FLM films - My Webpage

1996-06-08 00:00:00 - PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (Allyson <BWATKA@IX.NETCOM.COM>)


I have a favorite world contest on my Sliders page (details on the page) and I would like to have the results posted on June 30. Unfortunately, I have no votes to count!!!! There have been many hits on the page, but so far no one has voted. Anyways, to get to the point. . . please please please please please come vote!!! The address of my Sliders page is <a href="http://www.netcom.com/~bwatka/main.html"> http://www.netcom.com/~bwatka/main.html</a> (I have never posted a link on a news article before, so if I did that wrong, my apologies.) Thanks! -Allyson

1996-06-09 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (tristis victoria <silver@dazed.nol.net>)


On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Allyson wrote: > I have a favorite world contest on my Sliders page (details on the page) > and I would like to have the results posted on June 30. Unfortunately, > I have no votes to count!!!! There have been many hits on the page, but > so far no one has voted. Anyways, to get to the point. . . > please please please please please come vote!!! Well, I wasn't really aware we were supposed to.. but if I were going to vote, I'd wait for this season to be over.. and I am, and i will. Even then, it'd be a hard choice.. My favorites, in no particular order (well, in production order for season one and broadcast order for season two, but that's just how I organize it in my head), are: - Pilot - Fever - Last Days (despite the obvious scientific blunder.. hey, the original bomb might hav been stronger on that world.. which might have been the reason Einstein backed down on the bomb thing in that world.. it was a lot more powerful and destructive than on our world.. okay, I'm ranting, I'll shut up.) - The King Is Back - Luck of the Draw - Gillian of the Spirits - El Sid - In Dino Veritas - Post Traumatic Slide Syndrome - The Young and the Relentless That's what, ten episodes out of like ninteen so far? That's my point.. way too hard to decide.. -sil-

1996-06-11 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net>)


On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: > >- Last Days (despite the obvious scientific blunder.. hey, the original > >bomb might hav been stronger on that world.. which might have been the > >reason Einstein backed down on the bomb thing in that world.. it was a lot > >more powerful and destructive than on our world.. okay, I'm ranting, I'll > >shut up.) > > Well, actually, the scientific principles don't change between worlds. > The bomb couldn't have been stronger. Other worlds are based on other > *decisions*. Exactly my point. Maybe on that world, someone decided to build the bomb much stronger that on our world.. Einstein, overwhelmed by a initial destrucitveness even greater that we first saw on our world, folded and told everyone the bomb wasn't possible. -sil-

1996-06-12 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net>)


On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: > At 10:14 PM 6/11/96 -0500, you wrote: > >On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: > > > >> >- Last Days (despite the obvious scientific blunder.. hey, the original > >> >bomb might hav been stronger on that world.. which might have been the > >> >reason Einstein backed down on the bomb thing in that world.. it was a lot > >> >more powerful and destructive than on our world.. okay, I'm ranting, I'll > >> >shut up.) > >> > >> Well, actually, the scientific principles don't change between worlds. > >> The bomb couldn't have been stronger. Other worlds are based on other > >> *decisions*. > > > >Exactly my point. Maybe on that world, someone decided to build the bomb > >much stronger that on our world.. Einstein, overwhelmed by a initial > >destrucitveness even greater that we first saw on our world, folded and > >told everyone the bomb wasn't possi > > I'm still not sure what you're saying. If you're saying that for some > reasons, einstein's morality got to him and he *lied* about the bomb, then > it was just miscommunication. What I'm saying is that there was indeed > enough Uranium on that world to build the bomb. In the show, it's stated that Einstein DID lie about the bomb, saying it wasn't possible. This deviates from our world in that Einstein proved that the bomb IS possible. Now, the original atom bomb from our world would NOT have blown up a ten mile wide asteroid. But, maybe on the Last Days world, the bomb might have been strong enough. A possible theory might be that the reason Einstein lied about the bomb on the other world and not on ours is that the alternate original bomb was built much more powerfully. Alternate Einstein might have feared the alternate bomb more than our Einstein feared our original bomb because the alternate bomb had a much higher potential of destruction (coincidentally, enough to blow up an asteroid of that size). As far as being enough uranium on that world to build a bomb.. that's a given, for the bomb WAS built, and when Arturo gave Bennish the missing pieces that Einstein had hidden on that world, they used the first (and only) atomic bomb on the Last Days world to hit the asteroid. -silver-

1996-06-13 00:00:00 - LAST DAYS / fission bomb; was Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu)


