy as well, thousands of years into the future with absolute precision (only failing after the main character began trying means of preventing earthquakes without updating the model).

    He wrote an entire book on the conceit that the speed of light was a math error nobody ever bothered to double check. Cryptic's exaggerating the curvature of a sphere for visual impact. And THAT, according to you, is the scientific nonsense that doesn't belong in science fiction.

    lol, whoah the nerd rage just jumped up a notch. Hey dont' give away all their secrets and rabbit tricks, you'll kill all the fun.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,548 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    The thing with the Dyson Sphere is that it can be as Hard Science Fiction or Soft Science Fiction as Cryptic wants. The concerns we have for creating a Dyson Sphere is non-existent for civilizations that can manipulate gravity at will, create structural integrity fields, and force fields. Given that it is not the Federation that created Dyson Spheres, but a race that is even more advanced, then they can just use technology hand waving. It would be better if the Dyson Sphere is not explained as far as an in-depth explanation of what technology is used to create it. Iconian gateways are not explained so why should a Dyson Sphere be explained?
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    starkaos wrote: »
    ... Iconian gateways are not explained so why should a Dyson Sphere be explained?

    touche'

    :rolleyes::cool:
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • chainfallchainfall Member Posts: 243 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Well, the thing about the Dyson Sphere is that any race advanced enough to build one properly, won't need one in the first place. The entire concept is a Catch 22 and I seriously doubt the human race will ever come across one even if we explore the stars for billions of years. Rings are so much more practical and solve every single problem with the Dyson Sphere with all of the same advantages.
    STO would have been better as a Stargate MMO than it is as Star Trek. Go figure.

    [email protected]
    Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier Exterminatus
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I'm sure a stellated octahedron or dodecahedron is more probable....... :eek::P:rolleyes:
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • chainfallchainfall Member Posts: 243 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I'm not on your bridge, go away troll.
    STO would have been better as a Stargate MMO than it is as Star Trek. Go figure.

    [email protected]
    Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier Exterminatus
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    perhaps a quadra-dimensional mobius ??
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • gaudior1233gaudior1233 Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I just thought of something. I know this debate is over concept art, but... imagine what a great story these questions would make. I mean, at least for the Federation, and for the others.... a -whole lot- of story could revolve around attempting to decode the hows and why's the Dyson Sphere's were built. They could even incorperate some of the great ideas in this thread. For instance, there could be a mission series that had to do with a Dyson Shell's gravity, or light, or any of the other scientific concepts that would make it possible.
    Mysteries like this would make the story very fun and engaging, as opposed to, something like that all of the alpha quadrant people just show up and start shooting eachother. (Not that the stories aren't usually more engaging than that, I'm just saying that adding scientific technological mysteries would really add a lot of spice to such things in game.)
Sign In or Register to comment.