|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 4, 2015 6:52:03 GMT
Sci-Fi impossible is only something no one has ever done. yet
And I know spelling in the title is wrong, it just dont fit if its spelt right.
So, I cite Star Wreck as the possible influence for Tablets....
Captain Quirk and his crew were possibly the first to show it was possible to have a hand-held flat screen touch sensitive screen.
Before tablets, that was all "impossible"......
There must be thousands of other influences behind technological breakthroughs, that have made screen physics possible in the real world....
Who would have thought a car doing a loop-the-loop possible in the real world?...
A Truck flipping end over end, or even a BUS doing the same thing , as in the new Terminator number 5, the bus did a axle flip, despite Mythbusters already proving it impossible... well, for now anyway.
For now anyway...
Perhaps in the future someone will invent a material strong enough to do a grapple hook on a lamp-post 90° turn, or something else that has been "busted" "So far"
But just how far do we investigate?....
The Hover-board from back to the future was "Yeah, right, anti-gravity dont work do it?.." until recently....
Now they have suggested that science has managed to note something travelling faster than the speed of light.
Science Fiction, and some science fantasy, its starting to become "the future"
I know this looks like a Watercooler thread, but, I am using this introduction to ask for possible ideas that may have either been impossible when the film was made, of are still impossible, but, in the due passing of time, and advances in science, are they still impossible, and can they be looked at again.
And a discussion of what we may believe may NEVER be testable because there is no science available to test....
Like teleportation?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2015 10:43:35 GMT
and what technology to you propose to create a conscience for Mr Murdoch?
I propose for an example, a sci-fi series in which the hook is that acceleration above human tolerance is made possible by using the gravity from a hyper-dense mass to oppose the inertial force from the acceleration.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jul 5, 2015 2:20:19 GMT
Reactionless drive, aka warp drive. A space thruster that is able to provide acceleration force without having to expel fuel to get a action/reaction to drive a craft. 5 years ago it was thought to be impossible. Today NASA is working on prototypes. While it won't provide FTL travel like some people originally thought, it provides some many interesting possibilities. The technology is still in it's infancy, so better and more efficient designs are likely as time goes on.
Have they actually been able to confirm the FTL experiment? Last I heard, it was a calculation error that threw off the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 5, 2015 4:46:27 GMT
I do not think it was an error in calculation but in the test equipment, a loose connector is blamed for making the experiment run out of calibration.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 7, 2015 2:31:34 GMT
Isn't the idea behind warp drive that you don't actually "move" the craft as such, but warp space-time around it, contracting it in front of the craft and expanding it behind it? In that sense, can warp drive really be considered a method of "propulsion"? If you're not moving, but causing everything else to move, you're not really propelling yourself anywhere, are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 7, 2015 6:39:39 GMT
Isn't the idea behind warp drive that you don't actually "move" the craft as such, but warp space-time around it, contracting it in front of the craft and expanding it behind it? In that sense, can warp drive really be considered a method of "propulsion"? If you're not moving, but causing everything else to move, you're not really propelling yourself anywhere, are you? Ahhh... ewrm.... Relativity. The observers movement through space is relative to time, and the movement through time is relative to the movement through space and all that. If you aint here, you have moved. If you start here and aim there, if you dont move you will just be here "later". The idea of "warp" is to make the time it takes to get from here to there "faster", if you dont actually move, you just stay here a bit quicker than before. Or actually, you stay there. Because the earth is "moving". If you just warp and dont thrust, you will just stay where the earth is now, bit not where it is now (taking the point that it takes time to read this) therefore you will just warp and stay where you were. at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned, around the sun, who knows (unless you are good at maths) where you will end up?.. If that just happens to be on the leading side of the earth as it rotates, you will have just warped into solid rock... or even worse, NOT so solid rock, and maybe a few thousand degree hotter. In saying that, you have to propulsion to warp, therefore warp is propulsion, its "relative" Einstein's THIRD theory of relativity is that he married into the family, so its not his fault. His fourth had some funny bits about Frogs. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jul 8, 2015 2:41:17 GMT
There are a couple different theories about space warping.
1. You sort of create a express lane in space where the distance is shorter and you basically surf along on the folded space. In that case you are moving.
2. You fold space in such a way that when you unfold it, you are in a different place than where you were when you started. In that case you are moving, but you also are not.