< AL > <=> "Attribution Lost> On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: > - Last Days (despite the obvious scientific blunder.. hey, the original > bomb might hav been stronger on that world.. which might have been the > reason Einstein backed down on the bomb thing in that world.. it was a > lot more powerful and destructive than on our world.. okay, I'm ranting, > I'll shut up.) > AL> Well, actually, the scientific principles don't change between worlds. AL> The bomb couldn't have been stronger. Other worlds are based on other AL> *decisions*. At 10:14 PM 6/11/96 -0500, AL> Exactly my point. Maybe on that world, someone decided to build the AL> bomb much stronger that on our world.. Einstein, overwhelmed by a AL> initial destrucitveness even greater that we first saw on our world, AL> folded and told everyone the bomb wasn't possi On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: > I'm still not sure what you're saying. If you're saying that for some > reasons, einstein's morality got to him and he *lied* about the bomb, > then it was just miscommunication. What I'm saying is that there was > indeed enough Uranium on that world to build the bomb. In <Pine.SOL.3.93.960612014700.8433A-100000@dazed.nol.net> Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net> writes: > > In the show, it's stated that Einstein DID lie about the bomb, saying it > wasn't possible. This deviates from our world in that Einstein proved > that the bomb IS possible. Now, the original atom bomb from our world This is used bovine fodder. Einstein proved no such thing. Einstein was a *THEORETICAL* physicist who loved gadgets, and loved reading about them. (His dexterity and cleverness in devising mechanical doodads is legendary.) But he was NOT an EXPERIMENTAL physicist, one who DOES EXPERIMENTS AND WORKS WITH HARDWARE. Einstein "proved" that matter and energy were interchangeable, and explained the fantastically high output power of certain nuclear reactions, particularly in fissionable isotopes such as radium and U-235. BUT EINSTEIN'S ONLY PART IN THE U.S. NUKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT HISTORY, AT LEAST ON THIS TIME LINE, was sending a letter to the president, calling attention to the German heavy-water experiments and pointing out that the U.S. could not chance having the Nazi government in sole possession of nuclear weapons. (Vide the Telemark Mission later in the war, when it was necessary to destroy the plants producing heavy water for German experiments.) Subsequent to the letter, Einstein had no direct part in the U.S. nuke weapons development effort, and since, subsequent to the famous Dec. 2 controlled fission reaction, they bloody well *knew* they could make it go bang, it was SIMPLY A MATTER OF ENGINEERING. Consequently, no "proof" that it wouldn't go off would have been heeded. Actually, although a small percentage of physicists believed the nuclear bomb would go off more like a wet firecracker than a bomb, the concerns all ran the other way; a lot of "proofs" existed that the weapon might create a fission reaction in the ground surface, and detonate the whole planet. (One minor source claims this is why the first bomb was exploded on a *tower* instead of at ground level, but this assertion is largely discounted.) > would NOT have blown up a ten mile wide asteroid. But, maybe on the Last > Days world, the bomb might have been strong enough. A possible theory > might be that the reason Einstein lied about the bomb on the other world > and not on ours is that the alternate original bomb was built much more > powerfully. Alternate Einstein might have feared the alternate bomb more > than our Einstein feared our original bomb because the alternate bomb had > a much higher potential of destruction (coincidentally, enough to blow up > an asteroid of that size). > > As far as being enough uranium on that world to build a bomb.. that's a > given, for the bomb WAS built, and when Arturo gave Bennish the missing > pieces that Einstein had hidden on that world, they used the first (and > only) atomic bomb on the Last Days world to hit the asteroid. > Sorry, lads. The "LAST DAYS" script is a classic example of precisely why it is that Torme, et al, should not be attempting to do historically and scientifically based fiction. (1) *PRESUMING* that you could get a half-century-old U-235-based fission warhead to detonate, and that it was the appropriate size for an initial weapons development program, like the Hiroshima or Nagasaki warheads, what on (or off!) earth makes you think it would have any earthly effect on an asteroid that size? Even if it was a "snowball" asteroid, nothing but water-ice, methane, frozen gases, and a few pebbles, the IMPACT ENERGY ALONE would be enough to ruin the earth's atmosphere and toss the planet into an ice age, and it doesn't matter if you blow it apart into fragments or it stays in one piece; the energy yield when it hits is about the same. (2) At the distances and speeds given, interception occurred FAR too late to have any beneficial effect, even if the asteroid was blown into vapor and dust.... the impact energy of that much DUST/PEBBLES/GAS is enough to ruin the planet. Interception somewhere around the orbit of Mars might have provided enough time for a sufficient course deflection, with a warhead under the 100KT size. (3) The utter ridiculousness of storing a fireable warhead in a museum; the explosives used to create the squeeze/tamper are *NOT* going to be left in a museum piece, to age and become unstable; ditto for highly poisonous radioactive material. They would have to be special-ordered, and there wasn't enough time. Note that half-life degradation of fissionable isotopes is rapid enough that warhead material sitting on the shelf decreases over time, and after a half century would more than likely need to be re-processed and re-refined just to get it to go off at all. (4) The launch vehicle specified was created expressly for inter- continental transport of nuclear weapons. In a time line without nuclear weapons, this rocket would not exist, since it is, shall we say, *highly* uneconomical to use a delivery system that expensive to transport a conventional bomb small enough to fit on top of it. (5) Launch speeds and travel speeds.... you're talking THREE DAYS to get as far out as the moon, not a minute or two. (6) Systems reliability of fifty-year-old bomb design, being operated in a vacuum.... riiiight.... the volatiles in the explosives would be outgassing en route, you'd have radiation effects as you pass through the Van Allen Belts, etc etc, und so weiter.... (7) Navigation. You're going to tell me they can retro-fit an early-fifties rocket design with a guidance system that can get it to a FAST-moving ten-mile-wide spot in the sky, as far away as the lunar orbit? In a couple of days???? You're going to tell me that the rocket is anything but an inert ballistic shell after it reaches brennschluss? (those engines were NOT refireable, and certainly couldn't do mid-flight course corrections...) .....The technology simply isn't there, unless they have one HECK of a space program, in which case, their inability to cope with the asteroid by mounting engines on it before it crosses Mars orbit on the way in, becomes highly suspect. And, and ... and.... Never mind; if you don't take offense at the initial sight of stuff like this in a TV script, chances are, you're the audience they're shooting for. (Dumb, uncritical, infinitely tolerant, passive, and easily impressed by a few frames of cheap CGI.) But the writers apparently saw "METEOR!" and were so impressed they pitched the script.... and the producers were so clue-deprived that they bought the idea and made the show. It's *fantasy*, kids, *not* SF.

1996-06-15 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (geo@victoria.pe.net)


Silverwind (silver@dazed.nol.net) wrote: : On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Bubba wrote: : > >- Last Days (despite the obvious scientific blunder.. hey, the original : > >bomb might hav been stronger on that world.. which might have been the : > >reason Einstein backed down on the bomb thing in that world.. it was a lot : > >more powerful and destructive than on our world.. okay, I'm ranting, I'll : > >shut up.) : > : > Well, actually, the scientific principles don't change between worlds. : > The bomb couldn't have been stronger. Other worlds are based on other : > *decisions*. Not neccessarily. Tell me what decision caused women to grow beards. I'd like to see a world where there was no gravity, or evrybody had blue skin, or people had tails, or something similiar. Gravityless world would be the neatest, although very expensive and complicated. I imagine a void (with air) the size of the universe, and people and small chunks of rock and dirt floated about. Maybe there would be gravity in theroy, just not planets or the like to cause significant amounts of it. They slide into a "city" of houses and the like floating in midair, with no up or down. People would "swim" by, going to work and the like. Maybe we could have the Pacific Ocean being a huge sphere of water floating near the city. Ain't gonna happen, though. Way too expensive. (Why do you think that on Star Trek, the lights go off all the time, but the artifical gravity has only failed on screen a grand total of once, and that was in a movie (Star Trek 6) with a much bigger budget?) Geo

1996-06-16 00:00:00 - Re: LAST DAYS / fission bomb; was Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (bycer45@futures.wharton.upenn.edu)