That being said, I don't know if you can classify the new thruster design as an actual warp drive since they don't actually bend space as far as we know. Okay, blame me for starting it. It creates a force that can push a spacecraft, but does not expel fuel for action/reaction thrust. Only fuel that is used is what creates your electric power source.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 8, 2015 6:15:32 GMT
The way I understand it it's kind of like standing on a carpet in a pair of roller skates and someone pulling the carpet underneath you*. You stand still, but you still end up somewhere else on the carpet when the pulling is done. *For argument's sake, you're holding onto something, so the wheels on your skates can roll without pulling you along. That should take care of any friction discussions before they start  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 8, 2015 10:30:15 GMT
To be pedantic, the Original Trek series didn't have touch screens. The closest was the pad Yeoman Rand sometimes handed Kirk, and which he would sign with a stylus/pen that was attached to it*.
All controls on the ship and with the equipment used by the crew used buttons and dials - even though the NX-01 Enterprise was shown to use touch screen controls for some displays and apparently their version of the tricorder.
(*Trivia; At the end of the DS9/TOS crossover, Trials and Tribulations, Sisko goes to see Kirk on the bridge of the original Enterprise. He hands him one of these 'pads' as an excuse to talk to the legend. In the novel, but not the episode, it is revealed that Sisko took that pad with Kirks signature on it back to DS9 as a memento. This was never seen in other episodes, but then given that the incident was investigated by Temporal Investigations Sisko probably thought better of putting it on display.)
It was The Next Generation that showed touch screens in use, both for tricorders and the PADD. Although both of these had fixed controls and the touch screen aspect of the tricorders seems to have been ignored. All of the ships control systems were touch screens, the logic behind this design (and which actually makes perfect sense in the real world and not just Trek) is that it allowed the consoles to be configured for different functions in seconds if the need arises (Worf has moved the ship from the tactical station at least once, and Data has used the communication systems from Ops even though that is usually done from the tactical station). It also allowed the consoles to be reconfigured to suit individual tastes.
The PADD's used on TNG are/were the precursors to the modern tablet, not just in terms of function but also in size. There were two main types used on the show, one roughly the size of a 7 inch tablet and the other the size of a 10 inch tablet. As noted however they had fixed controls under the display, making the design closer to an early e-reader than a tablet, which meant that they had a smaller display screen than a modern tablet of that size.
***
I do sort of like the idea of looking at fictional technologies and seeing what might not, in fact, be fictional. But I can see a number of objections from MB's prospective;
A; Cutting edge technology would be expensive, far too expensive for the show.
B; They are not technologies they could create in the shop.
C; They would probably need to bring in experts for the builds, which is something MB are wary of doing to the degree that might be needed here.
D; There are other shows that deal with cutting edge technologies (even if no one watches them).
For example they couldn't make a 'warp drive' in the shop, or nano-fibre cables.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom1b on Jul 20, 2015 5:29:46 GMT
The Hover-board from back to the future was "Yeah, right, anti-gravity dont work do it?.." until recently.... Now they have suggested that science has managed to note something travelling faster than the speed of light. Science Fiction, and some science fantasy, its starting to become "the future" We still don't have hoverboards like in "Back to the Future." What we have are 2 versions of maglev and 1 personal fan-powered hovercraft. The 2 maglev hoverboards are useless outside of their park. You need somebody laying metal plates down everywhere you wish to travel. I guess technically 2 fan powered: one you sit on, the other stand. Maglev tech isn't antigravity. BttF hoverboards are antigravity devices and they already covered antigravity. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 21, 2015 8:01:52 GMT
The Hover-board from back to the future was "Yeah, right, anti-gravity dont work do it?.." until recently.... Now they have suggested that science has managed to note something travelling faster than the speed of light. Science Fiction, and some science fantasy, its starting to become "the future" We still don't have hoverboards like in "Back to the Future." What we have are 2 versions of maglev and 1 personal fan-powered hovercraft. The 2 maglev hoverboards are useless outside of their park. You need somebody laying metal plates down everywhere you wish to travel. I guess technically 2 fan powered: one you sit on, the other stand. Maglev tech isn't antigravity. BttF hoverboards are antigravity devices and they already covered antigravity. Yeah but..... In the true sense of discussion, what is the actual definition of anti--gravity in the way you see it? I see it as any device that