Gharlane of Eddore (gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu) wrote: (Summary of snipped parts. Einstein didn't experiment.) : Sorry, lads. The "LAST DAYS" script is a classic example of precisely : why it is that Torme, et al, should not be attempting to do historically : and scientifically based fiction. (Summary of point 1 from Gharlane: The ensuing destruction of the asteriod would have destroyed the earth (hundreds of little asteroids bombarding the atmosphere, etc.)) (Summary of point 2 from Gharlane: The destruction occurred far too late to do any good.) (Summary of point 3 from Gharlane: Storing an atom bomb in a museum. I think not. Plus, would have degreaded beyond the point of feasability.) (Summary of point 4 from Gharlane: Launch vehicle was created for inter-continental travel. Wouldn't have existed on that world due to its expense.) Counter-point: Governement often wastes money on projects that are unfeasable. However, it was never expressly stated that the government was directly involved as it was in out timeline. : (5) Launch speeds and travel speeds.... you're talking THREE DAYS : to get as far out as the moon, not a minute or two. Here's the big problem I have. Unless I am mistaken (which is entirely possible considering that I haven't seen the episode since it's original airing) it takes only a very small time to reach the asteriod and detonate. Then, after the calculated time of detonation, there is a very palpable and countable pause. Then Arturo says, "Don't forget to take into account that light travels at 183,000 miles per second." Another very short pause. Then BOOM! This takes about four seconds, if not longer. Assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum is approximately the same is in atmosphere (not really, but with the egregious rounding I'm about to make, it's close enough), and assuming four seconds at 3 * 10^8 meters per second, that gets us a distance of...1.2 BILLION meters. 1700 meters per mile gets us...about 705,882 miles. Now, current missiles are fast enough to give say, the local news station enough time to say, "You will be dead in (x amount of time, a couple of hours, I think)." And these are missiles travelling from, say, the former Soviet Union, a distance of about 11,827 miles (Pi * 6400km radius, give or take). Now, to travel about sixty times that distance would require a lot of time. Sorry, no. Oh, well. I guess that it was OK to watch if you haven't had any physics classes dealing with radiation decay, Special relativity, etc., etc. Oh, wait. I didn't see the warp nacelles on the rocket. My bad. (Point of Gharlane's 6th point: What about outgassing, radiation effects,...) : (7) Navigation. You're going to tell me they can retro-fit an : early-fifties rocket design with a guidance system that can get it : to a FAST-moving ten-mile-wide spot in the sky, as far away as the : lunar orbit? In a couple of days???? You're going to tell me : that the rocket is anything but an inert ballistic shell after it : reaches brennschluss? (those engines were NOT refireable, and : certainly couldn't do mid-flight course corrections...) Of course they can! It's kinda like our caveman ancestors taking their big invention (the wheel), and building a '57 Chevy. : .....The technology simply isn't there, unless they have one HECK : of a space program, in which case, their inability to cope with the : asteroid by mounting engines on it before it crosses Mars orbit : on the way in, becomes highly suspect. And, and ... and.... Yes, good, right... Oh, maybe the missile went into hyperspace! Oh, wait, there's that space program thingie again. Oh, well. : Never mind; if you don't take offense at the initial sight of stuff : like this in a TV script, chances are, you're the audience they're : shooting for. (Dumb, uncritical, infinitely tolerant, passive, and : easily impressed by a few frames of cheap CGI.) Oh, ouch. That was uncalled for. That wasn't necessary. I mean, that's downright cold. I mean, it doesn't apply to me (I think, I hope), but still...ouch. : But the writers apparently saw "METEOR!" and were so impressed they : pitched the script.... and the producers were so clue-deprived that : they bought the idea and made the show. Not necessarily clue deprived, but maybe just a little short-sighted. Have a scene where they have Arturo talk about how the government had been working on the development of the A-bomb, and how they had refined the Uranium. Give the people a few more weeks. Without such a bomb, would it really have mattered if there were days, weeks, or months? Show a little more of the technology (or whatever they had), so that they could whip of a semi-accurate way to correct slight navigation errors (theoretically, a computer program should be able to it in conjunction with a semi-decent visually scanning device: if asteroid is ahead, then no change, else case of course (off right, off down, off left, off up), etc.) Sorry, pseudo-code is not exactly my strength. : It's *fantasy*, kids, *not* SF. True, but remember that this is TV, not a novel, or even a movie (which allows for more time and/or description of events).

1996-06-16 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (Dutta <y312@unb.ca>)


On 15 Jun 1996, Geoffrey Scott wrote: > Not neccessarily. Tell me what decision caused women to grow beards. Evolutionary quirk, scientific principles didn't change, only the results.

1996-06-20 00:00:00 - Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!!! - (chesler@shore.net)


In article <4pto27$49p@victoria.pe.net>, Geoffrey Scott <geo@victoria.pe.net> wrote: >: > Well, actually, the scientific principles don't change between worlds. > >Not neccessarily. Tell me what decision caused women to grow beards. The same decision that causes Spanish women to grow mustaches. At some time this characteristic was considered beautiful, and evolution being what it is (namely that attractive women can attract their choice of men, and choose the men most likely to allow them to pass many copies of their genes into the future) the characteristic enters the gene pool in significant numbers. Or (minor branch, much further back) the founder's principle: Those hominids that developed a larger brain and an opposable thumb happened to have the characteristic that women have facial hair. After that, there was little evolutionary pressure one way or the other with respect to facial hair on women. -- David Chesler (chesler@shore.net - CURRENT chesler@world.std.com - SOMETIMES david.chesler@itcambridge.com - WORK david@absol.com - ALWAYS) 1985 Olds Delta 88 Royale for sale, down to $800, write for details. (A/C works! 2dr, at/ps/pb, cass, new w/s, brks, batt, exh; 249k miles)