can "float" in mid air with no contact with anything else, no other means of support, so a Hover-Craft fits the bill. Cancelling Gravity completely in a localised field is completely out of the question at this stage of human knowledge, so, can we work with the possible?.. Note I say "at this stage", so knows what the future may bring, and we are quite happy to be wrong at any time here, eh?... Thinking on, we had ideas in the past of a row of magnetic track to run mag-lev boards on. Now we have thin copper plate.... And who thought we could ever run over the whole country with Iron rails?.. IF, and its a BIG if, if they could incorporate the Copper type plate into roadways, you can start to think of MAGLEV vehicles running on the same road as normal traffic?... How?.. I dunno. If you ground up enough copper and somehow got it into Tarmac, or concrete roadways, or under the road surface...... And find a way to prevent it degrading. Is it actually True anti-Gravity? I say plausible, as its counter-acting the effect of gravity. It fulfils the spec for anti-gravity, so, if it walks and quacks like a duck?.. its not as if anyone ever said how anti-gravity should work or how its powered did they?... Or did they?.. and do they have any authority on it?... As in discount the trolls on some boards who make claim that it can only be "faery dust" powered or it isnt true to an obscure author who thought of it as a dream sequence... (peter pan and all that...) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 21, 2015 14:27:22 GMT
Hm. antigravity is commonly considered to be some form of device that allows you to violate the laws of gravity, rather than a device that allows you to overcome them. which is to say, a block and tackle is not an antigravity device, and neither is a pair of opposed magnets.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 22, 2015 6:45:51 GMT
A Block-and-tackle, no, anti-gravity is supposed to have no external support.
Opposed magnets, I aint sure... how do we know that they dont interfere with Gravity?...
We (Humans) are not entirely sure what Gravity is in the first place.... are we?...
They interfere with the pulling power of two otherwise gravitational forces that would have attraction if they were not magnetised.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 22, 2015 13:36:22 GMT
A Block-and-tackle, no, anti-gravity is supposed to have no external support. Opposed magnets, I aint sure... how do we know that they dont interfere with Gravity?... We (Humans) are not entirely sure what Gravity is in the first place.... are we?... They interfere with the pulling power of two otherwise gravitational forces that would have attraction if they were not magnetised. magnets apply the same force regardless of orientation in relation to gravity, ergo not anti gravity. as for external support, how is an air cushion any less external support than a rope? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 23, 2015 10:34:15 GMT
Moon and Earth?....
Think on, how do celestial bodies work when it comes to gravity.
Regardless of any other close body, they all exert force on each other.
Just unlike gravity, they dont "repel" upside down?...
The chalk line of a physical connection on that one isnt it?...
And yes, I see your reasoning, what I am looking for, and we are getting there, is a better definition of anti-gravity, and what exactly would be anti-gravity.
Its not that we dont have the right answer,.
I think we may have the wrong question...
And therefore science?.
Unfortunately, as no one knows at the time of writing exactly what Gravity is anyway, we may have a slight problem here.?
Its a force, how does it work?..
We understand what magnetism is a lot better, but we cant exactly explain why that works either.
Note, some of the awkward questions are harder?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 23, 2015 11:44:26 GMT
The pull of gravity is countered by the outward momentum of the object, which is at an angle to the pull of gravity. If you look at a top down view of, say, the moon orbiting the Earth you'll notice that the Moon is actually moving at (roughly) 90% to the Earth in a straight line. But its momentum isn't strong enough to overcome the Earths gravity, just match it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 23, 2015 14:11:52 GMT
The pull of gravity is countered by the outward momentum of the object, which is at an angle to the pull of gravity. If you look at a top down view of, say, the moon orbiting the Earth you'll notice that the Moon is actually moving at (roughly) 90% to the Earth in a straight line. But its momentum isn't strong enough to overcome the Earths gravity, just match it. It has thrown itself at the ground as hard as it could, and missed. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 24, 2015 6:24:59 GMT
If the two bodies had no sideways movement, or any spin at all, they would just "attract", and become one piece of planet.
They as they are are trying to fly apart, gravity alone keeps them locked in orbit around each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 24, 2015 14:06:43 GMT
If the two bodies had no sideways movement, or any spin at all, they would just "attract", and become one piece of planet. They as they are are trying to fly apart, gravity alone keeps them locked in orbit around each other. just as gravity stops our manmade satellites from flying off into the scenery. |
|
